I think that’s the point I was trying to make.

As to the arguement that gay marragie will lead to polygamy. I see no reason why it wouldn’t.

Marriage is a contract between two parties, and necessarily so. If one dies or becomes very ill, the other gets to make the decisions, inherit the property, get custody of the children, etc. This is all possible because the order is clear: one becomes incapacitated, the other takes over. And it all works equally well irrespective of the gender of the two involved.

But make it a relationship of three or more people, then the wheels come flying off. Spouse A becomes incapacitated, and spouses B and C disagree over how things should be handled. Spouse A dies, and spouse B and C now inherit the estate (assuming no will with explicit instructions). How do you resolve this? It’s much more complicated, and there’s no compelling reason for the state to get into such sticky messes.

Which isn’t to say that a two-person marriage can’t get sticky (just look at Schiavo), but the state already has its nose in there. From a purely legalistic perspective, there’s no legal benefit conferred by marriage (custody, inheritance, medical decisionmaking, etc.) that doesn’t apply just as well to a same-sex couple as it would to an opposite-sex couple.

No.

“Yeah, I pretty much agree.
It’s a contract. The number of parties involved should be irrelevant.
And it’s a state contract, the Feds shouldn’t be involved.
And other states are bound to honor it.”

As far as the nature arugment is concerned, i think it is a poor argument because of what cowboy bob pointed out. Animals are ‘animals’ and we should be better than that.

tgirsch and uncle,
As to the arguement that gay marragie will lead to polygamy. I see no reason why it wouldn’t. The same arguments can be used (and probably will). To me polygamy is just as wrong as gay marragie, but if we allow one, i see no reason why we should not allow both.

Also if you were a morman and you say gay people getting married, I would be really upset, and I might go start my own state….errr.

As to the beastily argument. I agree that is dumb.

In fact, doesn’t one of the amendments specifically say that discrimination based upon gender is illegal? And isn’t denying a contract application based upon the gender of the application sexual discrimination?

And my opinion that other states are required to honor a same-sex marriage is based upon the same condition that states recognize a mixed-gender marriage.

Until I do, I support gay marriage.

And it’s a state contract, the Feds shouldn’t be involved. And other states are bound to honor it.

Based on what? A creative reading of Article IV, Section I, that exaggerates the import of the first sentence while ignoring the second altogether?

In my quick perusal of the constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States, I see no right to marry enumerated.

So? The federal government is a government of enumerated powers. The State of Tennessee is not. The proper test at the state level is whether either constitution says the state cannot get involved. If neither constitution says anything about marriage at all, the State of Tennessee can do as it pleases.

Hell, social conservatives don’t want heterosexual married couples to have that authority. Witness the Schiavo incident.

Aside from that, I’m surprised nobody brought up the “gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality” argument.