Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage

I strongly believe in equal rights under the law for all Americans. There are those among us who do not. My feelings are that if two people love each other, are in a committed relationship, with shared assets, those assets need to be protected in the event of one partners death. If there are two men who share their lives together, share a home, perhaps have children that they are raising, and one of those men gets hit by a green bus, that mans partner should be able to join him in the ICU and hold his hand while machines breathe for him. This should be by default, without having to lie about being "brothers", without the concern that the family of the injured man, or indeed the doctors involved would be able to block the visit. If that man dies of his wounds, currently the other man could conceivably be put out on the street as his partners family seizes assets and freezes him out of his partners life. Our President says: "If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage," . .. "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened. " I disagree with this on many points. The religious institution called "marriage" is not at issue here. No one is pushing for a constitutional amendment demanding that the Baptist or Catholic churches marry homosexuals. In fact, no one on what I'll call the "human rights" side of the debate is seriously pushing a constitutional amendment at all, to the best of my knowledge. The fact that my neighbors might be two men who love and are committed to each other has zero impact on the fact that my wife and I love and are committed to each other. Their relationship has no bearing on our relationship. Their relationship is not going to cause my wife and I to love each other less, or cause us to get divorced. What we're talking about is, in fact, a legal definition. Mr. Bush misses the point by conflating Religious views and Legal views. I have no doubts that the Catholic church will strongly disagree with a legal definition of marriage allowing any two people who love each other to join in the social contract of marriage. It's good that they disagree and healthy that they should refuse to marry two men who they firmly believe are going to be ultimately subjected to large amounts of fire in a place reserved for bad people who disagree with them. NO one is asking them to do or believe otherwise. I also believe that, while good in its own right, the state of Vermont's kludge Civil Union law is ultimately ineffective. This state law does not entitle couples to any federal death benefits, and it becomes void if a couple decides to move across state lines. Many states further ban actual same sex marriages performed in other states from being recognized. Therefore the only way to change things nationwide would be with a federal law overriding all state laws to level the playing field. Mitt Romney actually tried to use an antiquated Massachusetts law to prevent out of state folks from getting married in Massachusetts. This law was written to prevent people from coming from a state where they were legally denied marriage and taking advantage of Massachusetts more liberal definition of "citizen". The law prevents people from coming to Massachusetts to engage in a marriage which would be illegall in their home states. The people this law was preventing were black. Now they would like to use it to prevent the new "less human" folks from getting married. That is telling. (yes, I acknowledge the straw man, and I don't care, email me if you want to get pedantic about it). This is antiquated, puritanical thinking. It is dangerous to make legislation based on religious beliefs which are not shared by the less religious among us. Screw it, this is going on too long. Equal rights, right now. Constitutional Amendments should be reserved for defining rights, not removing them (prohibition worked well). If I don't believe in Bush's partner in sobriety, Jesus, should I be blocked from the Institution of Marriage, since I am "diluting" it? Since I am "cutting marriage off from its cultural, religious and NATURAL roots"? The day I let George W. Bush lecture me on what constitutes Natural Healthy Goodness. .. Now i would also like to point out that gay/lesbian couples are tending to be happier than heterosexuals. There where high characteristics in 79 percent of lesbian couples, 56 percent of gay male couples, but in only 8 percent of heterosexual married couples. Same-sex couples are also happier than heterosexuals. Which means when gay/lesbian couples have children in their lifetime, they are in a more calm and safe environment. SOURCES: 1. . http://www.thedailybeast.com... 2. . http://www.religioustolerance.org... 3. . http://news.softpedia.com...