New York Court Rules Gays Must Be Allowed To Marry

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
Gay men are disgusting and promiscuous, therefore gays and lesbians should be denied basic rights and protections? I'd be interested to know where they got their sample of gay men from. Bath houses in the Castro? Even if a majority of gay men are promiscuous (I don't think that is true) then so what? Heterosexuals aren't required to demonstrate a capacity for monogamy before obtaining a marriage licence. Why should gay people be held to a higher standard?

The entirety of the information posted gives a reason for the problem with promiscuity among homosexuals, namely there are far more diseases associated with homosexual sex. If you are truly interested in knowing where they got their samples (as there are a number of studies listed in the post), the information necessary for that research is also provided in the post.

The fact is, there are considerable numbers of same-sex couples in long-term, committed, monogamous relationships, and those people should be able to marry.

FWIW the civil unions between same-sex couples in Vermont are lasting longer than marriages between heterosexusal couples. I.e., committed same-sex couples who have a civil union are staying together longer than committed heterosexual couples who get married. (The comparison is between same-sex civil unions, and marriages occurring at the same time). A similar finding has been made in the Scandinavian countries in Europe, where same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships are lasting longer than heterosexual marriages.

Specific statistics? Names of studies?

Thanks
Dave
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: petrek
Gay men are disgusting and promiscuous, therefore gays and lesbians should be denied basic rights and protections? I'd be interested to know where they got their sample of gay men from. Bath houses in the Castro? Even if a majority of gay men are promiscuous (I don't think that is true) then so what? Heterosexuals aren't required to demonstrate a capacity for monogamy before obtaining a marriage licence. Why should gay people be held to a higher standard?

The entirety of the information posted gives a reason for the problem with promiscuity among homosexuals,

If there is a "problem" with promiscuity among homosexuals, then I guess we homosexuals will have to deal with it. But what does sexual promiscuity among a subset of the gay population have to do with same-sex marriage being legalized in New York??

Originally posted by: petrek
namely there are far more diseases associated with homosexual sex.

And that relates to the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York how??

Originally posted by: petrek
If you are truly interested in knowing where they got their samples (as there are a number of studies listed in the post), the information necessary for that research is also provided in the post.

I don't have access to any of the sources given in your article.

Your article provides no information on how the subjects were selected in any of the studies mentioned. The article implies that the behavior of the subjects in those studies is representative of all gays and lesbians. Were the subjects selected in such a way that they do actually represent the gay population? Or were they a convenience sample, selected form e.g., sex venues, std clinics, etc?

More to the point, why would you bother posting information about the sexual behaviors of gay men in a thread on same-sex marriage?


Originally posted by: petrek
The fact is, there are considerable numbers of same-sex couples in long-term, committed, monogamous relationships, and those people should be able to marry.

FWIW the civil unions between same-sex couples in Vermont are lasting longer than marriages between heterosexusal couples. I.e., committed same-sex couples who have a civil union are staying together longer than committed heterosexual couples who get married. (The comparison is between same-sex civil unions, and marriages occurring at the same time). A similar finding has been made in the Scandinavian countries in Europe, where same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships are lasting longer than heterosexual marriages.

Specific statistics? Names of studies?

Yes, feel free to look those up.


 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
The entirety of the information posted gives a reason for the problem with promiscuity among homosexuals, namely there are far more diseases associated with homosexual sex. If you are truly interested in knowing where they got their samples (as there are a number of studies listed in the post), the information necessary for that research is also provided in the post.

That data is 27 years old, many sexual habits with the homosexual community drastically changed in the 80's as the AIDS epedemic started. If your going to post such information, please post from a recent study.

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/020405nyMarr.htm
(New York City) A New York State court ruled Friday that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal must be given marriage licenses.

"This is a historic ruling that delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers," said Susan Sommer, Supervising Attorney at Lambda Legal and the lead attorney on the case.

"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law. Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."

Lambda filed the suit last March in Manhattan on behalf of 5 gay and lesbian couples. (story)

The case was the first of its kind to be filed in New York since the Massachusetts high court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to full marriage under that state's Constitution. (story)

In today's ruling, Justice Ling-Cohan said, "Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a couple's commitment and love. Plaintiffs may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage."

"I was even more moved than I thought I'd be when I heard about this ruling. All of us cried; me, Mary Jo and our 15-year-old daughter. For the first time, our family is being treated with the respect and dignity that our friends, coworkers and neighbors automatically have," said Jo-Ann Shain, a 51-year-old New York City resident who is a plaintiff in the case with her partner, Mary Jo Kennedy, 49.

"Last week, Mary Jo and I celebrated our 23rd anniversary together, but we've never had all the protections and rights that come with marriage. We need these protections
to take responsibility for each other and for our daughter, and we are enormously grateful that the court saw that and said our family should be treated equally."

Another of the couples was Daniel Hernandez, 46, and Nevin Cohen, 42, who have been together for over six years.

When the suit was filed Hernandez said they were looking for the same rights as those enjoyed by his parents.

"We're lucky to both have parents who've been happily married for more than 50 years," said Hernandez. "Is it too much to want that for ourselves?

Justice Ling-Cohan stayed today's ruling 30 days in case there is an appeal.

Ultimately, the legality of gay marriage in New York is likely to be decided by the Court of Appeal.

Yesterday an Albany court ruled that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Two couples, Elissa Kane and Lynne Lekakis, and Robert Barnes and George Jurgastis, were married last year by a Unitarian Universalist minister in Albany

But when they tried to get marriage licenses from the Albany City Clerk's office they were refused. The four sued Albany and the state Health Department, claiming Domestic Relations Law is gender neutral and marriages without licenses are still legally binding.

On Thursday, Justice E. Michael Kavanagh said state law doesn't specifically bar giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples; it just requires two people to be of age and legally competent.

However, Kavnagh rule, "the statute is replete with other references ... that this was, in fact, the intent that marriage be reserved for couples of the opposite sex."
Seems pretty simple, imo. Equal protection.

Go NY! :) Let a little Liberty loose and tell those Conservative uptight arseholes to go straight to hell! :)

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

If history teaches you one thing about Democracy and Morality, it's that the Majority opinion is not always (nor even usually) the right one.

Jason
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

If history teaches you one thing about Democracy and Morality, it's that the Majority opinion is not always (nor even usually) the right one.

Jason

:thumbsup: Go DMA
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: classy

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

Hi there, bigot! Nice to see you! I was afraid for a moment that the reactionary, fear-filled conservative ilk wouldn't show up to challenge NY doing the RIGHT THING.

Crucial difference between marrying your gay lover and marrying a pet or a toaster: A HUMAN BEING has a CHOICE and can CONSENT; pets and appliances can't. Your argument is fluffy nonsense and not a bit more than that.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
Legislating from the bench... another guiding light as to how exactly you can destroy the seperation of powers.

They aren't "legislating from the bench", they're doing what they are supposed to do: Interpret the law and decide whether it's constitutional or not. It is clearly NOT constitutional to deny any individual of their rights based on the choices they make in the bedroom. To be more succinct, it's none of your goddamn business what people do with their own lives. Live how you want to but otherwise LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE THE HELL ALONE.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
Two couples, Elissa Kane and Lynne Lekakis, and Robert Barnes and George Jurgastis, were married last year by a Unitarian Universalist minister in Albany

Maybe it's my Libertarian mindset, but I just can't understand why this issue keeps coming up. The article plainly says they already are married. I think it's idiotic that now they (or anyone else) have to convince the government that they're married, or for that matter feel they need to. Government should have no role in this issue period - marriage is a private and religious matter, not a government matter. Them having to beg the government to recognize them as being married would be like me converting to Judaism and wanting to go to the Justice of the Peace and show him I was circumcised to prove I'm "officially" Jewish.

I agree and want to take it a step further: Have the government NO LONGER RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE AT ALL. Not in any way, not in any capacity. Have it account for and tax people SOLELY as INDIVIDUALS. Leave Marriage in the hands of private institutions where it belongs, and let each of those decide its own stance on whether to allow or disallow, recognize or reject gay marriage. Then let gay and/or straight people shop around, choose the church that fits their ideas and run away with it just like they would in any other CONSUMER SERVICE.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: joshw10
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Perknose
In polls of the time, the majority of ALL Americans were AGAINST allowing interracial marriages when such miscentegation (sic) laws still enforced in the colorful South were struck down in the '60's.

The haters and the ignorant fearful are fighting a rear-guard action here. They just don't know it yet.

I get so sick and tired of knuckleheads saying interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It is not. Two people of different races a man and woman is normal. It is filthy and an absolute disgrace for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

The point was that a majority of people were against it (just like gay marriage), laws were passed against it (just like gay marriage), they wanted to pass more laws (just like gay marriage), people fought it (just like gay marriage), and today, it's widely socially accepted. The same thing will happen with gay marriage. If you think the young adults / kids of today, when they're running the country, are going to see anything wrong with gay marriage you need a reality check. That's why the so-called "conservatives" are pushing so hard for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They're afraid the courts will find that gay marriage is Constitutional, so if they change the Constitution, they won't have to worry about that anymore. Hmm..

They THINK that's true, but what many of them fail to realize is that even a *constitutional amendment* can itself be unconstitutional :)

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
The logic of some = if it's filthy and disgusting, we should ban it.

This is where you see the HUGE gaping chasm between Conservatism and Libertarianism. Conservatives view ILLEGAL and IMMORAL as one and the same. Libertarians view them as separate. An IMMORAL act is not necessarily illegal. For example, many Libertarians consider the abuse of drugs, alcohol and your body in general as IMMORAL. However, these same Libertarians would also NOT support the illegalization of these activities, as they harm solely the "sinner" and no unconsenting third party.

Jason
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: glenn1
Two couples, Elissa Kane and Lynne Lekakis, and Robert Barnes and George Jurgastis, were married last year by a Unitarian Universalist minister in Albany

Maybe it's my Libertarian mindset, but I just can't understand why this issue keeps coming up. The article plainly says they already are married. I think it's idiotic that now they (or anyone else) have to convince the government that they're married, or for that matter feel they need to. Government should have no role in this issue period - marriage is a private and religious matter, not a government matter. Them having to beg the government to recognize them as being married would be like me converting to Judaism and wanting to go to the Justice of the Peace and show him I was circumcised to prove I'm "officially" Jewish.

I agree and want to take it a step further: Have the government NO LONGER RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE AT ALL. Not in any way, not in any capacity. Have it account for and tax people SOLELY as INDIVIDUALS. Leave Marriage in the hands of private institutions where it belongs, and let each of those decide its own stance on whether to allow or disallow, recognize or reject gay marriage. Then let gay and/or straight people shop around, choose the church that fits their ideas and run away with it just like they would in any other CONSUMER SERVICE.

Jason

The only problem is people view our state run marriages as some how differnet than Civil Unions. When in reality, they are the same. Marriages, require love. Thats not a prerequiste to our state run marriages.

We should just change the wording, but still have benifits that do live together. Without a doubt, I'd say thats more of good than a bad thing to live with someone. Why not promote it :)



 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: glenn1
Two couples, Elissa Kane and Lynne Lekakis, and Robert Barnes and George Jurgastis, were married last year by a Unitarian Universalist minister in Albany

Maybe it's my Libertarian mindset, but I just can't understand why this issue keeps coming up. The article plainly says they already are married. I think it's idiotic that now they (or anyone else) have to convince the government that they're married, or for that matter feel they need to. Government should have no role in this issue period - marriage is a private and religious matter, not a government matter. Them having to beg the government to recognize them as being married would be like me converting to Judaism and wanting to go to the Justice of the Peace and show him I was circumcised to prove I'm "officially" Jewish.

I agree and want to take it a step further: Have the government NO LONGER RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE AT ALL. Not in any way, not in any capacity. Have it account for and tax people SOLELY as INDIVIDUALS. Leave Marriage in the hands of private institutions where it belongs, and let each of those decide its own stance on whether to allow or disallow, recognize or reject gay marriage. Then let gay and/or straight people shop around, choose the church that fits their ideas and run away with it just like they would in any other CONSUMER SERVICE.

Jason

The only problem is people view our state run marriages as some how differnet than Civil Unions. When in reality, they are the same. Marriages, require love. Thats not a prerequiste to our state run marriages.

We should just change the wording, but still have benifits that do live together. Without a doubt, I'd say thats more of good than a bad thing to live with someone. Why not promote it :)

Well, here we hit the slippery slope. I agree that it's better to be with someone than not (although I should qualify that by saying that you should be with someone because they add something to your life and you to theirs, and not just merely for the sake of having another warm body around), but I am not sure I want the government promoting, well, *anything*. I want the government to provide for the common defense, provide courts to arbitrate disputes, police to keep a reign on crime, but other than that I want them to stay out of the "Social" picture and let nature take it's course.

Jason
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: irwincur
Legislating from the bench... another guiding light as to how exactly you can destroy the seperation of powers.
Hmm...I didn't realize this judge just now created the Fourteenth Amendment. I was under the impression it was created...oh...almost 150 years ago.

i don't see the judge interpreting the fourteenth amendment anywhere.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Speaking of ruling from the Bench.

This will force the USSC to Officially put in writing that the U.S. discriminates. :thumbsup:

why? i don't see where the US SC steps in here.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: irwincur
Legislating from the bench... another guiding light as to how exactly you can destroy the seperation of powers.


It's interesting that right-wingers call it "legislating from the bench" whenever a court makes a decision that is perceived as being liberal. But if a court makes a "conservative" decision, that (by definition) is "strict construction".

Let's see: The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." Seems like the courts have found constitutional all sorts of laws that make certain speech illegal or unprotected. For example, Libel. Slander. Shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Threatening the President. Broadcasting a boob shot at halftime during the Superbowl. Need I go on? I have a feeling that conservatives would have no problem with the courts affirming THESE types of laws that go against "a literal reading of the Constitution".

No, it's the same conservative hypocrisy as when they kept calling Bill Clinton a liar and tried to impeach him. What are they advocating now that their boy is in the White House and lying in ways that put Clinton to shame?
libel and slander are torts, the government isn't putting you in jail for them. a threat is assualt. there is nothing in the constitution that says you may assault someone. and the courts haven't made a decision about broadcasting a boob shot at the superbowl.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
It is clearly NOT constitutional to deny any individual of their rights based on the choices they make in the bedroom.
With the exception that marriage is not a right...it is a social instiution with some financial benefits and conveniences that the state chooses to recognize or bestow upon couples that choose to marry.

Eliminate the term marriage from the equation, with the state recognizing civil unions for all couples regardless of their sexual orientation...leave marriage for the churches...problem solved.

 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
If there is a "problem" with promiscuity among homosexuals, then I guess we homosexuals will have to deal with it. But what does sexual promiscuity among a subset of the gay population have to do with same-sex marriage being legalized in New York??

From the pdf which I quoted in the above post.

"SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case has little to do with sodomy laws and
everything to do with gaining full acceptance of homosexuality
as an incremental step toward achieving the ?right to marry,..."


And that relates to the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York how??

From the pdf which I quoted in the above post.

"SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case has little to do with sodomy laws and
everything to do with gaining full acceptance of homosexuality
as an incremental step toward achieving the ?right to marry,..."

I don't have access to any of the sources given in your article.

Your article provides no information on how the subjects were selected in any of the studies mentioned. The article implies that the behavior of the subjects in those studies is representative of all gays and lesbians. Were the subjects selected in such a way that they do actually represent the gay population? Or were they a convenience sample, selected form e.g., sex venues, std clinics, etc?

More to the point, why would you bother posting information about the sexual behaviors of gay men in a thread on same-sex marriage?

From the pdf which I quoted in the above post.

"SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case has little to do with sodomy laws and
everything to do with gaining full acceptance of homosexuality
as an incremental step toward achieving the ?right to marry,..."

Through a simple google search, I found that the first study listed can be purchased used from Amazon for $1.25 + shipping, and that the second study can be found online.

Yes, feel free to look those up.

Please provide me with a source for your statements so that I can look them up.

Thanks
Dave




 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
Originally posted by: shira
If court after court after court finds that laws which limit the institution of marriage (and its consequent advantages) to one man and one woman are unconstitutional, isn't it clear that this isn't just the result of some "activist, liberal judge making law from the bench"? I mean, if ONE court, or a few, found the laws to be unconstitutional, maybe there'd be an argument. But it's become abundantly clear that under the US constitution, these laws really don't pass muster. That is, they limit certain freedoms to only certain classes people. That's a violation of the equal protection clause.

The right-wing response is typical: Since the fundamental laws (the Constitution) of the land are against them, they want to change the fundamental laws. Sounds like, "If I can't win the game, let's change the rules."

nothing has been decided under the US constitution.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

They THINK that's true, but what many of them fail to realize is that even a *constitutional amendment* can itself be unconstitutional :)

Jason
uh... what?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

They THINK that's true, but what many of them fail to realize is that even a *constitutional amendment* can itself be unconstitutional :)

Jason
uh... what?

Uh... it makes complete sense. The idea of a constitutional amendment is based on 'oh crap, we better find a way to ban this for good while we have the chance'. Fortunately, if the amendment itself is does not properly respect every part of the constitution as written (except any parts which it explicitly alters) then the amendment would not stand up to a challenge.

That's what DMA is saying, and he is entirely correct.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Eliminate the term marriage from the equation, with the state recognizing civil unions for all couples regardless of their sexual orientation...leave marriage for the churches...problem solved.

Only one problem - I consider marriage an important institution, and one I may participate in at some point, but I don't go to a church, or worship a God, and I plan to do neither in the forseeable future.

Not that my lifelong dream is to be 'married in the eyes of the government' but marriage is not, in fact, an exclusively religious institution, has never been so, and should not become so now.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

They THINK that's true, but what many of them fail to realize is that even a *constitutional amendment* can itself be unconstitutional :)

Jason
uh... what?

Uh... it makes complete sense. The idea of a constitutional amendment is based on 'oh crap, we better find a way to ban this for good while we have the chance'. Fortunately, if the amendment itself is does not properly respect every part of the constitution as written (except any parts which it explicitly alters) then the amendment would not stand up to a challenge.

That's what DMA is saying, and he is entirely correct.
a challenge? through what mechanism? i mean, if it's an amendment to a state constitution it could run up against the US constitution and be challenged that way, but if you're challenging an amendment to the US constitution your only recourse is through the political system (which obviously just amended the constitution so isn't a likely avenue).
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Only one problem - I consider marriage an important institution, and one I may participate in at some point, but I don't go to a church, or worship a God, and I plan to do neither in the forseeable future.
Marriage is a cheapened instution that has lost all meaning and significance in our society...given the divorce rate in this country, marriage is simply a contract of convenience that is no longer even binding.

So the term marriage in and of itself is a matter of semantics...homosexual couples already live as joint households, many raising children of their own...the only aspect of marriage denied togays are the government benefits and legal rights that go along with state recognized marriages...which essentially are civil unions, with the title of marriage thrown on mostly out of tradition.

This argument is not about marriage...it is about social acceptance, and unfortunately, there is a segment of our population that will never except homosexuality as being normal...social change through judicial or legislative activism is rarely a smooth ride.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
a challenge? through what mechanism? i mean, if it's an amendment to a state constitution it could run up against the US constitution and be challenged that way, but if you're challenging an amendment to the US constitution your only recourse is through the political system (which obviously just amended the constitution so isn't a likely avenue).

A challenge to the USSC. If the court is forced to make a decision based on the constitutionality of an issue, they would have to interpret the constitution and its amendments together, If there's a contradiction between a protected and an unprotected right, they would have to make a decision (unless they have the authority to directly throw out the added language, I'm not sure if they do).

It would be an ugly situation, and is a big part of the reason that I doubt this hate-amendment will ever see the light of day.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Only one problem - I consider marriage an important institution, and one I may participate in at some point, but I don't go to a church, or worship a God, and I plan to do neither in the forseeable future.
Marriage is a cheapened instution that has lost all meaning and significance in our society...given the divorce rate in this country, marriage is simply a contract of convenience that is no longer even binding.

So the term marriage in and of itself is a matter of semantics...homosexual couples already live as joint households, many raising children of their own...the only aspect of marriage denied togays are the government benefits and legal rights that go along with state recognized marriages...which essentially are civil unions, with the title of marriage thrown on mostly out of tradition.

This argument is not about marriage...it is about social acceptance, and unfortunately, there is a segment of our population that will never except homosexuality as being normal...social change through judicial or legislative activism is rarely a smooth ride.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

My parents are married, and I wouldn't call their marriage 'cheap' - yet they were married at city hall rather than a church, because my father is religious and my mother is not.

I don't consider marriage to be cheap, and I certainly hope that when and if I am married ti would be for good - it's not something I would do to 'see how it turns out'.