else. @Beasley: You're flailing. Contractual rights are not at issue. Whether they are recognized by the state, in the interests of the whole polity, is the question. SSM offers no obvious (or stated) benefits to the polity, so why it would be incumbent upon them to recognize such a union is not apparent. If you want to make such an argument, then do so. Otherwise you have no argument. I beg to differ, Michael W. I have the benefits of marriage even though I was married by a city judge and had no interest in bearing children. My stepsons' mother married a childless man. They have the benefits of marriage without bearing children. Marriage, as I see it, is a contract between two people who willing to put their forces together to the same ends. That's what marriage is now, like it or not. And I did not interfere with their marriage. My husband had been divorced for 8 years when we married. @David M: There are exceptions to every rule. This is why I'm such a big fan of the common law. However, statutes are blunt instruments and can only effectively address the broad issues. Just because there are childless couples does not logically mean that SSM is necessary, mandated, or beneficial. Gay couples should not be prevented from marrying, and states should not be prevented from recognizing such unions. But in no way does that mean that SSM is beyond all reproach or that states should be forced