As a happily married gay man in Massachusetts, I can tell my population dwindling state I brought in at least 1 more resident! My husband moved here from Iowa to be with me. I also have 2 sisters, one of whom is married to another woman (and my other sister is married to a man) and it’s my gay sister who has a kid! She and her wife adopted my niece from Cambodia a few years ago (another +1 resident for Massachusetts). Do the folk who seek to deny gays the ‘right’ to marry because we can’t biologically produce offspring also say sterile heterosexuals can’t marry? By their argument, that’s what they’re saying, but I NEVER hear them spout that particular bit of nonsense.

But aside from the population and economic arguments, I am happy to have been born to a state that actually follows it’s state Constitution, that we are all told to honor and respect. It is more than nice to have the same rights as my fellow tax paying heterosexual citizens, though tax time can be a pain - having to figure out both married and single forms for the Feds as frightened and adolescent Legislatures passed that damnable (so called) Defense of Marriage Act. State tax forms feed off the Federal tax forms, so to get the numbers I need to figure them out both ways. Perhaps our elegant new President will address this in the next 4 years.

I do not understand why ‘they’ wanted to defend marriage against love anyway, but I guess stranger things have happened in this country. It was also nice to hear Sean Penn’s acceptance speech last night at the Oscars. I predict the CA Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8 as a revision of the CA state constitution, (it actually took away so-called ‘inalienable rights’ from a class of people) not a simple amendment, and that needs initial action by the state legislature, which it never got. I give thanks our country is moving back towards the middle, after so long shifting to ‘the right’. And nearly all of us have a seat at the table in the middle.

Cornerstone: Marriage is not just about children. It is also about a lifelong bond of love and respect between two people. Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of this? If marriage was simply for children, it would be for better, for worse, for richer and poorer and until the children turn eighteen. Also, look into spell checker. You will not be taken seriously by most people if you cannot spell out your argument correctly. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’m sure you have a brain, but did you notice Casy’s response? He or she didn’t bother refuting your argument, but presumed you were an idiot due to your spelling.

Posted by Cornerstone—

“As soon as a gay couple can procreate without outside help, i.e. not adoption, no medical intervention, no doner (sic) sperm, etc, then gay marraige (sic) should be legal.

Gays should not be discrimated (sic) against but until two females or two males having sex can create a child, then marraige (sic) should not be allowed.”

By the same token, Cornerstone should refrain from posting comments on any website until he/she develops a fully formed brain.

Hurray for New England! Prop. 8 is not going to stop gay marriage in California for long, either.

To Cornerstone:  gay couples cannot procreate. That’s for us “breeders”. But gay couples who want children can and should adopt. Studies show that gay couples tend to be better, more responsible, more caring parents than heterosexuals.

I really don’t see anything wrong with gay marriage. The ones who are against it oppose it for mainly religious reasons. I thought we were supposed to keep politics and religion separate? Seems a bit like racism to me. Denying someone a right that you have because they are different from you is wrong. Please don’t give me the ridiculous argument about it leading to people marrying animals. A person is not an animal. I bet homosexual divorce rates would be on par (or slightly lower) than heterosexuals’ divorce rates.