After Iowa, Vermont, What's Next for Gay Marriage?

who exactly will draw the line?

but how do u believe that this teis into religion . are they not scared for their own humble per say SOUL. gays are an abomination and should be punished by the man up stairs.

Polygamy, incest comparison not valid

It's interesting that when all the so called arguments against marriage equality are exhausted, some people say, why not three wives, or my sister, or my dog? Well, marrying three people is a choice, sexual orientation is not. Nobody has demonstrated that polygamy benefits society, whearas allowing all people the right to marry does. If you want to say orientation is a choice, then the burden is on YOU to prove it, and every socialogical or biological study has shown that it is not. It has been proven that incestous relationships cause birth defects, and you don't see people wanting to marry their brothers or sisters, so there is no need for that, either. As for marrying your dog, marriage is a legal constract. No animal can enter into a legal contract because it is beyond their intelligence. Not to mention the fact that an animal can never consent to sex in the first place, which is why it is wrong. I guess the anti-gay people are gonna have to find another argument. Hmmm. Does same sex marriage cause global warming?

Gay couples ARE pro-marrige.

That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.

Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And I suspect those who want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.

For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it's important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed's point of view, it wouldn't do for a couple to be considered married (in Iowa, for example), then magically "UN-married" once they decide to move somewhere else.

Now, as someone who prides himself on being nothing if not diplomatic, I believe compromise is possible. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allow the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions."

Frankly, I could live with that. How about YOU?