Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[MOBIUS]

Geez, whenever something progressive happens, there's always a panda****er around trying to spoil it for the rest of us...

[Arrian]

New England

Tell ya what, Ben. We'll try it out up here. When the sky does not fall, when fire does not rain down from the heavens... when people are happier because of it, others will follow.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's already a group in Maine that wants to convert this to a referendum so they can ban gay marriage.

Though it will likely be more difficult to overturn the law than to get it passed by refendum in the first place (according to Nate Silver).

Maine

[chequita guevara]

What is different about Maine is that they are the first to make gay marriage legal without being forced to do so by a court.

[Ramo]

Second. Vermont was the first. New Hampshire might not be far behind (the Dem Guv is undecided about signing the legislation). New England

[chequita guevara]

I think Vermont was forced by the courts. IIRC, the courts gave them a choice of either legalizing gay marriage or creating a substantive equivalent and they first chose civil unions, later choosing to legalize gay marriage.

[Ramo]

Civil unions were forced by the courts (and I think they were the first state to pass a civil union law). Gay marriage was all about the legislature. It actually managed to pass despite the GOP Guv's veto.

[MrFun]

Hurrah for New England states (except for Rhode Island so far).

[chequita guevara]

Civil unions were forced by the courts (and I think they were the first state to pass a civil union law). Gay marriage was all about the legislature. It actually managed to pass despite the GOP Guv's veto.

I'm not giving them credit, because the law banning same sex marriage was struck down by a court. Maine was the first state not forced by the courts to change its laws.

[Arrian]

VT voted in gay marriage, Che. edit: crosspost... ok, be that way then.

CT was via the courts.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

On December 20, 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Vermont that same-sex couples are “entitled under Chapter I, Article 7, of the Vermont Constitution to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples”. The Court did not rule on whether Vermont was required to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but suggested that the legislature could enact a parallel licensing scheme affording the same substantial benefits as marriage to same-sex couples.

So we'll give VT credit for being the first state to voluntarily enact gay marriage, but Maine gets the credit for being the first to overturn its law against gay marriage without being forced by a court.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You do realize how silly this entire argument is, right, che?

[Ben Kenobi]

Tell ya what, Ben. We'll try it out up here. When the sky does not fall, when fire does not rain down from the heavens... when people are happier because of it, others will follow.

Oh sure, I'm sure some people are happier, but long term it's not a good idea.

[Ben Kenobi]

No stemming the tide now, Ben - there'll be perfectly legally married gays living all over the US before long...

Wouldn't change the fact that this is a bad decision.

A couple could even move in right next to you!

What makes you think I haven't experienced it already? Part of my opposition is because of personal experience.

[Arrian]

As you know well, I disagree. I think letting gays marry, aside from being right from a moral standpoint, will have a positive impact on society.

I know a gay couple with adopted kids and I'm absolutely convinced that family is a net positive for our society. I see multiple positive impacts from gay marriage. I do not find your predictions of negative ones compelling. I guess we'll see.

The institution of marriage has its problems, but it's not the fault of the gays (having been deliberately excluded until now). My marriage is solid and happy, and gays marrying will do absolutely nothing to change it - or the future marriage(s) of any kids we may have (unless, of course, we have a gay child, in which case the change will turn out to be a clear plus for our offspring).

The problems society is having with births out of wedlock and the problems (often) resulting therefrom are real - we agree to a point on that. I believe the problems are basically tied to two issues: knowledge and expectations. Knowledge is fairly easy: kids are often dumb and need basics about sex drilled (heh) into them. Sex ed is spotty nowadays, from what I can gather. Expectations: lots of people believe in fairy tales. Sometimes that's harmless. When it comes to the fairy tale of marriage, however, it's a problem. Our culture sells a product called marriage, and like most ad campaigns it lies to you (sorry, Ming). The disconnect between what many people think marriage is and what it really turns out to be results in unhappiness and, in turn, divorce. Your solution appears to be to take away divorce (no-fault, anyway) as an option. Great, now you force unhappy people to stay together. ****ty solution, IMO. I'm really not sure how to solve the expectations problem, but if one is really concerned about the institution of marriage, I think that's the point of attack.

-Arrian

p.s. IMO, the key to all of this is to come up with solutions (more likely, partial solutions) that avoid acting all authoritarian.