As science and technology continue to move ahead at warp speed, we will face decisions about what was previously fodder only for science fiction writers. We can unite sperm and egg in a test tube and surely the technology exists for an artificial womb that can carry that embryo to term. What follows? Get yourself an egg, some sperm and the proper laboratory conditions and, bam, 9 months later sold to the highest bidder? Create and gestate life for the sole purpose of mining it for parts followed by termination? Who decides? Surely these are things nobody wants left to the courts. Let’s be very careful about the kind of precedents we set.

And FWIW, voters, even one issue voters, were not buying a pig in a poke when they voted for President Bush. It’s not often a politician is as clear about what he believes and what he intends to do. That being said, I don’t think a marriage amendment is high on his list of priorities.

I do think that gay marriage is not the real issue, that it’s a stalking horse for a number of legitimate issues (inheritability of property, visitation rights in the hospital, etc) that marriage is seen as a solution for.

To those who suggest that government get out of the marriage business altogether, forget it. The government has a legitimate interest in marriage and families (e.g., child support payments). No way they can avoid the entanglement.

And in a democracy, that’s how it should be. On both issues the absolutely no/absolutely yes support is about 20% each way. That leaves 60% in the middle trying to work out something we all can live with.

As a religious gay man, I would tend to disagree with your opinion.

There is already gay marriage in some U.S. states.

There is also gay marriage in some religions, which kind of contradicts your first statement.

I bet that not even one percent of gay men actually want to get married.

If you were to make such a bet, you would lose.

And you haven’t even guessed how many lesbians might want to marry!

I think the best argument I’ve heard for allowing gay marriage is the right of the partner to make decisions when it comes to health concerns of their partner. We have this problem going on right now with Schiavo. Who is the one to make these decisions. When you marry, you put your partner ahead of your family (parents, siblings).

I think this issue does need attention, but maybe we need to maybe verbalize it in a better way. Put the anger aside and talk about what marriage really involves. The only thing I opposed was the methods applied during this election season to allow judges to make the final decision. You need to appeal to the people of the country and I do think this can be done.

How many times have you heard that in your life? Most leftists do-gooders believe that. They want to save those of us who believe in God from the error of our ways. The gay marriage push is just another way to attack religion. There is already gay marriage in some U.S. states. But according to left wing do-gooders, we all have to be exactly the same. I bet that not even one percent of gay men actually want to get married.

Gay marriage is meant to do for marriage what the teacher’s unions have done for education.

I respectfully disagree. I think the “religious right”ÔøΩ that is, the *fanatical* religious rightÔøΩis a much smaller portion of the populaton than most people figure. I don’t have a problem with the “gay lifestyle” (nor does anyone I know, for that matter), and I would actively work to defeat a constitutional amendment that would ban civil unions for gays. Most everyone I know would do the same. Again, I think it’s just the quibble over the word “marriage” (which, frankly, I find ludicrous, because as you say yam and sweet potato are the same).

Most of the “religious” people I know are much more of the “I don’t agree with it, and I’ll try to ‘lead them to God’, but I won’t make my faith a matter of civic policy” types. My guess is that fundamentalist evangelicals are much more of a minority than is generally perceived…especially by the media.

The argument I keep hearing is that gay marriage *would* have succeeded…given about 5-10 more years of gentle prodding. It’s the “judicial activism” stuff that has people up in arms.

For what it’s worth, my kids (18 and 20) can’t understand what all the fuss is about. When their generation is making the laws, gay marriage will be a part of the nation’s fabric.

Speaking as a gay person, I am fine with civil unions as opposed to “marriage” — after all, if it tastes just as weet, what matter is thereif I call it a yam instead of a sweet potato.

However, the folks on the religious right who are pushing these state amendments do not think the way you or I do…most of the state amendments were written to prohibit not just gay marriage, but also civil unions or even the most limited domestic partner benefits. This would seem to indicate that the people pushing these amendments are opposed to gay couples, period, and not just “marriage.”

The results of the election seem to indicate that most voters do not see the distinctions you do either, and that voters will pass overbroad “kitchen sink” amendments.

Remember, Karl Rove is out of a job, Bush’s political campaign days are over. Karl needs to find something else to do, but pushing hard for the FMA is not one of them.

I am a redneck for Bush from a red state (Georgia), and I don’t go to church. It seems to me that abandoning procreation is a self correcting problem. The more gays we have in civil unions, and the more that left leaning women have abortions, there’ll soon come a day when we don’t have either to concern ourselves about. So let’s not condemn the gay lifestyle or worry about abortion, live and let live!

Well, okay. Was it somehow less divisive when a court in Massachusetts decides that the state’s (or is that commonwealth’s?) laws defining marriage as consisting of one man and one woman are unconstitutional? Or when the mayor of San Francisco decides that he can ignore California’s laws and issue marriage licenses? Would it be less divisive if, say, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that Oregon had to honor a marriage of two men performed in Massachusetts?

I’m probably sounding somewhat shrill here. I don’t mean to. I would, however, like to suggest, with all respect, that you ask yourself whether your characterization of this as divisive has more to do with the fact that it conflicts with your position on the issue and less to do with the issue itself.