Public Opinion: New York Gov. David Paterson Orders His State to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed Elsewhere. What Should Your State Do?

Liberty and Justice for All

I don't buy how various religious/politcal groups (who claim to speak for me--a non-Christian--and claim to speak for all Christians!) try to frame a simple truth into something complicated. It isn't complicated at all; it's quite simple: all Americans are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Period. That's it.

Part of me actually would like to see some diehard, intransigent evangelical group (like Tony Perkins and his 1950s Stepford devotees) try to make this an election year issue once again.

Why? Because it would finally exhaust the patience of the average American who can't afford to fill their SUV, can't sell their house anywhere near its former market price, (or now can't buy a house without spotless credit and huge down payments), can only fill their grocery cart halfway for the same amount of money, has a son or daughter or nephew or niece on their third tour of Iraq, and are afraid of getting a pink slip with every paycheck due to increasing lay-offs.

The self-appointed mothpieces for God will get their smug, stone-throwing as**s handed to them. It's about fricking time.

Jim

I can't imagine how gay marriages wouldn't contribute to society any less (or more) than other marriages. Or as Bob Barr, author of the Defense of Marriage Act, was once famously asked: 'Whose marriage are you trying to protect? Your first, second, or third?' (BTW- is there like a pre-marriage test where couples prove their union contributes to the rest of us? Not in my state nor yours.)

Do "we" have to accommodate "them"? Uh...yeah. In this country we treat all citizens equitably unless "we" can show that "they" MUST be treated inequitably.

There's a lot of rationalizing going on alright - rationalizing how logic or biology explain away our prejudices.

Its about equality for all

The whole issue here is that the GLBT community want equal treatment under the law. Discrimination and civil rights are not something that is up for a majority vote; they are protected by our constitution and should be defended by our Supreme Court.

The marriage amendment that may be on the November ballot is blatant discrimination. It is no different than saying that blue-eyed people cannot get married, or left-handed people cannot get married. Why should lefties be allowed to marry if I find them to be morally wrong? If a majority of the population agreed with that blatantly discriminatory view, then we should be able to pass a law and not allow them to marry, right?

Can you see the fallacy of this argument? This is precisely what the CA Supreme Court said in their landmark decision. Civil rights are not up for a majority vote.