Here's an issue I think might unite our ranks more than divide us (just guessing): gay marriage.

Argument for gay marriage:
The union of marriage is a special designation, both legally and emotionally, and to exclude one group on the basis of sexual preference violates an individual's civil right to equal protection under the law.  This was expressed by the California Supreme Court in the In re Marriage Cases in which it stated that "the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."

Argument against gay marriage:
The institution of marriage is several times older than the United States and imbued in it are the core traditions and values of our society.  All people are created equal, regardless of your views on homosexuality, but marriage is not a civil right but a recognition of an ancient union, symbolic of the reproductive union by which the human race survives.  People can differ on the establishment of civil unions and other legal structures to provide gay couples with the same legal privileges as married ones, but the idea of expanding the very definition of such a foundational institution as marriage forgets its original purpose and forces it to include as right and equal a practice that many reasonable people find either immoral or inferior to the traditional union of man and woman.

Another possible solution (my argument):
Many people consider marriage to be a sacred union of man and woman, while many others feel rightly stigmatized and injured by being excluded from an institutional so legally and culturally ingrained in our history.  I say that, like so many things, the government has no business in our choice of partners or what we choose to call it.  I believe the only way to offer equal protection to all people while still preserving traditional marriage to those that care so deeply about it is to get the government out of the marriage business entirely, in one of two ways.  Either:

1. Abolish all laws related to unions of all kinds (unlikely, though workable).  Legal obligations related to divorce and spousal rights could be supplanted by simple contract law between the people (a "nuptial agreement" instead of a "prenuptial agreement"), and the courts would have jurisdiction to enforce those obligations.  Child support would need some special exception to prevent child abandonment, but we already have laws in place for such things even without the presence of marriage.
    
2. Issue a generic "union license" to any two people that show up at the court with an application, with no restrictions on how many one may have or who may apply.  Current laws related to joint taxes, parental and spousal rights would need to be adapted, but would largely remain intact.  The difference is that the government would no longer have a role in what the union is called.  That would be left to private institutions both religious and secular.  The Catholic Church would be free not to recognize homosexual unions, in which case the prospective gay couple could go up the street to the New Rainbow Church and have their union consecrated there.  With the government out of the label business, completely atheist couples would also retain the ability to obtain their "union license" and participate in any or no ceremony as they see fit, calling themselves "married" either way.

This issue is near and dear to my heart for a number of personal reasons, not the least of which is my being born and raised in Oklahoma, where we now have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and for as much as I might disagree with its presence, I recognize and respect the sincerity and passion of the people who advocate for it.  I strongly oppose the government legislating morality in any fashion, but I think it can be all too easy these days to dismiss such people as intolerant religious kooks or backwater hicks that would still own blacks as slaves if they could.  I can tell you honestly that the vast majority of gay marriage opponents are neither of these things -- whether based in religion or nature, many people truly believe homosexuality to be morally wrong the same way the rest of us reject murder or theft as wrong.

In making this case (yes, I know... I've gone long again), I'm going out of my way to stand up for the other side because I think on sensitive civil rights-related issues such as these, it's far too easy to reject the other side immediately (and often viciously).  That kind of attitude by either side cuts the lines of communication and makes real progress slow, painful or just non-existent.  I also do it because I confidently suspect the vast majority of people here will be proponents of gay marriage in one form or another, and I feel it's important for everyone to understand where the other side is coming from.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

I really don't care who marries whom.  After being married, I think the institution is highly over-rated.  It's really more of an economic contract between 2 people.  I think the gay community should be careful what they wish for -- they might get it.  Being married is like taking it up the rear without benefit of a reach around or lube.  Then again, that might be attractive to a subgroup of gays.

That's sometimes the way I see it, though I've never been married so I only base that on what I see with all the failed marriages around me. What if the marriage doesn't work out? How bad would you feel as a homosexual to have participated in thousands of parades and petitions to get marriage legalized, only to find that your marriage was more short-lived than many heterosexual marriages?

I refuse to believe that there isn't a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples getting married. Heterosexual marriage has a long history of culture and tradition behind it, and has the support of many religions to boot. Homosexual marriage is no more than legal validation of what some couples believe to be love, which I don't think deserves the title of marriage. In fact, I don't believe that any marriage not made for the sake of raising children or following religion deserves the title of marriage, regardless of sexual preference, because true love should already have solidifying aspects beyond what the government can grant.

By all means, love whoever you want. But don't pretend that a marriage is going to truly solidify your love or fix any problems with your relationship. Homosexuals don't have any more reason to marry than non-religious and non-childbearing couples do.

I realize from the sound of your post that you're not a huge fan of marriage in general, but I know that many people both straight and gay would disagree with your assessment of the emptiness of the "institution."

Pretty much, yeah.

I'd have to sit down with a list of all marriage benefits to really compare and think it through, but yeah.

Kind of like an asterik next to Barry Bonds name in the hall of fame books. "You're married, but...not married."

 

 

Why should marriage be limited to two people? 

... and nobody gets to bogart the pooty.

 

Again, having the country built on the Bible to an extent (one nation under "God" and all that), marriage is defined a between "a" man and "a" woman, "a" meaning one.