Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage
 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas..._sjc_go_ahead/

There is a joint session of the Massachusetts House and Senate today, so the timing of this ruling could mean a showdown today.

I can't wait until some of these couples start to visit some red states and assert their rights under the full faith and credit clause. Watching all of our politicians posture will be pure entertainment.

Would somebody please provide a compelling argument opposing gay marriage that is not based on religion?

I haven't seen one myself. I don't have a problem with my church not marrying gays, but the state shouldn't get involved in a religious fight.

I don't like the term marriage. In and of itself. I feel like this b/c marriage as a term is one of the sacraments of roman catholic church, and since I was never catholic, what I will have with my future wife will differ from a ceremony blessed by the pope, or his rep. So, just in general, I don't care what people call their releationship, because they're probably wrong about the terminology anyway.

The thing is civil marriage has been recognized for years, so it's hard to get upset about the term now. I'd be all for having civil unions and religious marriages... For EVERYONE.

Yup.

Valkyrie, you could ask that question about an awful lot of issues these days.

[ This space intentionally left blank ]

Compelling argument, sure, the rights of states to act as they wish. I think it should be left to the states, but there will be a problem with the FFC clause. Of course, the last time a group of states significantly argued for states rights we saw what happened...

Come on Mitt!
Romney for President, 2008

I agree that it should be left to the states, I don't think the FFC clause truly hurts state's rights. The clause is not exactly new.

I'm not sure I like how my state will handle it, but as they fell short of their little petition I'm not complaining, yet.

A constitutional admendment to ban gay marriage is stupid as is one to ban flag burning, but that's a whole other kettle o' fish

Provide a compelling argument in support of a state law banning gay marriage that is not based on religion.

States rights is a completely compelling argument. Just as the Supreme Court has ruled several times that localities should be able to decide what is should/should not be allowed in the public arena, I believe states should be allowed to do the same based on their constituents beliefs. Why do localities ban obscenity? For several reasons, such as degradation of women, the idea that it misinforms children about how relationships should be, etc... I believe that state sponsored gay marriage would put a governmental stamp of approval on homosexual relationships, relationships that logic and nature tell us are counterproductive to the future of the human race. My personal wish would be that marriage had remained entirely church sponsored, but as it is, I think states and their citizens should be allowed to decide whether or not they think gay marriage is appropriate in their state.

So you don't think people of any other religion should be able to get married?

I think that this statement is based on your religious views.

Being counterproductive for the human race isn't religious, it's fact. Two women or two men can't reproduce. That would scientifically be considered counterproductive. I still don't think it's a good enough reason to ban gay marriage, however, as there will be plenty of other people to reproduce and humans are far from being an endangered species.