10% of states now allow gay marriage
 

We are now going to have some meaningful data in the upcoming years to see its impact on society.

Although I suspect critics of gay marriage are prepared to say that there will be no negative short-term outcomes, but that the harm will be measured after decades. That may or may not be true, but either way, it's a weak argument.

At some point, proponents of gay marriage are going to take the Federal Defense of Marriage Act to the SCOTUS.

I believe the best course of actions would be for government to stay out of the marriage business. Let the religious organizations handle marriage and the government do the civil unions. There really is no difference, is there?

Would the gay community be ok with something like that?

I often wonder if those who are against gay marriage object more to it being called "marriage". It's a silly objection, but I'm guessing that if there were a random poll taken in which the question was simply "What is marriage?", a rather substantial majority would define it as man and woman.

If you afford all the rights to a homosexual couple that are afforded to a heterosexual couple but call it a different name, even if it is not substantially different, it is still different. It's the "separate but equal" doctrine that we've had off of the books for half a century now. It says that by the very nature of the thing, a homosexual relationship is just not the same as a heterosexual relationship. And the "pro-marriage" camp is not doing a very good job of justifying that distinction.

A fair point.

I'm sick and tired of seeing religious people argue against gay marriage based on all this sophistry about harm to society. THere's only one "principled" argument against gay marriage--it's a sin and God will punish our society like he did S&G. Religious people need to suck up and make that argument or get behind gay marriage. Cowards.

Isn't that a bit of a straw man? I'm not sure anyone is advocating affording all the rights under a different name. This is a complex issue, and what people are in favor of or against depends greatly on the scope of the "right" in question.

For example, I don't oppose domestic partnerships for the purposes of hospital visitation or power of attorney, but I might for the purposes of adoption. I also would broaden the definition of a domestic partnership beyond homosexual partners to others who might require additional legal rights in a relationship. For example, a niece taking care of an ailing aunt.

I also view the term "separate but equal" as a red herring in this discussion. The "rights" at issue are starkly different from those faced by women or blacks.

I personally am not persuaded that marriage is a right.

I believe the state has an interest in incentivizing stable relationships/families.

I am not persuaded that stable relationships/families among gays is bad for society.

That is a good question. Is marriage a right? Well, it's not mentioned in the US Constitution.

Is interracial marriage a right?

Marriage is not a right, when defined as a licensed relationship from the state, with certain attached conditions and incentives.

Two consenting individuals vowing fidelity and partnership together, as long as they do not curtail the rights of others--in my book that's a right (Scalia might not agree).

Actually I would increase the number to more than two. I think if people want to get together and have polyamory, as long as they are adults and able to consent, that's their business.

About laws on interracial marriage--the argument here concerns the 14th amendment and "equal protection of the laws." People capable of being married, that is of age and consent, ought to have equal protection. And what is marriage? It's the union between a man and a woman--it's been that way for a long time. A gay "marriage" is actually a reframing and changing of definitions. Hence, an argument here that a ban on interracial marriage is a violation of the 14th amendment, whereas limiting marriage to man and woman is not a violation of the 14th amendment, as Tex has pointed out many times, every gay man has the opportunity to marry a woman should he wish.

So the question, as I see it, is whether the definition of marriage should be changed. And that is a legislative question, with the premise being what is good for the state, as that is what I see as the current reason for having marriage.

Now, what would be REALLY fun is having strict common-law marriage laws. Wouldn't it be hilarious if many gay couples found themselves "conscripted" by the state into marriage. "You've been together as a couple for 7 years, sorry folks, you're now married." That is going to be a bonanza for the lawyers.