Because, Jason, as the saying goes: the law is a teacher. Gay rights activists know this very well, which is why they are pushing this so hard.

Other people who have given this less thought allow themselves to be cowed by condescending questions like, "Did YOU marry just because the government said you should? is thay the basis for your marriage?"
Well, it may not be the basis for my marriage, but What Is Legal is the only guide that a lot of people have. What did Anthony Weiner say when he was caught? "I did nothing illegal."

One more thing. Activists who insist that this change will not affect religious liberties are just lying.

Individual hetero marriages may stay intact, but the public understanding of what marriage is WILL change, and that in turn affects the rest of society. When all of the other changes to the nuclear family came into being (no-fault divorce, donor daddies, welfare-check daddies, shacking up, extra-marital sex), we were assured by the avant garde that nothing bad would happen; instead, in each case we've reaped the whirlwind.

Without being able to roll back the harmful change, I might add. When same-sex marriage proves to be harmful to society, then what? Will we be able to outlaw it again? All signs point to No.

Hetero marriage means that the foundational institution of society MUST include one member of each sex. Male and female is not fungible and not expendable. Yin and yang are cosmic complementarities that constitute a whole; yin/yin and yang/yang cannot be substituted.

It is tragic and painful that 1-3% of adults cannot bond sexually with the opposite sex, but the tragedy of a minority is not sufficient justification to redefine all societies' bedrock institution.

Those who support same-sex marriage do so primarily because they don't want to be bigots or they don't want to be unfair or mean. Again, that's not sufficient justification to obviate the fundamental male/female dynamic that currently defines marriage.

If power plants have to submit environmental impact statements before tearing up sod, why shouldn't the SSM proponents be required to do the same? After all, they're the aggressors in this round of the culture war: the burden of proof is on them.

Legistaltion instituting "gay marriage" is a grotesque abuse of government power. Its purpose is to normalize homosexuality, to obliterate the moral distinction between heterosexuality in the context of monogamous marriage and homosexuality in whatever context we find it. Our culture has an ancient, well developed moral tradition. Ordered liberty depends on that moral tradition and disapproval of homosexual conduct is an integral part of it. When the government acts to subvert our moral tradition it projects itself deeply into the private sphere, usurping power to a degree inconsistent with a free society. That's what a "government takeover of marriage" means. The authors are dead on target.

"Gay marriage" is pure, malicious cultural vandalism. Anyone who doesn't actually want to destroy our free society who falls for the gay drumbeat is a fool.

Exactly. I am happy to see that my own thoughts on this are not alone.

1. Neither government nor religion invented marriage. It is a practice of the people. Any governmental change in its fundamental aspects is a violation of the constitutionally specified right of The People. Thus, even if the NY law passes, I would call it federally unconstitutional. A referendum on the subject, if passed, would be OK; but I note that when the California referendum banning same-sex marriage passed, the federal courts ruled against it! It's time to re-evaluate Marbury versus Madison.

2. Want polls? How about at the ballot box? Put it up as a referendum. If NY doesn't have the process, the let the state government first add a referendum process, then use it.

3. Yes, the GOP will pay. I don't vote in NY. However, I have already prepared a "Certificate of Cowardice" which I will mail to the state's senate leader, if the same-sex marriage bill passes. The certificate features a cartoon of a frightened elephant standing on a chair, to avoid a mouse.

Note to Republicans: A lot of Americans don't particularly like your militarism and tie-ins with the NRA and other rah rah groups, any more than they like the Democrat tie-ins to certain radical causes. One reason McCain lost in 2008 was a general distaste for militaristic attitude, and distaste for using Vietnam as a stepping stool to the presidency. The same is likely to apply in 2012, for the nominee. Yet many voters will put up with the militarism if there's something else in it. Among these things is courage against socially destructive forces. If that front is not held, then there's much less reason to vote Republican, and the party will become a permanent minority endorsed by ranchers, tax accountants, and wannabe libertarians.

I am a gay, pro-military, pro-life Republican. I have family serving in Afghanistan and was a big supporter of GWB (both times). I am struck by the empty rhetoric surrounding the issue of marriage rights for gays and lesbians. We work hard. We pay taxes. We pay our mortgages. We volunteer. We get driver's licenses. We attend church services. Yet the government will not give us the right to marry. We are not asking for acceptance from people who don't like our lifestyle. We are not asking for churches to validate our relationships. Plain and simply, we are asking the government to afford us the same rights given to other taxpayers. The religious arguments don't make sense to me since atheists can marry. The tradition arguments don't make sense to me because some traditions like slavery and female circumcision in African countries sometimes need changing. Have there been detrimental effects in Mass.? Doubtful, or we would read about them. I stand with Dick Cheney: a proud conservative who supports gay marriage.

"We are not asking for acceptance from people who don't like our lifestyle."

But you are -- perhaps not you, personally, but that is the effect of what you ask. Look for proof in California and Massachusetts.

California offers all the benefits of marriage in its "domestic partnership law." That isn't enough for the SSM activists, who call such a legal compromise "separate but equal." They want the word "marriage" because it requires the rest of us to appear as if we not only accept but celebrate.

In Massachusetts, as soon as SSM was imposed by the courts, grade-school curricula began to be modifed so that little children were taught not only "acceptance" but "how to." If you can stomach it, listen to this justification made by a homosexual teacher who taught her fifth-graders about Lesbian sex toys. She directly ascribes her curriculum changes to the imposition of SSM and says there is nothing parents or anyone else can do about it:

"Massachusetts Schools Weigh Gay Topics"

External Link 

"The definition of marriage is as "fair" as the fact that you and your spouse cannot produce natural children."

And that's where your argument seems to fall apart. Not all heterosexual marriages end in children. If an 80-yr-old man and woman want to get married, they can. They can't have children, but they CAN get married. So can young infertile couples. Should everyone who wants to get married now be required to have fertility tests? See how fast that argument falls apart?

Having children and having the ability to produce children does not define marriage in our culture. I hate this flawed logic. It is a potential facet of marriage, but to use that as the defining feature of what a marriage is paints it as a loveless chattle producing institution that makes me sad for your spouse if you are married.

"Not all heterosexual marriages end in children."

How about this compromise: We'll require infertile or childless couples to annul their marriages AND ban same-sex couples from raising children.

Happy?

Thank you *so much* for clarifying. I wasn't sure it was inevitable, but now that you have declared it so, I don't have to worry my head about it anymore. Thanks again!