this is the second half of the article...as I've noticed on here...a copy/past that's quite lengthy...draws the " peek and run "...

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.


Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.


The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.


All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?


While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.


But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.


The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.


The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?


Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.


Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing— riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.


Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.


Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.


None of us has a right to other people's approval.

You are saying EXACTLY what I've had concerns with regarding gay marriage. If gays can marry, who is to say other atypical couples shouldn't and where is the line drawn???

The problem is those dam over sexed straight couples..They should be more careful!!!

I don't really see how that's an issue. It would still be two people, two adults getting married. Not someone with multiple wives.

There are so many "other" types of couples to consider. I'm not even talking about multiple spouses, but indeed, that could also be thrown in the mix. Afterall, if we are not going to prevent same-sex marriage, then there should technically be "no holds barred" on ANY two or more people who wish to be "married". Only fair!! The alternative to it ALL is to abolish the whole written and physical concept of "marriage".

exactly...Thomas Sowells point about this not being discriminatory againsy gays is correct...when he says that hetrosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex either

That doesn't really make sense.

How about this. We let them marry and but cant show it publicly. No public show of affection. You know like ticket them and a fine would be put toward the national debt. That would work wouldnt it?

I'm still wondering about the straight men who want to marry each other. Where are they? Or the straight women who want to marry each other. Perhaps Giocamo can point us toward some cases like these.

I think he's using an analogy where someone would test the law...

---------> go that way -------->

I think his point is...it CAN happen...he's looking at all aspects of the law...of marriage...and please...call me Gio...lol

Sorry, but the off chance that a straight man may want to marry a straight man isn't reason enough.

We dont have the right "to draw the line" when it comes to someone elses life, there two consenting adults if there happy thats all that matters

Brandon my fellow countryman...you're exactly right !!...the line has already been drawn...the law stands...and...the votes have been counted in California...they can still do whatever they like...as long as they're happy...ummmmm...if I'm not mistaken...Gay marriage is legal in a few states...right ?

Oh I see now, lets limit where they live. Whats wrong with this picture?

live ?...if the law states that you must " live "...in the state that you marry in...then we should get that law changed...as far as having gay marriage legal in all 50 states ?...it will be...slowly but surely...this subject will no longer be an issue ...but like anything else...it takes time...patience young lady...your day will be here before you know it !...

You just contra****ed everything you have said. Whats wrong we don't have the technology to support it now. You argue a point and admit defeat.

defeat ?...I'm not fighting to stop it...I just think the behavior is wrong...I'm just one guy...enjoying the art of debate...I love talking politics...I'll leave the fighting to somone else...as far as your point about technology...you kind of lost me their...

Well you said it will happen. Its finally became a non issue. Let it go and lets talk about serious problems we all face. Lets talk health care..Something thats not a non issue.

and it will happen....I'll be long gone though...when that day finally arrives...health care ?...is not an issue with me...why do 40 million people not have it ?...various reasons...post a new topic...and..I'm their !!