Gary: Same-sex marriage IS “illegal” in Michigan– as it is in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, VERMONT (which has civil unions), etc., etc., etc. Every state but Mass. and maybe Hawaii (??)… But you made mention of a BAN. No such ban exists. A proposed constitutional “ban” was just on the house on floor, and was (luckily) defeated. Ohio, however, does have a ban. And that’s what I thought you may have been thinking of.

Actually we were just talking about this and I think it the original text was more like ‘gay marriage is not legal” (not illegal) just like it’s “not legal to stick bubble gum on my forehead” (but it’s not illegal either). I can’t find the original reference. I knew the 2/3 failure (it’s part of why I was confused).

“The government should provide a system of social contracts between two (or more) individuals going into a legal agreement.” I agree totally with you Jason. That’s part of what I was trying to focus on with the benefits and such.

Now I’m looking around more and found “Since (same-sex marriage) is already illegal in Michigan, I have deep cynicism about what this initiative is all about,” Granholm said. http://c-n.gannettonline.com/election2004/gns/20040224-40238.html

And – ‘Gov. Jennifer Granholm was pleased at the outcome.

Michigan does NOT have laws that ban same-sex marriage. You are probably thinking of Ohio. A recent effort by Republicans (and far too many Democrats) to have a referendum on amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage BARELY failed (six votes short of the 2/3 majority needed); luckily.

The argument is not about whether or not same-sex or opposite-sex couples should WANT to be married– it is about whether or not they should be allowed to be married.

Furthermore, it is a question of constitutionality. The first sentence of the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. I have heard VERY FEW anti-same-sex marriage arguments articulated that do not use religion as their basis.

In addition, I would make the argument that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage actually infringe upon the religious liberty of those churches, such as the Unitarian Church, that wish to perform same-sex marriages. The government is recognizing Catholicism over Unitarianism by granting Catholic marriages credibility that isn’t there for Unitarians. That is patently wrong.

The solution is this: Marriage as a government constitution is abolished and left ONLY to churches, to be separate from state, as mandated in the constitution. Churches are free to marry whomever they desire, and NOT marry whoever they choose not to. The government should provide a system of social contracts between two (or more) individuals going into a legal agreement. Period.