In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

HappyStretchedThin Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:13 AM
We are not limited to your imagination when you claim something as the "only" reason for anything. Govt DOES have a stake in protecting the sanctity of the principles of personal property on which all freedom is based. Only a fool would claim questions of family and questions of property don't intertwine, and that the govt isn't required to assure a level playing field when family and property rights collide. The govt sanction of marriage does NOT have to be federal, but it DOES also protect against abuses of relationships and prevents domestic violence (to the extent that it can: punishing cases of abuse whenever they occur), against incest, underage pregnancy, etc.
Reed42 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 10:19 AM
Propert rights can and are handled just fine with out marriage. Marriage is convient way to grant certain property rights, but not exclusive.
HappyStretchedThin Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:15 AM
You may claim these things are all punishable separately via criminal statues, but the licencing role of the state still DOES prevent some abuses, and gives the state an appropriate role of registrar in case conflicts arise.

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...