This is NOT intended as a political position against the right to same-gender marriage ("same-sex marriage"). To the extent that marriage is a legal right, it is my belief that this right should not be legally denied based on sexual preference. Similarly, if you considers same-gender marriage to be a sin, that does not imply that the supposed sin "jumps" to you. This is a personal decision; not "cooties"! I'm quite sure the "Cooties Theory" is not recognised by most religions.

To be clear, I support the legal right of people to marry, regardless of sexual preference.

Also, note that the statistics (originally from 1999) are very much out of date. Statistics taken in 2008 showed that at the (US) Republican convention, 51% of the delegates opposed same-gender marriage. That's a substantial change from "more than half" of the general population! I was wrong about the effect of same-gender marriage in politics; however, I still think marriage is a bad idea, whether it's same-gender or mixed-gender.

In any case, I leave the original article as a "period piece".

The reason is that same-sex marriage tends to reinforce the notion that marriage is a moral imperative.

True, some religions subscribe to this "moral obligation" idea, but most of those groups oppose the gay lifestyle anyway.

The primary reason for promoting same-sex marriage is a sort of circular reasoning. Society establishes marriage as a moral obligation. Since same-sex orientation is defined in terms of sexual attraction, gay people are judged by this. Same-sex marriage presupposes that the only moral way for gay people to exist is within a traditional marriage (well, almost-traditional) as wife and wife or husband and husband.

So why isn't that the same bovine scatology that surrounds heterosexual marriage?

That said, there is no logical reason gay people shouldn't have the same civil rights as straight people. If marriage is sanctioned for straight people, it should be sanctioned for gay people.

Societal Rights of Married Couples

Married people are entitled to "domestic partnership" rights. These can be substantial. Few such rights extend to same-sex marriages as a matter of course. Domestic partnership rights are most easily obtained by emphasising the need for these rights rather than challenging the opposition on the marriage issue.

A Political Lose-Lose Situation

Politically speaking, there are far more people who support "domestic partnership" rights than who would support same-sex marriages. Societal acceptance does not result from "line-in-the-sand" issues which unite the opposition. Especially if one expects the opposition to win on that one.

Examples:

• Gallop and other polls show that more than half of straight Americans still believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Same-sex marriage changes a "civil rights" question to a "morality" question. There are worse political issues, but would you throw resources at them?
  
  
• Unlike Loving v. Virginia (racial miscegenation law overturned), the US Supreme Ct. has not recognised a prohibited classification affected by same-sex marriage. (The Defense of Marriage Act is written under and relates to the US Commerce and Full-Faith-and-Credit clauses.)
  
  
• Paula Martinac (author of The Lesbian and Gay Book of Love and Marriage) says a radio talk show host half-jokingly asked her, "When you've got two women together, who takes out the garbage?" The reality behind the joke is that same-sex marriages threaten the fundamental assumptions of marriage as described in the homepage.

Already Married?

Of course I wish you love and happiness. But I'd venture your lives would be the same without that certificate. I mean, isn't the major difference the bragging rights?