Some of them in an uncensored moment agree that this is all about the Benjamins.

Jim Rockford is correct about the power politics. Just look at the implications of the NY ordinance that requires gay partners to get medical, etc. benefits BUT straight unmarried partners don’t. Why is that? Cause there are so many straights that it would break the bank. I find it humerous that NOONE ever brings up the alternative of getting government totally out of marriage and relationships of all kinds. Now why do you think that is?

You can’t address this stuff in a non-gender specific relationship manner. This opens the door to all sorts of things like polygamy that would devolve society back to the days of the Dark Ages.

After all, do we really want a society where might makes right in all things domestic? That’s where this is heading.

Let me explain bottom-line why Gay Marriage is a non-starter for Straight Men.

Absent wealth/power/status, straight men only benefit when marriage and monogamy generally is defined as one man and one woman. It’s the only way we win and the traditional nuclear family can be considered the “secret sauce” of the West’s advantage.

Under Gay Marriage, you will find a few takers for gay marriage, but many for polygamy. This has been the experience in Ontario.

Result? The average straight man loses and women, gays win. Women win because they can now formalize polygamous arrangements with powerful, high-status men. Gays win of course. And Straight Men lose.

This is why Gay Marriage is a political loser because non-high status guys understand they’ll lose. It’s why they oppose it. Because their fundamental interests (exclusive sexual/reproductive access to a woman) are threatened. There are far more Straight Men than gays, and many women have sons who will of course lose under Gay Marriage (because it also legalizes polygamy).

Let’s be honest about what Gay Marriage is all about: raw power politics creating winners and losers in the marriage market by redefining what marriage constitutes. It’s why it’s not going anywhere. [I'll agree that the religious arguments are meaningless, like most things this is about who wins and loses. Given that the huge numbers of losers know they'll lose this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Domestic partnerships don't threaten straight men by legalizing polygamy so that will find ample support.]

Yes, the framers of the Bill of Rights and our federalist system of government could not envision much of our modern American society. All modern political, economic, cultural, religious facts of life would be near science fiction and fantasy to the founding fathers. Your argument could be applied to almost every aspect of our current framework of local and state governance.

So do you advocate ignoring the 10th Amendment only as respects same-sex marriage or should we include all the messy issues of marriage, divorce, adoption, taxation, etc that are made inconvenient and complicated by the enactment of 50 different sets of legislatures? Granted, we have a lot to keep track of as a mobile society but where do we make exceptions to the “powers not enumerated”? Should the right to privacy trump the 10th Amendment in all cases and not just the case of abortion and, now, perhaps, same-sex marriage?

It’s funny that in Cleveland some journalists despise him but a seemingly equal number worship him, either through laziness (he’s a human quote machine; not necessarily intelligent quotes) and/or he appeals to their inner idiot.

Captin Hate, regarding Kucinich, I didn’t know that. Maybe I should have made that a requirement for my exs. (just kidding) Actually, I’m not surprised. Dennis is all about publicity.

When it comes to issues of the unborn, the born, sexuality, family and marriage, does anybody even remember the 10th Amendment anymore? Aren’t we still a federation?

First, the attack on Arthur Godfrey. But where does it stop?

Is Durward Kirby next?

Garry Moore?

Please, stop the madness.