[grania]

I'm not comfortable with gay marriage, although I do know of people who are in same-sex relationships and they are happy with their lives, and I won't begrudge anyone happiness in a world in which so many people have none. I find it ironic that gays want to get married legally when many people who have personal assets built up would rather avoid the legal implications of marriage.

A few issues (for which I have sympathy for gays):

Alice-in-Wonderland logic. Since gays are allowed to adopt children, for all practical reasons, they are as much their children as if a heterosexual couple adopted. If they can adopt, the children deserve the protection of marriage...being the responsibility equally of both people, in case something happens to one of them, visitation rights if the couple breaks up, legal rights.

I know people who aren't gay who, as they get older, could see protection of their well-being in a legal union with a close friend. It would take precedence over relatives taking over their affairs if something happened to them.

Benefits from jobs that go to families depend on marriage, don't they?

I'm still not entirely comfortable with this concept; but, where children are involved, I want what's best for them. And PS: a lot of these adoptions are children nobody else would take, and if I have to choose between Massachusetts raising those children, and someone else doing it, I'll go with having people who care raising the child (or in some cases families of children so they won't be separated). The state saves money (how's that for a concept in MA) and the influence can't be worse than that provided than the nutcases who run social services.

The arguments about what a marriage should mean? I think the arguments there should be directed to churches that have these weddings. And, honestly, if it's not a church I belong to, it's not my business.

[elbucko]

Benefits from jobs that go to families depend on marriage, don't they?

Yes. That is one of the reasons Gays want the recognition of marriage, as well as your aforementioned adoption. As far as adoption goes, it should be a case by case basis for gay, as it is for straight and the benefit of the child paramount in the consideration.

Look, I don't care if elephants marry giraffes, the point raised by the article was speculation about court defined rules of gay marriage (which some wise soul concludes should be done by legislature, except there is no legislature that has the political courage to draft a fair law).

Posting on this thread has given me arduous insight into why it took ten years for the US Constitution to be ratified.