Iran on the Move [News Bits]

You are exactly right, Wes. The law should not place a restriction on the sex of people getting married. The law should not place a restriction on the number of people getting married.

Does that mean that I want to marry someone of my own sex? Does that mean that I want to marry my sibling? Does that mean I want to marry my entire neighborhood? No, it does not. But far be it from me (or anyone) to decide what anyone else can or can not do. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, as long as no one is being harmed, I don't understand what the big deal is.

Isn't the big deal made mostly through monetary interests? Right now, with gay partnerships, the health care, insurance, and banking don't have to treat their gay customers as anything but single, childless folks (which is cheaper for them, and let's them keep control of the most money they can). Can't imagine Big Employers willing to shell out the added payroll for their gay employees after all these years not having to, either.

Money and morality rarely go hand-in-hand, let alone down an aisle together.

Actually you're wrong. Large employers have gotten wise to the fact that homosexual workers are generally well educated and childless. It makes a lot of sense to hire them.

It makes sense to hire them. I'm saying that Big Business doesn't want to spend the extra money on gay partners like they do with married couples, and so gay marriage becomes taboo in Republican circles. Aside from the discomfort men kissing men might bring. (Although how many gay Republicans are still in the closet?)

Well the whole issue is whether or not in the Land of the Free, two consenting adults can enter into a lifelong, legally binding status with one another. No, marriage in itself is not a right. But if it is something that we grant to one group, then in order to provide equal protection under the law, we must extend to all people. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

All people are equally protected under the law. Any adult may legally marry another adult of the opposite sex regardless of his or her sexual orientation.

What you're really saying is that the law shouldn't place a restriction on the sex of the two people being married. If that's the case then why should there be a restriction on the number of people being married? Two seems kind of arbitrary, why not three or four?

Sure, civil rights are not up for a vote but is marriage a right and is sexual orientation a protected class? Those questions are not settled.

Actually 'democracy' does mean 'majority rules'; that's why we were set up as a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. (other than the terminology, your argument is completely spot-on; the Founding Fathers absolutely did NOT intend for civil rights to be up for a vote).

Civil rights issues should NEVER be decided by the voters. If that's how we ran the show, we'd still have segregation, interracial couples would not be allowed to marry, women would still be excluded from the voter rolls. Democracy does not mean "majority rules," and the issue of same-sex marriage is one that will most certainly be trampled upon if left to the voters to decide. What we need here is strong leadership, both from the President and from the courts. Unfortunately neither of those seems interested in standing up for justice and equal protection under the law.