In Missouri, 71 percent of the voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning so-called gay marriage. State legislators had already prohibited recognition to gay marriages in Missouri, but amendment supporters say the change in the state constitution was needed to leave no room for ambiguity for activist courts. The opponents of the measure raised several hundred thousand dollars to defeat the measure, while its proponents raised a meager few thousand dollars but still won. Currently, 38 states have laws on the books that explicitly refuse to recognize gay marriage. No state, without intervention by the courts, has legalized the idea. In other words, even though we have a Republican form of government and the people overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, we are still in danger of having it imposed on us. The gay marriage question seems to raise more questions about activist courts than it does about homosexuality.

Here's my question: what's the big deal? I mean, if the argument about opposing gay marriage is religious based, a) not everyone follows the same religion and b) the church does not have to marry any one it chooses not to - the church has final say, and I highly doubt that any one could challenge it. why do so many people care if a guy wants to marry a guy? or a girl marry a girl? this reminds me of women getting the right to vote or blacks getting the right to do anything...whoopie, two guys want to get married, who gives a flying f...?

but then again, i'm from Canada where it is allowed up here. and it's not that i'm not on the right side of the fence either, its just that I really don't understand what the problem is? or why people are so freakin' annoyed with this.

Tyler: The question is whether marriage is an important social institution, or whether it is expendable. This is important because the civil recognition of same-sex 'marriages' will within a few decades effectively mean the end of civil marriage entirely.

Why? Because there are financial and legal reasons to be married even when there is no sexual relationship (e.g., for business, health care, retirement benfits, or immigration reasons). These types of merely legal unions will become more or less common -- and when that happens, the word 'marriage' won't mean the same thing as it does now. Business and government will simply stop giving 'spouses' health care benefits, etc., when any random person can get these benefits by getting legally 'married' to someone with a job. Thus in the long run, civil recognition of homosexual marriage will mean the destruction of marriage as a civil category entirely. Your only way out of this argument is to suggest that the law might make some legal distinction between 'real' families and merely legal and business-related relationships that want the benefits of marriage. How should we do this?

The destruction of civil marriage is even more obvious when you consider the possibility of polygamous unions. Some polygamists have already begun legal challenges to their denial of equal civil rights. There is no consistent way to resist their arguments -- once we accept, using equal protection arguments, the homosexuals' judicial challenges to marriage.

So your logic would demand that the state recognize 'marriages' uniting people of whatever sex, of however number, without the requirement of sexual relationships. Now you can say this is a matter of equal rights. I think this spells the eventual destruction of civil marriage entirely. Now that may or may not be the worst thing in the world. But if marriage is worth saving as a civil category, then homosexual marriage is worth rejecting.

Interesting comments by both Mols and DocMcG.

I don't agree with either of your stances, but I do understand your comments. I don't think homosexual or lesbian marriages will spell the end of 'marriage'. First off, whether you have multiple spouses or a single spouse, whether your having sex or not having sex, whether its two men married or three women married, I still don't see the issue. But what I will agree to is the concept of people marrying strictly for business purposes (ie. immigration, etc). That should not happen. But, look at the state of civil marriage in not only the US, but in the world. Today, without any regards for love or affection, I can marry some rich billionaire princess about to die and inherit all of her coin. That's ok, as long as it's a male to female relationship without regards to any "love" or notion of it. But, two guys who may love each other or two females who may love each other and actual want to wed to proclaim that love for each other is against the law.

So I ask, what's worse: A gay or lesbian couple marrying each other for love and happiness or Anna Nicole Smith marrying that billionaire tycoon to inherit a bunch of money when he croaks? And don't bring in the need to reproduce, because if that were the case, we should outlaw marriage to a man and a woman who cannot reproduce for either medical or personal reasons.

I still think that those that feel that homosexuals or lesbians will cause the end of the state of marriage are incorrect, but thats my opinion and you are definetly intitled to yours.

Yes, I can agree we have differing opinions about the outcomes of such a policy. When that occurs how should it be settled? Should one side be allowed to impose its policies upon the whole nation because it controls the courts? When the policy's damage might be irreversible, when it might be terribly destructive, shouldn't we demand more than the uninformed opinions of five old lawyers before we commit the nation to such a policy?

That, we can agree on. I am not necessarily against what Missouri did here, i don't understand why they did it, but I am not against the way it took place. If society decides it does not like gay marriages, and it is placed to a vote, then so be it, hence the beauty of a democratic society. However, if a state refuses homosexual marriages based solely on the legislators without consulting their constituients, I disagree with that, as it is no difference than "five old lawyers" making their ruling.

A marriage is a union between a man and women. That is what a marriage is. Now a court can rule that two men or two women can “be married” or a legislative body may vote the same but that doesn’t make it so. The same branches of gov’t could say tomorrow that cars are now airplanes but we all know that cars are cars, just like we all know marriages are unions between men and a women. Marriage isn’t something open for interpretation. Homosexual people can be together and love each other and live together but they can’t enter into a marriage because it’s something that not even possible. People can argue that it shouldn’t be and that’s fine but it’s tough to get around reality and reality is that a marriage is between a man and a women.

The real question still remains. Are homosexuals ticklish?

We have laws in this country that confer privliges to people who are married. You don't get them from having children, you don't get them from whatever minister, rabbi, priest or justice of the peace who officiates your ceremony. Those privliges come from signing a paper that says you promise to be responsible for eachother.
To me the arrogance would be that a judge could deny any two people who are asking for the same equal protection under the constitution.

If you call a dog's tail a leg how many legs does it have? The answer is 4 because no matter how many times you try to call a tail a leg it is still a tail. Same hold true for marriage. No matter how many times you try to tell us a marriage should be for everyone it is still an institution between man and woman. Just as it is poor public policy to grant ssi benefits to those in their mid thirties, it is poor public policy to give so called benefits to homosexuals.