Likewise with marriage, get too close to the thing, approach it only with the right half of your brain (as Kinsley does--wonders never cease, he's either irrational or hyperrational) and it makes no sense. Well, let's just get rid of the thing.

But let's approach the question from a strictly rational perspective for a moment: we know that married people live longer and are less prone to depression (well,at least men)--chalk one up for public health. We know that children benefit from stable two-parent families and that couples who marry (though they may divorce) tend to stay together longer than those who don't--one for child welfare and societal stability. We also know the poverty level for women and children to be much lower amongst married families. Well, you get the point.

Now, while I am all in favor of the state staying out of everyone's bedrooms, and I am happy to have stable gay couples' relationships recognized through civil unions, and I will even applaud their efforts to create families through adoption, etc. (why should straight people have all the "fun") I WILL not accept either the premise that gay people can "marry" or that marriage itself is outdated.

This is akin to saying that since everyone can't have Porsche, all Porsche's should be destroyed.

I have to admit, I was pulled up short last week when I heard a conservative critic of the Lawrence decision say that this opened the door not only to gay marriage but to bigamist and polygamous marriages. After all, if the state has to foreswear a marital law rooted in Christian mores (one woman one man--God says so) where is the justification for telling Mormons and Muslims they cannot have four wives (provided everyone is of age and consents)?

I know from studying non-western history that polygamy has mostly been a bad thing for societies that practice it, but would that matter if you could argue (as they could) that it is established practice and religiously sanctioned among certain groups? That to not allow such marriages would be unfair persecution of minorities?

This is deceptively tricky subject and I'm not looking forward much to what comes next.

"Just as the majority ruled in Romer v. Evans
that homosexuals have a fundemental right to organize to fight for
preferential treatment, so do fundamentalist Christians or devout Jews.
Being in the majority doesn't preclude one's right to try to impose their
will on others, so long as the boundaries of the Constitution are
observed."

I stole it and sent it to him.

:-)

Kate

---