2. That said, people really don’t have to justify the exercize of their rights to the state. When I go to vote, I don’t have to prove that it benefits the state. If the state wants to deny people a right, the burden is on the state to prove why that would be necessary. The potential proofs that have been offered here fail because they also apply to straight marriage, which noone has suggested be outlawed.

3. You’re on the wrong side of history. Over any period of time you choose, the trend is clear — gay people are getting their rights recognized. Whether you like it or not, this is gonna happen.

As I stated in my initial post, gay marriage is a good topic for discussion and consideration, one that I’ve been open to for some time, just tell me how the world will be a better place for everyone if it is. Noone has tried to do that here yet, why?

“For well over a century, New York has recognized marriages solemnized outside of New York unless they fall into two categories of exception: (1) marriage, the recognition of which is prohibited by the “positive law” of New York and (2) marriages involving incest or polygamy, both of which fall within the prohibitions of “natural law” . . . The judges then go on to find that neither exception applied.

The “natural law” part really seemed screwy . . . and the explanation was given short shrift in the decision.

Since when is polygamy against “natural” law? Polygamy was part of human history for thousands of years, and is still practiced (and accepted) in some parts of the world. I can’t see where polygamy is “unnatural” … although in western society it is illegal (but maybe not in Texas anymore).

That said, “Gay marriage,” biologically, is undeniably unnatural because the sex organs of the couple do not fit together. The fact that we don’t have a long history of gay marriage (unlike polygamy) is perhaps due to the fact that it is NOT “natural.”

Were the judges asleep in class when sodomy was discussed . . . and about failure to “consummate” a marriage being a ground for divorce? How does one “consummate” a gay marriage without committing a crime? Perhaps we no longer have to deal with such incongruencies because laws have been liberalized. . . . but the laws certainly reflected what the court considered to be the “natural law” … but they ignored them.

Frankly, I think we pay our judges far too much if this decision reflects the quality of their thought processes.

A 50% divorce rate? I’m pretty sure my taxes are paying the salaries of the judges hearing those cases. How exactly is that beneficial to society?

Withholding the rights and privileges that are routinely granted to people on the basis of marriage simply because the people involved are gay is discriminatory. Unless there is some rational reason to do so that is specific to gay people, it shouldn’t stand. The cost of those rights and privileges isn’t such a reason, as they are just as costly when granted to straight couples. Your judgment that straight marriages are more beneficial to society than gay marriages is groundless.

As I interpret it, this makes Paterson’s statement superfluous. Perhaps someday the Constitution will be changed. But as of right now, it seems to me that discrimination against same-sex couples who have a civil union is unconstitutional.

As for the moral issues (for the moral and the legal must be kept separate, or else anyone can spin the argument in any direction he wants), I feel that there is nothing wrong with same-sex couples. I am a practicing Roman Catholic and, knowing that homosexuality occurs naturally and is not a choice, refuse to discriminate against someone based on how God made him. On that note, however, I do think that marriage is a religious institution defined as a union of a man and a women and should not be used to describe same-sex couples who have been granted civil rights by a government.

“She just always thought that, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white.’ …

I think He hit the nail right on the head.

Too funny!

It doesn’t get much richer than that.

People like Pundit try break away from their mundane attorney lives and bring their less than stellar leagl opinion to forums like blogs. It makes them think they are smarter.

He stated earlier that my definition of democracy was narrow, clearly his is.