True, some of the biggest enemies of same-sex marriages are right-wingers. But some of the biggest opponents are left-wingers, too, so don't blame the whole thing on conservatives. The only reason it's an issue now is Karlo Rove's brilliant campaign strategy. He picked an issue that would unite the religious right as well as pull from the religious Democrats. I'm kind of sorry to say, but it worked. Also, I know of one fairly conservative talk show host in Cincinnati (Mike McConnell, I think) who is only opposed to it because it might lead to other things. Here's why: if you say that homosexuality is different, but deserves the same privileges as heterosexuality, then it would follow that bestiality, pedophilia, bisexuality, etc would be OK, thus setting a legal precedent for anyone being able to marry anything. Plus, if a person is sexually attracted to both males and females, then it would only be fair that that person be able to marry both, since s/he's bisexual instead of homo- or heterosexual. Not a bad argument; at least it's logical and not religious or emotional.
The reason I underlined privilegs is that marriage is one...it's not a "fundamental right" like the drama queen in the article called it. There are probably churches where you could get a homosexual marriage; it just wouldn't count by law. Personally, I don't understand all the anti-gay sentiment, though. To me, it's like country music. It's not something I like...at all...but I don't dislike others for liking it or even care at all really. I have a few gay friends, but I don't usually think of them as my gay friends, just as my friends because I couldn't possibly care less whether they like men, women, redheads, blondes, brunettes, fat girls, skinny girls, fat men, skinny men, blacks, whites, whatever...I just don't care.
Like a lot of things, I believe in states' rights as well. Maybe there could be a provision stating that a state didn't have to recognize a gay marriage from another state while maintaining a permanent residence there or something to that effect. For example, Texas says no, but maybe it's legal in Oklahoma. If two homosexuals want to marry each other, then maybe they'd stay in OK. I don't know, that might set an ugly precedent too, maybe with driver's licenses and other trans-state issues, but it's just a thought.
Another thing that the gay community is criticized for is its lack of monogamy. I think that allowing them to marry would help, because there is really no tangible commitment right now. If there were marriages, then there would be a certificate and a contract of sorts and I believe that that would help solidify relationships. Could be wrong, I mean there are still married people who cheat, but at least the commitment would be acknowledged more.
Oh, and one other thing. I've been known to pick on liberals and others sometimes for using illogical, emotional arguments instead of logic and facts, so I'll stay consistent on this one as well. This is a mostly emotional argument. "Marriage has always been that way;" "The Bible says...;" "Ewwww! Gays!" and other such nonsense. It seems that the religious are using religion to push their ideas, and they're doing it with striclty emotional arguments. That is annoying.
. To me marriage has little to do with kids, it has mainly to do with the union between man and woman.
