Replies

I understand the question - it's a fair one, and I'll try my best to respond.

I do believe in live and let live. I sometimes get into tussles here with folks who might be more "socially conservative" than I am, but that's where I come out. It's not my job to keep anyone else from going to hell, if that's what people think other folks are headed for. I guarantee you, my views on abortion (posted somewhere here) manage to alienate about 98% of readers, here and elsewhere. I am deeply troubled by assisted suicide but receptive to the argument that the federal government does not have the power to regulate it through the FDA/doctor licensing laws.

I think the first issue is that it is improper for the court to impose gay marriage on its own. I see the issue as not "gay and straight" but "man and woman." Man and women are equal. they are not identical. They're a matched set! I don't see the basis for a judge to impose gay marriage without sweeping away all other distinctions between men and women.

That's the legal argument. Let the legislatures decide.

As far as that goes, legally the people (through the legislatures) can enact whatever they want. I think that marriage was given legal recognition, protection and benefits because society has decided, all things being equal, that a child is better off with its two biological parents. Discriminatory? Well, single people can't be discriminated against in housing or employment, but marriage by its very nature discriminates against single people - look at the tax benefits of marriage. Yes, many people who marry have no children. But infertility used to be grounds for divorce. Certainly with out-of-wedlock births the link between marriage and childbirth has been weakened. Has that been a good thing? People are concerned about the effect society's stamp of approval has on behavior. And again there are financial benefits conferred by society and the taxpayer. Somehow, when my friends on the left say about gay marriage "if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry one" and I respond "if you don't like the Iraq war, don't fight it," the same logic doesn't carry over for them. People have a desire to have the actions and laws of the government mold a better society. Many behaviors, including alcoholism, may have a genetic component. If they are deemed harmful, most believe they should not be sanctioned by the government.

Also, what about bisexuals? What if science posits that some people are genetically more predisposed to having multiple partners? How does it affect you if your neighbor has six wives? How can we discriminate against them?

Just some thoughts. No offense is intended to anyone - this is as good a place as any to say that I am sometimes uncomfortable with some of the posts I see here. But there is a point to be made. Man, I sound pompous! oh well.