You're getting into some hardcore political rights discussion there with the marriage stuff.
yeah, that's true, it's a can of worms, and today's entry is a bit light on the balanced and reasoned argument side.
Well, at least you're not being hypocritical like Fox News.
There's a whole lot of sides on the same-sex marriage debate other than those squicked by the idea of homosexuality. (Note: it's tough to get to same-sex marriage if the majority is still against same-sex relationships and sexuality beyond the missionary position.) Those same-sex couples who want to get married often are looking to be included in the legal benefits & effects of marriage (i.e. implicit will), while those on the against side (particularly religious groups) often are against the redefinition of marriage rather than any legal impact. (Or so they say. They might be against the benefits as well, against homosexuality in general, or simply squicked.) Here in Ontario we've had legal same-sex marriage for a while (along with lots of inclusive legislation and corporate policy changes), and so far there hasn't been a oh-my-god-what-have-we-done backlash by the majority. (Well, other than some religions taking issue with their clergy agreeing to perform or be involved with same-sex marriages.) In fact, even the vocal minorities have mostly given up and accepted any-sex marriage as the status quo.
I still think the squickness is at the root of the objections, even (or especially) when the arguments are couched in "the bedrock of our society" style arguments. And yeah, you still have lots of weird-ass laws on the books. (actually I'd say "weird ass-laws"... but many of the laws cover all sorts of acts)
Let any two consenting people marry or get the hell out of the granting marriage business and only doing civil unions for everybody.
The longer they keep marrying gays in MA, the more people will see society keep on keeping on. I mean (not to tempt Murphy and the retribution of his Eternal Law) if gays marrying was such an abomination, shouldn't MA be getting the worse side of disasters, ala Florida and whatever other states those Fundies pointed to?
Another great quote, from an anti-gay-marriage protestor Amin Mansour:
"Any minority should submit themselves to the majority"
And democracy is two wolves and a lamb arguing about what's for dinner. Fuck him.
(That was from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/06/samesex_marriag_1.html )
In a be careful what you wish for way, I almost wish they wouldn't plan to grandfather in the gay marriages that are fait accompli... any voter who votes against needs to see the damage they're causing future relationships, not just avoiding being mean assholes about people who are currently together.
I seriously love the people who say 'Let the same-sex marriage people marry or let no one marry, but I prefer that no one marry.' They also make a good argument about marriage being discriminatory, but I don't know what I think of their arguments about tradition being the only thing that makes law unless people come up with without a single doubt arguments. . ..
Don't we live in a limited democracy, anyway? Besides, our system started getting screwed when they limited the number of seats in the House of Representatives rather than continuing to base it on the population, like it should be.
Actually, maybe if gays marry for long enough, we'll start to see how ridiculous the whole legal structure behind marriage is. Especially when they start divorcing.
On Last Comic Standing of all places, I learned that in order to divorce in Canada, you have to live there for a year. So some percentage of the gays who drove there to get married will return, in the form of bitter divorcees on I-hate-my-husband visas.
I think the way we've relaxed divorce laws in general shows that people favor convenience (for themselves) over moral compunction. And so it's a bit hypocritical, or at least selective, for people to focus on banning gay marriage first and foremost.