I for one could not imagine being sexually attracted to another man. And as a reasoning, thinking, man, I must consider that these men and women DON'T have a choice about to whom they are attracted. (I guess I did go a little into that debate) If gay partners could register a partnership with the civil authorities the same way that you and I register our marriages, then both sides would benefit. The risk and financial cost of divorce would keep people from entering a union on a whim, or just to beat the system, and at the same time, people who are in love and committed to one another could get the civil recognition and all of the legal protections that come with marriage.
I know that I am probably in a minority on this issue, and I invite all reasoned response. I am not looking to start a flame war, but rather prompt some people, hopefully, to look inside and see what their real objection is to this idea. Keep the religions sacred, let them decide for themselves if they will choose to honor or recognize a gay marriage, but let all Americans have the same benefits, rights, AND responsibilities.
In some regard, I can see see the argument for gay marriage. But on the other hand, marriage is a legal bound created by society, which benefits society. Gay marriage does not benefit or promote society (at least I don't think so). Let each state decide--let the backers of gay marriage MAKE their argument, let the voters vote....not judges, not committees, not legislatures. Let the people decide. I may well be convinced that gay marriage is hunky dory--but I want to decide.
Back in 1924, Congress passed a bill that mandated the states to issue birth, death and marriage certificates. President Coolidge signed it into law.
The prime mover for this bill was the Federal Reserve. (Please don't ask me why because I have no idea.)
It was in a packet of bills connected to the Simpson Act, which closed the wide-open gates of immigration and established immigration quotas with biases for white, Northern European immigrants. (I don't understand the connection either.)
If you want to get government out of marriage, you need to get that law off the books first.
Marriage has been between only men and women only since the dawn of cilivilization, and for good reason.
Some men are attracted to underage boys. We don't let them marry.
Some men are attraced to underage girls. We don't let them marry.
Some people are attracted to more than one person. We only allow them to marry one person.
Attraction is not a license to marry.
They lack nothing that can't be remedied by signing a contract and power of attorney between themselves.
Marriage is an institution designed for the preservation of our society into the next generation by legally codifying the protections of a family, including the children that issue forth from a marriage relationship.
Marriage is less of a right than a codified set of responsibilies that helps preserve the family as a secure institution in society.
Those who dont want to enter in the committed man+women relationship that we call marriage lose no rights nor privileges, no more than a non-trout fisher 'loses' the 'right to fish' because he can't get a fish license in a desert.
Marriage has been watered down enough without further destruction by folks who want to pervert it into a 'right' unrelated to the core tasks of carrying civilization forward. Gay marriage in USA will destroy traditional marriage and family just as it harmed marriage and family in Scandanavia. Such a radical derogation of marriage, simply to make a subset of Americans feel more comfortable with their own lifestyles, is not worth it. Not even to the community that is demanding it.