Fine. I'm standing up for myself now.

What difference does it make to me?

I am flatly against this movement by homosexuals to extend legal civil-law marriage to anyone BUT one man and one woman. Period.

Changing that to permit the legal marriage of same-sex couples, cloaking it under some wooly headed Constitutional ‘equal rights’ clause, is opening a pandora’s box the likes of which this society will never have seen.

You blithely assert that the legal state of marriage has ‘no basis except in religion’ is flat wrong. If you haven’t noticed it is far more fundamentally based in human Biology and Natural Law than EITHER religion OR civil law. While BOTH human institutions have historically recognized the importance of the State of Marriage for the perpetuation of the human species in other than anarchic conditions.

You even allude to your ambivalence about gay marriages because of the issue of ‘adoption’ of children. Then try to say that is a ‘separate issue.’ Oh no its not. Its ONE of the central issues in the matter, because the most fundamental characteristic of historical ‘marriage’ is that it presumes the birth of children fathered by the male partner in the ‘marriage’ and carried to term by the female partner, BOTH of whom then have the legal rights AND legal obligations of married parents over children who are not, until 18 to 21 years later are able, both practically and legally, able to take care of themselves and stand legally on their own as adults. The required time and conditions for the maturation of children is the Reality of Nature, NOT either a civil or religious law fact. But which BOTH have been compelled to deal with.

Coming out of the dim beginnings of human society – where men could and did promiscuously engage in sex, impelled by teresterone (with themselves, or women or other males) without significant consequences to themselves or their social grouping (tribe) but which sexual activity with girls after puberty or women - based on the laws of probability and biological reality, the women they had vaginal intercourse with could and did produce children – a major, life altering consequence for women which were hard pressed from the time of pregnancy to provide for, during pregnancy and after the birth of the child, which might be one of many. And a stupendously important series of events for 'new human lives.' Whose rights ALSO have to be considered.

Biology provided for the perpetuation of the species by production of babies through the sexual activities of one man and one woman. But it did NOT provide for their survival EXCEPT, in the first instance, the feeding of the baby, and its protection from others by the mother. And in the second, by relying on others in their family, group, or tribe. Sometimes, and in some cases, impelled by nature, men ‘fell in love’ with the woman, and became monogamous, and loved ‘his’ children. And provided for them, protected them, and instructed them, particularly the boys, in how to survive physically, and get along in this life. In others they were left to fend for themselves.

At some time, in human SOCIAL evolution, those groupings – tribes, families (related by blood, not law) – chose to hold the OTHER partner to the creation of new human life – the father – ‘accountable’ in a variety of ways for the consequences of his fatherhood, intended or not. And the tribe, particularly its older members who had survived longer than anyone else and had OBSERVED with their intelligence, tribal memories, and ability to communicate through language (which animals did not share) nature, humans, their behaviors AND the consequences of them So arose IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER the institution of ‘marriage’ which damned well was applied to ONE man and ONE woman. (and when the Mormons tried to extend it to Polygamy, the laws precluded it in the United States)

(a lot of people want to dismiss the Bible because it is presumed ONLY to convey religious 'truth.' Well, I find it damned interesting that it ALSO contains one hell of a lot of accumulated human wisdom and lessons about humans, AND 'acceptable' behaviors. Even if you are an aethiest, the Ten Commandments are as good a rule for living as any of the current touchie-feely Television Talk show 'advisors put out)

A WHOLE LONG SET OF LEGAL rights (including property, inheritance, and in more recent years medical and insurance benefits) and OBLIGATIONS (including welfare of children, child support, and tax benefits) among HUNDREDS of others have flown from that legal, religious, understanding of what 'marriage is' and is NOT.

And all these have been rooted in the real world relationships and DIFFERENCES between Men, Women, and Children they bring forth into this world.

Now the whole phenomenon of legal Civil Unions arose because Homosexuals want it both ways. Simply based on declarations or assumptions of ‘love’ for another of the same sex, they want ALL the benefits of legal Marriage which were originally based on all I pointed out above reserved for one man and one woman – whether they married for love, sex, convenience, property, or building a family descendency. THAT RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE UNIQUE!!!!!!! And no OTHER set of human relationships, genetic or voluntary – man or woman and neighbor, aunt, uncle, teen nephew, niece, acquaintance, grandparents, greatgrandparasts, 3d cousins – is, or can be included by ‘marriage.’

Homosexuals, or ‘same sex partners’ want it all. And there is NO basis in law OR in this yammer about ‘Equal Rights’ for allowing same sex ‘couples’ to be legally MARRIED.

If homosexuals want to spend the next 100 years convincing every voter that, simply based on their ‘preferences’ for another person that society ought to legally recognize THAT ‘civil union’ AND all the Separate but Almost Equal Rights, ok let em try. But I resent the hell out of their hijacking Marriage.

But when you ask, what difference does it make to me, I’ll tell you. I, as a taxpayer do NOT want to pay more taxes simply because unmarried couples want to pay less. Or get Base Housing, or preferences in educational benefits. And I’ll be go to hell before I want a grandson or daughter of mine who decides he/she wants to couple with a same sex partner, ‘get married’ and dies, that MY inheritance to HIM/HER should go to his/her ‘same sex partners’ estate and whatever ‘family line the partner has!!!! If my progeny get married as one man and one woman, and I leave an estate to MY blood descendent, then I will certainly accept the rights of survivorship, INCLUDING children passing to the other MARRIED sex partner. But NOT to the partner in a Civil Union one!

A study of San Francisco homosexual scene turned THIS up. (Its in the LA Times)

“ The battle for gay marriage stems in part from the legal efforts of lesbians to retain custody of their children during the 1970s. At the time, gay men were more interested in issues of sexual freedom, Stewart said.
"I remember going around and trying to raise money, and the men would be, 'Why do we care about families? Families are used against us,' " Stewart said. "And then AIDS came along, and it changed everything."
Gay men found themselves barred from their partners' hospital rooms. When partners died, families swept in and took everything they had owned, leaving their lifetime lovers with nothing. Partners who left work to care for sick lovers were not entitled to government benefits.”

IF ANYONE who applies can be ‘married’ to anyone else of the same sex, then I contend the door is wide open to weird forms of polygamy, men ‘marrying’ other men twice or half their age - and since even civil law ‘marriage’ does NOT include a requirement for sexual intercourse between the one man and one woman, I can ‘Marry’ my daughters husband, or profess my ‘love’ to the airmen in my unit, and Marry one of them for cripes sake. Equal Rights my ass!

Its just the modern story of ALL RIGHTS but NO OBLIGATIONS. Sex without consequence, and THEN property rights, inheritance rights, burial rights, family lineage rights WITHOUT the gate guards of traditional legal MARRIAGE! Which at the very least has kept these things orderly enough to be dealt with via marriage laws.

The ORIGINS of ‘Marriage’ were NOT just under the assumption of lifelong ‘lovers’ but of a balancing of Rights and Obligations between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN who by civil marriage enter into a UNIQUE relationship, shared by no other man or woman. (as my youngest son was obliged to accept in China when he ‘married’ Ha Ning there, where the Communist Party had no provisions for ‘Religious Marriage)

So some of you on EoFF can get so open minded your brains fall out on these issues. But not me. I’ve at least gone beyond mantra chanting of “Equal Rights’ or of saying that Marriage is ONLY a Religious state, or a Civil Legal State, but a state entered into by one man and one woman for a thousand biological, practical, legal, religious, public morals, reasons going back into the beginning of human society.

Homosexuals can create their own legal world as far as I am concerned. They have NO INHERENT RIGHT TO MINE!