The next time conservatives complain about the DOJ fighting terrorism properly, they can think about where the money's being spent - on a bigoted, outdated declaration that denigrates Americans.

Smithers-Jones, the problem is that you want to change the underlying "information infrastructure" - that is, the rules about what a family means - in ways that will hurt MY family.

And for what? So that you can dodge your obligation to the woman you intend to use to make a baby? Excuse me, she's not a woman, she's a "gestational carrier" - a THING, to be used up and thrown away by wealthy men who want to play at being "daddies" without regard for the well-being of the poor little motherless kid.

Who will be expected to parrot how happy happy happy he is to be motherless, because apparently the gay community is incapable of empathy or something.

Here is one way that redefining marriage hurts my family: by changing the rules to exclude biological kinship, redefining a "family" as a group of individuals designated BY THE STATE as being kin (as opposed to recognizing that kin is kin and two men who are pretending to have "fathered" a baby together are not, and never will be, kin), you are saying that my family will only be a family if the state says so, instead of recognizing that a family is recognized by the family tree, and that the power of the state to reorganize kinship is limited ONLY to cases where it is justified by the needs of a child in crisis. (Gay marriage would change that rule: the child's needs would become last, not first.)

Here's another way in which redefining marriage hurts my family: by changing the rules regarding the idea that "family" comes with obligations, you introduce a new rule: "Family obligations are irrelevant, trivial, and optional."

The problem with this is that "gay marriage" would move from allowing you the OPTION of believing that family obligations are optional, to actually PUNISHING people who teach that family obligations are sacred.

Gay men want to have a baby but want to skip the parts about doing what is right for the child and the child's other parent. They want the rights but not the responsibilities.

Lesbians want to have a baby but want to skip the part about doing what is right and the child's other parent. They want the rights but not the responsibilities.

There is nothing about being gay that changes how a baby is made. If you make a child with another person, then you have an obligation to that person - an obligation has nothing to do with whether you "love" that person. A divorced man still has obligations to recognize that his child is entitled to a relationship with his mother.

By changing the rules regarding whether obligations are optional, you aren't just changing the rules for gays.

Publius that is an easy question to answer - the adopted child becomes a member of the family tree with a father and a mother. The adopted child takes the name of the father or father/mother combination if you're hip.

If action isn't taken, marriage will end as we know it - that's how we are affected. This issue has been framed as a "rights" issue. However, alternate lifestyles are many times (if not all - the nature vs. nurture debate is too big for this post) a choice. People can't "choose" to be discriminated against. We are led to believe it's never a choice - which is not true.

With that being said, if you allow marriage for people based on their inability to procreate, denying marriage of any group of consenting adults is both subjective and arbitrary. The bottom line is this: either marriage is a union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation, or not. And if not, it would be discriminatory to not allow anyone of legal age to marry. When people marry people, the benefits of marriage will cease to exist.

Allowing gay marriages will have no effect on heteros*xual marriages. Just like counterfeit money has no effect on real money.

What about a married couple with one person who is infertile and one who is fertile? What obligations do they have toward the sperm/egg donor? How do they do "what is right for the child and the child's other parent?"

What about any family other than a man and a woman and one or more of their biological children? Second marriages? Remarriage after the death of a spouse? Adoption?

LinUSA's comments are well taken, in that they clearly demonstrate the absence of clear thinking on a factual basis that policy choices should be based upon. I've read his comments 3 times and can't make any sense of them.

The money spent to defend this law is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The notion that civil marriage is stricly for the purpose of procreation is simply laughable. People marry all the time with not intention to procreate or often the ability to procreate. Marriage is simply a contract between two people to live their lives together as a family. The state should support this regardless of the gender of the parties. Gay marriage is coming. Resistance is futile.