It was never Judge Vaughn Walker's job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the...

I did not expect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be found unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds. While it's true that the Constitution doesn't define "marriage," the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else. Straight couples have never had to jump through...

Opponents of marriage equality for Gay couples speak passionately about “States Rights” and Federalism and so on … but the fact remains that MOST of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage are bestowed on couples by the FEDERAL government. They number 1,138 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Most significantly they have to do with tax law and Social Security, so it simply wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married once they move to a neighboring state. On the other hand, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states,...

This has got to be one of the most pathetic columns I've ever read.

Ms. Gallagher has been spearheading a national effort to eliminate Gay couples any and all of the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always for granted ... and yet SHE is portraying herself as the victim here? It is to laugh.

DEAR MAGGIE:

First of all, "traditional marriage" isn't going anywhere. Most people are heterosexual: Always have been, always will be. And they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. Allowing Gay couples to participate in that tradition isn't going to change it. For Straight couples, marriage is NOT being "redefined."

Secondly,...

While it's true that the Constitution doesn't define "marriage," the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). This is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.

Religious beliefs are irrelevant, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want....

"What about marriage did your Grandparents
not understand? Where were they wrong Chuck?"

They understood everything they needed to understand, and by extention they weren't wrong about anything. They were heterosexual, so legal wrangling over the issue of marriage was simply not an issue for them. When they met a compatible person of the opposite sex (as is natural for people of heterosexual inclinations), they courted, got engaged, married and built lives and families together. I would never begrudge any Straight person the same opportunities. And eventually, as time goes by and people become more understanding and supportive of their Gay friends and family members, Gay couples will have the same opportunities as...

"My grandparents were from parts of the country where people don't acquire homosexuality."

WOW! This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that sexual orientation was a geographical phenomenon! Thanks for the chuckle, Kevlar!

You write, "If you want to have gay marriage, start your own church with your own god."

I don't think you understand.

1: The only thing a church can do is agree to provide a couple with a ceremony. And even in states like Iowa, where Gay couples are allowed to legally marry, no church has ever been forced to provide a wedding ceremony for anyone. But ultimately this is irrelevant, since churches have nothing to do with the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage.

2: A couple doesn't need to go to a church, synagogue, mosque, or any other house of worship to get legally married. You can find a justice of the peace or even fly out to Las Vegas and get married by an Elvis impersonator if that's...

You claim my grandparents were certain that marriage was a "multi-gender endeavor."

Actually, I suspect the issue never really occurred to them one way or another. All four of them were Straight (i.e. heterosexual), and they grew up and were married in an era in which few people knew any friends, family members, or co-workers who were Gay.

Today, most Americans DO know friends, family members, and co-workers who are Gay, and with that awareness has come increased acceptance and support. It has nothing to do with court decisions or some insidious "agenda," but rather because Gay individuals and couples are living their lives openly and with integrity. So in a way, younger people today know quite a bit that my four...

You ask why folks "with homosexuality" want
to enter into a straight institution?

If marriage was nothing more than a church ceremony that our secular govenment had nothing to do with, this wouldn't be an issue. But the fact remains that all levels of government have entwined themselves in marriage as a civil contract. The federal government automatically confers over 1,100 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities on couples as soon as they get married, regardless of whether or not they have or even desire children.

You need to ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples take for granted, when we are unable...