I'd rather not see this issue go to the courts, either. I'd prefer it be done legislatively or, sweetest of all, at the ballot box.
It'll happen in California in four years (maybe two if there's a move against existing legally performed gay marriages). In 2000, 39 percent of the people supported gay marriage. In November, it was up to 48 percent.
The rabid rhetoric used by opponents of gay marriage is, in my mind, the most eloquent reason to support it.

The whole civil rights/constitutional argument does not make sense to me. The state does not have the right to define the institution they provide legal acknowledgment and provide benefits associated with? This is not about the state determining the legality of a relationship - then it would involve civil rights. It is about changing the eligibility criteria based on BOTH people to form a marriage. If that goes against civil rights, then it follows that any other excluding criteria (i.e.: age, incest, polygamy) must be unconstitutional in the same way.

Rhody-this will wind up in SCOTUS(same sex marriage,not Prop 8)because the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is involved.
Unlike abortion,which is a discrete act that can only be performed in one particular place,marriage is an ongoing condition that can only be terminated by legal dissolution or death.
Legislation or voter decision on a proposition in any particular state will not solve the question of recognition by other states.
Actually,this dilemma applies to heterosexual marriages where the age of consent and marriage eligibility varies from state to state.Can a marital partner be charged with statutory rape as the result of an interstate move?Is the marriage valid in a state with a higher consent/marriage age?
I am normally against "legislaton from the bench",but this is a Constitutional question that supercedes the issue of same sex marriage itself.

"The third blind spot overlooks the likelihood that radical changes to the very essence of the meaning of marriage will indeed affect families — as always, with emphasis on those who are most vulnerable."

The "most vulnerable" are the little boys in state custody who, uner "marriage equality", will be turned over by the "progressives" to be painfully sodomized by male "couples".
"Progressives" like Pat Lynch then put the rapists back on the streets in the name of "marriage equality".
Witness Sedonio Rodrigues and Raymond Grenier.
"Praise Stalin and pass the little boys"
Old Time Lefty folk song.

Msteven

Since you have shown a willingness to characterize my comments even when they are not addressed to you whould you take a stab at Mike's.

Phil,

This is a public blog where comments and responses are often made by people not directly addressed to. That should be obvious.

But in fairness, I’ll take a stab at Mike’s. The assertion that all gays are rapists and/or child molesters is the epitome of ignorance. The comment had no argumentative value. If I were emperor of this site, I’d have removed it. In addition, it's the type of comment that actually supports the argument of the pro-SSM movement.

Merry Christmas to all.

Watch what you say about Mike, people. I tried to address his "comments" in a humorous way...and had my post removed for my efforts.
I do not advocate banning him. I don't advocate protecting him, either.

That Mike is perveted is obvious, for the more he writes the more he exposes himself.
OldTimeLefty

I don't remember the specifics, Rhody, but rest assured that it was what you said, not to whom you addressed it.

all gays are rapists and/or child molesters

Posted by msteven at December 24, 2008 9:53 AM

I am certainly aware that most Rectal Romeos are NOT child molestors or rapists. I am also aware that most molestation is commited by heterosexual men on little girls.
But, like anyone else not brain dead (ie-progressives) I realize that little boys placed in the custody of unrelated Rectal Romancers are EXPONENTIALLY more likely to be raped/exploited by sodomites than by the heterosexual husband of a female.
This is a DUH! for anyone who doesn't put "equality" over common sense.
Think about it-would anyone suggest a little girl be placed with an unrelated single heteosexual man?
NEVER!
Children are being raped on the altar of Progressiveism.

Mike,

I've seen no evidence that homosexuals who are inclined toward committed relationships and families are more likely to sexually abuse children than such heterosexuals. I suppose that there are directions in which to proceed from there, but you're doing little more than disrupting a movement you ought to support unless you tone down the rhetoric and produce some evidence.

I think what drives pedophiles is simply that they like to have sex with defenseless children-period.Sexual orientation is not the underlying factor.
I think Mike is right about placing children in ANY situation where they can be sexually exploited.
Who do I blame for the promotion of pedophiles?The ACLU.A ridiculous outfit like NAMBLA has zero credibility even with liberals.But when the ACLU runs interference for such lowlifes,liberal judges and politicians sit still,listen,and take orders.
BTW there is a "heterosexual"counterpart for NAMBLA-I think it's called the Rene Guyon Society-it would be nice if the members of those groups contracted Ebola.

Merry Christmas to you, msteven and thank you for the answer.

Mike,

I've seen no evidence that homosexuals who are inclined toward committed relationships and families are more likely to sexually abuse children than such heterosexuals
Posted by Justin Katz at December 24, 2008 11:10 PM

Of course there's "no evidence". Do you expect the progressives to get the true facts and publish the statistics?
Swallow hard and look into your soul. Do you really doubt, even for a minute that the anuses of little boys in DCYF custody are not exponentially more at risk in the hands of a Rectal Romeo "couple" than from the (presumably heterosexual) husband of a woman?
Is there a sane person who doesn't know that answer?
The progressive "couple" of Sedonio Rodrigues and Raymond Grenier, sitting free as birds (thanks Pat Lynch!) in their upscale Bristol house know that answer. Even the dimwits at Local 121 know the answer Though, like you, they are loathe to verbalize it. Just like all rich white leftists are "great supporters of the public schools" while they assidiously keep their own children far, far away from them.

Mike,

I know and have known homosexuals with whom I'd trust my children. The point is that there are men and women who wish to and would live their lives in utter normality, but for the sex of their significant others. To the extent that you refuse to acknowledge their existence, and to empathize with their plight, you will do grave damage to attempts to shore up the pillars of our culture.

Moreover, there were several red flags that DCYF should have seen regarding the pair in Bristol that had nothing to do with orientation.

“Do you expect the progressives to get the true facts and publish the statistics?”
----- You are saying that there are statistics to support, but the progressives in power won’t publish them because they are harmful to their agenda. That is supposed to be serious?

Also, based on your logic, a female child is also more at risk at the hands of a heterosexual man, aren’t they?

What is ironic is that your point about those supporters of public schools keeping their own children in private schools actually has merit. Ironic in that it’s difficult to find a legit point amongst all your angry and prejudicial rhetoric.

"I know and have known homosexuals with whom I'd trust my children. The point is that there are men and women who wish to and would live their lives in utter normality, but for the sex of their significant others. To the extent that you refuse to acknowledge their existence, and to empathize with their plight, you will do grave damage to attempts to shore up the pillars of our culture."

Unlike you I'm a libertarian so these freaks should be able to do whatever they want in my mind.
But-they should NOT have the "right" to be supplied with little boys by the state!
This is a no brainer.

Also, based on your logic, a female child is also more at risk at the hands of a heterosexual man, aren’t they?

Posted by msteven at December 25, 2008 7:43 PM
Absolutely right. Which is why a single heterosexual man can't walk in off the streets and demand the state supply him with young girls.
Neither should Rectal Romeos, under the guise of "equality", demand and get the state to supply them with young boys.
There is a sad enough history of abuse of DCYF girls by heterosexual male custodians. But at least boys, half the kids, are safe if the male custodian is truly heterosexual.
This is decidedly NOT rocket science. Mississippi just voted by 70% to stop Rectal Romeos from having the "right" to state-supplied little boys.

Monique, a Leaf fan, set up this absolutely persistent to believe. Now, let me goal out that this was in no way an undertake to articulate one pair is advantage than the other. It was upright a goal to articulate two things.