I think that is entirely the point JK, Bush asks for a constitutional amendment that he will never get, but still gets the political points from the religious conservatives. It was a purely political move, they looked at the numbers and determined that there was more benefit in supporting those who favor the amendment than cost in alienating those who are against it.

OK, are we throwing the new gay marriage comments up here now? This thing is like the Energizer Bunny, it just keeps going.

So, from what I am to understand from Dagny and John on the other side, they would accept civil unions for gays based on a civil liberty concept but not marriage. Any idea what that would cost? Think about how many laws, regulations, rights, and privledges are connected to a marriage contract. Think inheritance, taxes, guardianship, even hospital visitation. There must be hundreds. Now think about how many forms you have filled out for everything from a doctor's visit to applying for a credit card that has the line where you check married or single. Imagine changing all those forms to included "partnered" or "civil unioned"? Are we really going to go to the time and expense of creating a new legal construct so same sex couples can be "kinda married"? We already have a perfectly good legal contract that would work nicely. African Americans could not marry legally until after the Civil War, and inter-racial marriage was banned until 1967. Did the opening of the marriage contract to include these groups destabilize society? JK, you have a lot of explaning to do, marrying outside your race and not having any children, what are you trying to do, ruin the institution of marriage and destabilize society as a whole?

OK, you've convinced me Silence. Civil unions are a bad idea too!

Seriously though, I really have to point out that Andrew Sullivan is far from impartial on this issue.

Finally I have to ask, "Why should we institutionalize gay marriage in America when even uber-liberal France won't do it?" They also apparently forbid same-sex civil unionees from adopting or artificially inseminating for children.

OK OK back on the soapbox, but Yes JK there is a Santa Claus er, ah, yes JK you are wrong.

I hate to sound like a broken record but....

The Gay Marriage issue does matter as a symptom of the much deeper sicknesses affecting our wonderful country. These sicknesses are in the realm of ideas.

Political ploy the proposed amendment may be but the politics in this country are the result of the ideas. Ideas, to many people these days seem esoteric and far removed from their daily lives but if they cannot get their ideas straight and clear they will never get their actions so. They will further never be happy because they are unable to define happiness and figure out what brings it!

Have I bored everyone yet? Somebody help me out here. Why don't people get this?

I note in this continuing debate that Silence has stopped defending Gay Marriage on an ideological basis and started defending it on a pragmatic one.

The pragmatic argument is frivolous. Was it expensive to free the slaves? You bet, does that make it a bad idea? It will cost a fortune to allow same-sex partnerships no matter what you call them. The additional cost to call it a civil union rather than a marriage will be immaterial in comparison to the greater cost of instituting it at all. On the other hand, the cost to society of further mixing up our ideas will be larger than most people realize.

Who cares what France does or doesn't do? If France jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge....

Actually I still defend gay marriage on a civil liberty basis. The pragmatic argument against civil unions was just to show the folly of going through the time and expense of creating a new legal contract with a different name that serves the same purpose as the marriage contract. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Second I don't see the huge financial cost to allowing gay marriage, nor the societal one of allowing more people the support and stability of marriage.

I think polygamy is an easy one, a marriage contract is between two people, adding more would completely change the contract and hundreds of laws and regulations. Once married, ONE person is given many rights concerning your assests, health, and welfare. That is the basis for the legal contract, it does not matter if the bulk of the assets reside with the man or woman, either is treated equally by the law. Thus allowing a man to marry another man and bestow these rights upon him make no changes to the basis of the law. I.e. a spouse of either gender has equal rights so why does it matter what gender their spouse is?

I think everyone is missing the stickier issue, that of the prohibition against marriage among direct relatives. This is based on a genetic argument which assumes procreation. So if you allow same sex marriage what about allowing cousins to marry? Should they be allowed as long as no children are conceived? How about gay cousins where there is no chance of procreation?

I suppose I was trolling for comments with my bold assertions but I never know what will attract comments. I think the regulars have sufficient disagreement, and the topic is topical (It's the tautology, stupid!)

I also go back to the well because I have split with President Bush, National Review, the bulk of the GOP and the bulk of writers and pundits whom I admire. That has made me a little talkative on the subject.

Dagny, you are right (and never boring!) We like ideas and politics and I can't really let things just lay there.

I will claim special, medical privilege (like my handicapped parking sticker). I haven't wanted to get maudlin but I've got to say this: my M.S. diagnosis has exposed me to a new part of marriage. My wife has cheered me up, picked me up and taken on a huge part of the chores we used to share.

It is a huge facet of marriage that doesn't have to do with kids or gender or sex. It's just love. And I cannot deny to someone because he or she is gay. That makes this issue very simple for me. I treasure what I have and will not deny it to others.

Yes Dagny, I think you have spotted what is going on here. Not only has Silence stopped advocating gay marriage on its "individual rights" philosophical merits but so has Andrew Sullivan. And his email writers apparently never tried advocating on merit, starting instead with the emotional and pragmatic arguments. (JK, your first link appears to be out of context. The "at issue" reference is to the war on terror, not gay marriage. I can see where you may be making a link but you should say so.) Does Sullivan really contend that the only arguments against gay marriage are religious? I know that you know better, since you blogged a secular defense of marriage.

I can't say that I fully support a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, but I damn well don't support any government entity establishing such a privilege. I contend GWB was in the same situation before his hand was forced by four jurists in Boston.

Sullivan argues that the failure to sanction marriage of same-sex couples "robs" them of equality. No, I'm sorry, this is incorrect. The fact that they have identical, rather than complementary, anatomy is what "robs" them of equality. But this "robbery" was perpetrated by those very two individuals by CHOICE. (Another point that Sullivan disputes.) No amount of relativistic double-talk is going to change this. Same-sex marriage can never create equality where it doesn't exist, but it can obscure the purpose the institution originally and rightfully has: A mother and father legally and morally responsible for bringing up their children, should they so choose. And no, there never has been a requirement to procreate as a condition of marriage. Please refrain from obfuscating with this.

As for the France argument, it isn't a matter of what France DOES, but what it WON'T do. (They can't be equated.) If habitually "bridge-jumping-off-of" France won't jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, why should we?

JK, the absence of the sanction of state recognized marriage, whether for same-sex or opposite-sex couples, or even for communal groups, does not deny love or liberty to anybody.

This whole idea is borne out of the ridiculous notions acceptance and external validation of self-esteem. Don't worry about what other people think - they don't do it very often.