In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

du2 Wrote: Nov 04, 2012 3:04 PM
It should be noted, that it's not the gay community demanding a 'genderless' society. The call is for genderless EQUALITY. Traditional marriage as anyone is trying to define it, gender only mattered when women were subjects to their husbands. Not that BOTH PARTNERS have equal standing in the law, and as individuals, gender isn't an ENFORCEABLE standard between the couple. This also gives the opportunity to the intersexed and the transgendered to marry. Ambiguous gender is a fact of life and the PHYSICAL gender of a spouse, only matters to those in the relationship, and shouldn't to anyone who isn't. That's just pragmatism addressing reality.
du2 Wrote: Nov 04, 2012 3:08 PM
Typo, that should read NOW that both partners have equal standing in the law and ARE essentially without LEGAL gender that the gov't can assign, then there isn't much point in keeping gay couples from marrying on that basis. This is NOT at the expense of op sex marriage, any more than non parent married couples exist at the expense of parental married couples.
It really doesn't make any sense to keep custodial committed gay couples FROM being self reliant, responsible to each other and their children. Who ELSE is going to be? And how are THEIR children less deserving of the stability of married parents than OTHER children?

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge...