Because it’s not our bigotry of “homos” that drives this issue. It’s the preservation of a tradition that is the issue

ANd the judge’s opening comment that “The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between
participants of different sex.”
is also patently untrue.

(the quote is from page 12 of the judgement

I thought we already had that. I’ve never been married, but I was under the impression that, in order to get government recognition of a marriage, you have to apply for and sign a marriage license.

Yes, but clergy are empowered by the state to perform the marriage, thereby changing the legal status, so you have that mixing of church and state and the vapors about the whole “sacred institution” bit.

And actually in 12 states that was on the ballot in ‘04 and the average defeat was 70/30.

That’s on the ballot. Polls show a different story.

Take this Fox News poll (scroll down):

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 13-14, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?”

Results (since the table won’t format):
Legally married: 27%
Legal Partnership: 25%
No Legal Recognition: 40%
Unsure: 8%

So, only 40% think that there should be no legal recognition of same-sex partnerships at all. And this is a national poll.

And here’s the results for New York:

Polls show a slight rise in the percentage of New Yorkers who favor allowing gay marriage — to just over half — in the last three years, while the percentage opposing it has decreased sharply to just over one-third, advocates said.

And here’s the support in New York:

The plaintiffs have received friend-of-the-court briefs supporting their position from such establishment groups as the New York City Bar Association, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, dozens of New York law professors (including Mr. Gilles), the American Psychological Association, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and a number of religious organizations including Episcopal, United Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Unitarian and Reform Jewish groups.

How do you like them apples?

:

Why not go to the European model where, in order to get the legal benefits of marriage, one goes to the registry office and in order to have one’s union blessed by one’s religion, one goes to the appropriate house of worship?

I thought we already had that. I’ve never been married, but I was under the impression that, in order to get government recognition of a marriage, you have to apply for and sign a marriage license.

Brandcn, if we waited for everybody to agree on the absolute best way to do things, nothing would ever happen and the gay population of the U.S. would gain no rights whatsoever. There is no logical reason for marriage to be prohibited between two consenting adults of the same sex.

And that reminds me – if you want to defend marriage as belonging only to straights because of “tradition,” what about the millenium or so (beginning with ancient Greece and Rome) when full-grown men married girls who were often no more than twelve? Those girls were forced to bear children and stay almost exclusively within the house, forbidden from even walking to the market or visiting with a neighbor without a male escort, and rarely allowed to own property or participate in the community at large.

During the Civil Rights Movement, there were black folks who thought the leaders were taking the wrong approach or asking for too much. I probably don’t need to tell you all the names that some other people called those folks. But I hardly think you would assert that just because not every African-American agreed with Dr. King that he was wrong. It follows that just because your friend does not agree with the direction of the debate on same-sex marriage, that he’s right.

When Howard Dean was governor, civil unions were the extreme position even in liberal Vermont. Now, civil unions are where folks who don’t fully embrace equality look for compromise: it has become the centrist position. We’ve finally learned from the far right that continually pushing can shift the entire window of the debate. Marriage equality was a pipe dream ten years ago. Now, it’s a reality in one state and a fight in 49. In ten more years, it will be a reality in several states and a fight in the rest. In my lifetime, I will see this battle won conclusively.

Only that you are labeling all gays that don’t have your own view evil now you are turning your back on your own side that is fighting for the same thing. Why do you condemn only right wing attacks and not left. Anyone can see straight through it. And that sentence means that people like me that wants the same rights for gays are going to quit trying to help if we keep getting made into a political pawn for having a view in the middle.

Uh, what? No. Your friend believes that compromise is most effective; I believe that it is not. I further believe that this marriage/civil-unions compromise is legislated inequality, and that supporting it means supporting bigotry. We cannot have the same rights if we can’t get married.