Of course there will be no constitutional amendment against gay marriage. That's why Bush said he'd endorse it. It ain't gonna happen, but it'll keep his base happy and he wasn't going to get the radical gay vote anyway.

He should have kept quiet about it, but I trust he knows better than I what will work for his re-election which I fervently pray will happen.

Gays who vote against Bush on this issue, are jeopardizing our country for the most ridiculous issue. Why call it marriage? Why not civil unions that mirror the same legal protections.
That could happen quickly without hoopla, but I don't think that is what they want.

They want equivalency. They want two men or two women to be declared the equivalent of a man and woman in a marriage.

That won't happen.

Again, you describe the effort to expand marriage to include gay couples as tantamount to "trying to destroy marriage." Why? Where's the evidence? I can quite assure you that my pro-gay marriage stance has absolutely nothing to do with my hostility to the institution, any more than the sight of gays being wed in San Francisco somehow threatens my own heterosexual union.

Charles:

Why not expand your doctoral program so that anyone who wants one can have one? How would that cheapen yours?

Because a doctorate means something distinct, as does marriage.

Let them have their own institution, one that they fit the definition of, not ours..

Meanwhile, your support for gay marriaghe is of course a function of wanting to tear down the institution, as is all of the Left's mindless egalitarianism, which seeks to award people with things they are manifestly unqualified for....except Harvard degrees...

The only way in which gay marriages are not equivalent to heterosexual ones is that two men cannot have children.

If children are the sticking point for those who oppose gay marriage, then let's directly address the welfare of children, through subsidies, tax credits, or other programmes.

It has nothing to do with children but with homosexuality's basis in mental illness and the undesirability of these relationships from a civilizational standpoint.

Charles -

First, I assume that by evidence you mean "reasonable speculation", as there is little empirical evidence and you can appreciate that many of us may be loath to continue adding (and funding) new chapters to the book of social experiments. (If this framework is good enough for most of theoretical physics, at least String Theory, it must suffice here.)

Second, were there is some empirical data (in Scandinavia) the results are not pleasant, though probably not sufficiently cut and dry to sway you. I do recommend you pick up the Weekly Standard and read Stanley Kurtz's essay(s) on the subject. In very short: It looks like homosexual marriage can be deemed to be BOTH a cause and an effect of the decline in marriage as an institution. (The decline is nonetheless, breath-taking and ominous, which makes you take serious the causality bit.) In Norway, the adoption of homosexual marriage appears to have led to an acceleration of the trend, which he attributes to the discrediting of the Church of Norway as the intelligentsia (social sccientists) beat up on religion (and tradition) in order to win the debate. Also, reasonable speculation must allow for "slippery slope" arguments, and the historical continum of examples does show how "social experiments" cumulate (by validating each subsequent practice) until you can not reverse the tide.

Third, why is it difficult for you to accept that the potential for societal damage can be significant? Damage should be measured as a function of evidence of loss x numbers afflicted x value of loss. Is hard to argue that not being able to marry is a loss for homosexuals, when sociological and biological evolution have not made marriage a primary entitlement for homosexuals, but it has always been cherished by heterosexuals intended on building families. The numbers afflicted on either side speak for themselves, especially when there is historical (yes there is) evidence in Scandinavia (mmariage) and here (data from corporations that allow same-sex partners to parlay of benefits) that the demand for higher-than-cohabitation-unions between same sex partners is very small. Should we piss off the millions of oj's for a "benefit" that even their biggest supporters end up NOT caring for too much?

If your stance on the issue is so rational, then can you provide some evidence that on a cost-benefit basis, same-sex marriage on demand is worth it. If your stance is based on human empathy, can you spare any for those whose religious or cultural upbringings make them loath to accept your view?

Not only do supporters of homosexual marriage suddenly discover the wonders of "state's rights" and the Full Faith and Credit clause. (While ignoring the second half, especially the last four words-- "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof". But in San Francisco and other jurisdictions with publicity hungry county clerks they've rediscovered "nullification."

The ghost of John Calhoun must be resting a bit easier.

"The only way in which gay marriages are not equivalent to heterosexual ones is that two men cannot have children."

Right. And the only difference between a dog and a cat is that a cat cannot bark.

That is, the only difference between real marriage and SSM is the very thing that is the basis for marriage.

First: I am honored that the eminent Dr. Murtagh is hang with us. props to Chuck.

Second: Go read the whole Krauthammer column. It is very good.

Third: I assume that SCOTUS will not bite the bullet on this one. DOMA is facially valid and should be upheld. The Lawrence majority backed itself into a corner on this one and will only be able to extracate itself and prevent permanent institutional damage by not endorsing gay marriage, polygamy, incest, bestiality etc.

Fourth: Bush does not care about a constitutional amendment. The President has no institutional role in that process and it is unlikeley to be completed during his watch, even if he is re-elected. But, he really stuck it to Kerry and Edwards, who can't hide on this issue anymore.

Watched a few pundit shows and the Dems (and media) portrayed the GOP and Bush as creating a wedge issue to help his failing campaign (like the flag burning in '88). At least a few of the GOP reps pointed out that the MA Supreme Court and the SF mayor were the ones to start this whole mess.

ray:

There was a time when that was true.

However, if one wishes to argue that marriage is essential for raising children, then as a society, we must seriously confront the ease with which marriage can be dissolved.

No fault divorce = Gay marriage.

Michael:

Absolutely.