It's been pretty clear that the winds have been changing for a long time now. It used to be good enough for Republicans just to mention gay marriage in order to scare the bejeezus out of voters. "San Francisco values" was and is still one of the stupid code phrases for "gay."

But they never had a cogent argument against it. Even the religious one barely holds water. And now that smoke is starting to fade and mirrors are becoming tarnished. The polls are pretty much even in California over an amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman, which bodes ill for the amendment.

Even Bill O'Reilly seems to have abandoned the argument against same-sex marriage and shows up his guest as the empty rhetorical talking point that he is.

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx ... cd871b6726

The New York governor has now ordered all agencies to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyreg ... ref=slogin

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

The right's response highlights their rhetorical nonsense and hypocrisy on the issue:

Groups that oppose gay marriage said the governor was essentially trying to circumvent the Legislature. "It’s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.”

And yet they applauded Arnold Schwarzenegger for doing that very thing when he vetoed same-sex marriage rights passed by the California legislature. And god forbid the courts get involved. These people really need to take a civics class.

But harping on procedure is just a cover. The fact is that they don't really care HOW gay citizens are discriminated against, just that they are. And more and more people, particularly younger generations, simply don't care enough anymore to be scared by this nonsense.

UPDATE: Gay marriages will become officially legal in California on June 14, with license expected to be issued on June 17.

Hopefully. The gay marriage issue is a bloody waste of time, one step removed from the Congressional interrogation of Roger Clemens. I oppose gay marriage, but it's none of the federal government's business. There are more important things to worry about. How about start with the war?

Well I agree marriage is no business of the goverments at all. It is a religous thing that has been adopted by goverments for a long time. That said you oppose gay marriage? What about it do you oppose? I thought you said that you didn't care because it didn't concern you and not your problem which is different then oppose.

The issue here is rights but mostly equality. There are many rights associated with marriage. Stuff like the ability to make decisions for your partner while they are incapicitated, the rights an estate after ones partner dies without a will or even in cases where their is a will many people challenge it in court to varying degrees of success without a marriage. Immigration. If you travel abroad and meet someone you really like or if you meet someone traveling abroad and you wish to stay with them the rest of their life or at least feel strongly enough about it to get married than it shouldn't matter who it is in relation to yourself provided it is legal. Tax credits I am not so sure about this one but I do think the goverment should be blind to a relationship.

But most of all hypocrisy. A man can marry another man today, if they are willing to do a Ms Garrison and the federal goverment does recognize it. A woman can do the same thing but those are very different cases.

What is it about gay marriage that you oppose?

On topic,
You critcized Ah-nold but he has stated that he will not push the fight anymore adn that he is against the amendment trying to be passed., Gay Marriage will be legal in CA and Massachussets and their will probably more serious challenges to DOMA(A bill that Bill Clinton signed) because the bill will be tested more and more as people get married in MA and CA and eventually move to other places not NY like Missippi, Texas, West Viriginia and so forth.. I guarantee you that Washington will adopt similiar policies after the election in CA.

I don't care about gay marriage in a political context, i.e. I do not base voting decisions on the issue.

Marriage is a title of cultural and spiritual significance that I believe is only between a man and a woman. Why? Reason be blasted -- tradition. All the legal and financial trappings of marriage are contrivances of the modern legal code that can be equally provided by civil unions. I am not religious and don't buy the gays-go-to-hell stuff. It's all a load of bollocks.

I oppose illegal immigration as well. It's a personal insult to legal immigrants such as myself.

Nothing wrong with that. As I previously stated, the issue is personally irrelevant. Legalized gay marriage does not impinge upon my own principles or my ability to make life decisions. I am only opposed to the concept at the philosophical level.

Marriage is hardly traditional or unifiedly spread. China even has a few recorded gay marriage from the Han Dynasty and Egypt has had quite a few. In Rome same sex marriage was made illegal by the Emperor who was in christian in 342 AD.

Reason be blasted is right. So as you support tradition, then I'm assuming you also support underage marriage, forced marriages, polygamy, and bans on interracial marriage, all of which are "traditional" forms of marriage. Do you want a list of other traditions we have relegated to the dustbins of history that, by definition alone, you should also support?

That civil unions provide equal benefits is a myth anyway.

You've got to be kidding me.

That's a technical problem, not a philosophical one. Technical problems can be fixed.

Sure, if you would prefer. I find it wryly amusing how the most iconoclastic nations on earth are on track to becoming childless wastelands without the help of mass immigration. Europe will wake up first... they've got the more unsavory immigrants.

What does immigration have to do with my point? You said that you opposed gay marriage based on "tradition." Doesn't that mean that you also support the traditions of polygamy, underage marriage, forced marriages and bans on interracial marriage?

Well belive it or not I am in favor of civil unions for everyone. I really think that in the US everyone should have an equal shot to live how they choose. I do not consider marriage to be a goverment thing but instead a religous thing. I don't think something should be called one thing for one and another for someone else if they are the same thing. Think how much less trouble their would be in the US with this issue if marriage was just a religous thing and civil unions a goverment thing. But in this country a married couple is assigned rigths that no civil union gets. The right to bring in a partner from another country they love. It is a big issue while I never have to worry about it I can see why it is a big concern.

Angle sidestepped that issue by saying he hates illegal immigrants but I wasn't talking about that. Lets say as a legal immigrant Angela were to go back to China and meet a girl named Lu Yifei and fall in love with her. Problem is she isn't an american citizen and Angela meets her everytime he goes backs to china(this is hypothetical). After a while they decide to get married not for immigration purposes but because they love each other. Now in the United States it takes a shit load of paperwork and time but lets say their relationship survives that and she can now stay and lve with her here in the US. It is very possible to do and any straight couple can do that. Now a gay couple on the other hand couldn't even if they had a civil union they couldn't and they probably couldn't get a civil union in anyway shape or form. At this point the issue changes from tax breaks which is a blessing by the goverment ifyou will to one of the goverment denying a citizen their own pursuit of happiness which is wrong.

So IMO the best solution to this is just to provide the same name, same rights, and same laws for any couple that are consenting adults.

Well prove it.

Through out history their are cases of cultures that practice polygamy and incest through marriage. The role of the wife and husband changes from culture to culture. Just think about the cut sleeve.
If their was no tradition in Rome why did it have to be outlawed?

The problem is that marriage IS a government thing, and will be for the foreseeable future. Marriages do not require a church service, which is legally meaningless and purely ceremonial. So for all intents and purposes, we are talking about marriage as a secular legal institution with certain rights and privileges granted by local, state, and federal governments.

In that context, wouldn't you agree that civil unions granted to gay couples are basically a separate-but-not-equal category of marriage, and are therefore discriminatory by their nature?

I do agree that it is a seperate but equal type of thing except I don't even think it is equal.

Your question is logically incoherent. You're basically asking that since I'm Texan and love barbecue, whether I also like steak or cornbread. Maybe, maybe not. Make sense before making accusations. You also conveniently ignore the positive aspects of tradition. In the past there were unsavory practices (e.g., miscegenation intolerance) but also a stronger social contract where problems like births out of wedlock were frowned upon. A big part of contemporary social decay arises from the collapse of unspoken taboos.

I mentioned immigration because without it, we would be facing an inexorable decay in population. Is it any surprise conservatives massively out-breed liberals? Yet a new generation grows up content to cohabit, to pursue dating as a spectator sport. In the quest for reason, one forgets rationalism is only part of what makes human civilization tick.

Your points have no relation to my obvious assertion that marriage is a tradition. How the hell do homo sapiens sapiens procreate, eh?

Good point you bring up here. Government-sanctioned unions are a technical necessity forced by the need to create and enforce legal and financial codes pertaining to unions. Strictly speaking, deeming a legal union a "marriage" is superfluous and relevant legal codes would not be affected by a change in word.

Um, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure it really isn't even slightly dependent on marriage.

Last time I checked, it is only physiologically possible in one configuration: between a male human and a female human. In most groupings of humans with rituals of sorts, that is more-or-less a marriage. The monogamous, heterosexual relationship, independent of any other possible configurations or regulations, is a central aspect of what makes complex civilization possible. There are latent forces within people that would prefer, say, an alpha-male dominated pack system. This is what I mean by tradition. All unions are equal, but the monogamous, heterosexual union is more equal than others. Without it, we wouldn't be here today doing what we're doing. Homosexuality is equal in every metric (e.g., two human beings in a union) other than biologically irrelevance due to its having not contributed to our current existence. That's as basically as I can break it down.

Wow Angela I have never seen you so logical incapable ever.

OK firstly marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Procreation comes from having sex which people do and have done for all of mankind without being married. I have a kid with a woman who I didn't marry. Many people do.

But you were talking about tradition and while I am not blind to the fact that marriage and sex usually go handin hand they dont have to. Look at a lot of politicians wives they have trophy wives it has nothing to do with procreation.

Marriage today is not what marriage was 50 years ago in this country and it was not the same before that either. Expected roles of the wives or husbands have changed in dramatic fashion from culture to culture and age and age.

If what you mean is that most marriages through the history of mankind is between a man and woman than I agree with that as most population is more recent than not and that most people in the world tend to be more straight with very little sexual attraction to the same sex. So most couples will be between a man and a women just like most marriages are likely to be between the same race(though with globiliation this is changing). I know that when I was married and went to visit my grandparents in OH I got a lot of stares because my wife was chinese and in China I got the same thing but becasue I was white. I can only imagine what it would be like for a gay couple today or even worse 50 years ago.

While marriage is a tradition it is far from uniform and there is no such thing as a truly traditional marriage in a historical or cultural sense. There are however traditional marriages and this is the key difference.

By my definition, you are married, and Anna Nicole Smith was not. Many couples throughout history married in anarchy or through the fog of war. Also by my definition, a homosexual couple is not married in the same sense (yes, equal but not as equal -- hate me all you want), but should be free to apply for governmental union benefits, just not under the superficial title of "marriage". Marriage as a legal status is obviously a clunky representation of reality -- there wasn't always a government around to bestow titles. Capiche?

I'm amused at how worked up all you folks are over a subjective opinion with no bearing on your personal lives. It reminds me of the arguments I have with neocons over the definition of patriotism. Fun though. Thanks for the conversation.

Uhmm Angela I live in San Francisco. I may not be gay but I have a lot of freinds who are. I also was quite a bit involved in the AIDS conseualing scene here because my aunt caught from your defined legal marriage when from accounts I have heard he probably should of gone for the other "unmarriage"one that you throw around. I will probably never have a gay marriage nor woudl I want one BUT that does not mean that it doesn't effect people I or you know(yes Angela you probably know some gay people). In that respect it does effect me.

Oh god, not this shit again. Marriage was for procreation maybe a loooong fucking time ago. Until very recently, it was mainly set up for financial reasons, and recently it's due to "love". Ever hear of dowries?

I'm just saying the main cultural reasons for marriage have changed plenty of times, and there are many things that show marriage and civil unions aren't truly equal. In my family, there was a gay couple that was together for thirty years. When one of them ended up dying in the hospital from a car accident, his partner (my uncle) was not allowed to see him because he wasn't considered a relative.

I've gotta agree with redspear here... angela, what's going on? Your opinions on this matter seem to go against all sound reason when you're usually pretty on the mark.

You support the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman, even if that means marriage between the underaged, related, or any other of the countless "traditions" that have fallen under the legal (and, more often than not, ideological) terminology of the term marriage, but refuse to acknowledge two mens' right to marry based purely on their inability to procreate?

Surely the entire matter of marriage, outside of a legal standpoint, is all just a matter of semantics and antiquated world-views. Would you also begrudge a born-muslim the right to celebrate Christmas on account of their not being a Christian?

And just because this deserves its own response...

For a lot of people, both gay and straight, it's not a subjective opinion. To compare the issue of equal rights for homosexuals to arguments with your neocon pals about the definition of patriotism is to do one of them a great disservice.

I mean, they were born neocon, dammit! It's not like they have a choice in the matter! Unlike these gays, who should really be spending less time fornicating in public bathrooms and more time making traditional arranged marriages with underage siblings.

I always have a mean, tense disposition on this board, though.