Children adopted by qualified Gay couples are condemned to nothing except a stable, loving home. Your position would leave these children languishing in foster care or ophanages, kicked to the street at age 18 by a system you have rigged to support your anti-Child position.

People do note "have" homosexuality. They are. And yes, a committed Gay couple are equal to a committed hetero couple. As proven by many studies, the caliber of the parents, not the gender, is what matters. I suggest you look up Zach Wahls on YouTube for a touch of how straight kids are raised right by same-sex couples

Nimocks is in for a painful election in November. The results in North Carolina matched exactly what Nate Silvers (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/the-future-of-same-sex-marriage-ballot-measures/) predicted based on a regression analysis of votes and polls over the past 15 years. The anti-Gay side squeaked through in California in 2008, and Maine in 2009. You lost the Constitutional Convention vote in Connecticut in 2008, and the first Arizona vote in 2006. Nate's analysis suggests that Voters in Washington, Minnesota, Maryland, and Maine will reject Nimock's position in November. He's been spot on for years in analyzing statistics, and will be so again this fall.

Marriage creates kinship (legal relationship, "next of kin" status) WIth polygamy, you would ahve two next of kin. You can't have two "next of kin" in a legal system that assumes equality of the partners, so polygamy is offensive to our notions of respect for the individual. The recent fundy LDS scandals inthe southwest prove that polygamy is inherently abusive to women, something republicans has in their first platform in 1854.

Because polygamy has demonstrable harms to societal well being. It is inherently abusive to women. THis is well-documented historically, and the recent Fundy LDS scandals in the southwest US show that still applies today. The reason this abusive nature can't and won't ever change is because at the center of a polygamous relationship is a powerful man, controlling less powerful women. Also, unless we experience equal numbers of powerful women who want multiple less powerful men, polymany will produce a gender imbalance in the marriage pool. Lots of poor, unpowerful men who can't get a wife, or even a date means nothing but trouble as their hormones take off without the domesticating benefits of marriage.

Bill - your ad hominem attack is noted, as is your ignorance of all things. Now go away. Nate Silver is a statistics major who write the fivethirtyeight blog for the new york times.

Not according the Nate Silvers' analysis, and he was spot-on with the actual results in N.C. Look fro 4 stunning defeats for Maggie and NOM on November 6.

40 years ago (probably a lot less) the voters of North Carolina would have approved a law banning inter-racial marriage. Even last year, a PPP poll showed "a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal"

The North Carolina vote was exactly what Nate Silvers' regression analysis projected. He also projects majority support for Marriage Equality in Minnesota, Maine, Washington, and Maryland. This means that Maggie will have a very unhappy night on November 6, when four states reject her anti-Family, exclusionary view of America.

The North Carolina vote almost exactly matched the predictions that Nate Silver made with his statistical regressions, from the fivethirtyeight blog. I predict the voters in Maine pass the marriage equality law that is on the ballot in November, and voters in Washington and Maryland uphold their legislatures' passing of marriage equality, and in Minnesota voters will reject the DOMA on the ballot.