I still do find the idea of marriage pointless but I still think everyone has the right to put the government even more in their business.

Like my mom was better as a single parent then she is now with a husband. They do nothing but fight all the time and make my life a living hell by taking their anger out on me and it’s all because they believe that whole crap that two parents need to be together so they don’t believe in divorce.

I just think people can’t speak on what’s healthy for a child because each child turns out differently first off. And then until you’re actually involved in the household setting and hanging out with the kid on a daily basis to see how they’re turning out and how they work in society, you can’t really speak on what’s healthy and unhealthy for them.

Homosexuality is a non-survival trait. Therefore, it is wrong on it’s face. However, I don’t have anything against homosexuality itself personally. That said, I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal because of the side issues, such as adoption. Studies have shown that children should have a parent of BOTH sexes to develop properly. In a same-sex household, they cannot have this setting. I don’t believe we should be proactively making it easier for such a “family” unit to be created. And no, I don’t believe that the fact that there are so many single parents out there is an argument for ADDING another class of improper family environment to the world.

You’re on the right track, but I’d like to point out that the judicial branch does not have the authority to “enforce” any law. That’s the job of the executive branch. Rather, the courts’ job is to “interpret” or explain the meaning of law. That means to adjudicate it based on precedent and/or the US Constitution. Period.

This business of judges and justices simply writing new regulations from the bench has got to stop.

Meanwhile, I’m going to be paying more for my health insurance premiums, to make up for all these new “spouses” who are now covered by their partners’ policies. The ones who weren’t covered under domestic partnerships. Funny how nobody mentions this when arguing for or against gay marriage.

Sorry pal, no sale.

It’s rather telling that in all but two cases (VT and CT), it had to be enacted by judicial fiat rather than by an up-or-down vote of the people’s legislature. (Such as here in California as well as Iowa.)

It’s also rather telling, that in NO case have “the people” passed this bollywonkers idea into law, when given the chance to enact it directly at the ballot box.

Good ideas shouldn’t require a court to force them to fruition. Rather, that is the hallmark of bad ideas. Bad ideas such as upending the social order (and overturning thousands of years of human understanding) so that some aggrieved minority can feel better about themselves.

Cassy Fiano, a blogger I respect, has an issue quite wrong and fundamentally unconstitutional. All of the bold lettering is my own. “Now, when it comes to gay marriage, let me just clarify my position here. I, to this day, honestly don’t know how …

And in reality, the ones that are going to go and get married are generally lesbian couples. Over 60% of the gay couples that wed in MA so far have been lesbian couples, and not gay male couples. They’ve been together for an average of 15 years, too. That’s a whole lot longer than many heterosexual couples.

And even then, there were only a few thousand couples. There’s over 300,000,000 people in the country, and only a fraction of them are gay couples that want to get married.

I say “let them.”