>>(tip of the hat to Raymond Carver for influencing the thread title)
>>
>>Gay rights issues are at the top of the Supreme Court docket and the news. It may be close to epitomizing polarizing issues, never the twain shall meet. Call me a dreamer but I think this is a pretty bright group that can discuss it constructively.
>>
>>Here are the ground rules.
>>
>>1. It is not a debate in which one side wins and one side loses. Think of it instead as a discussion in which both sides gain a greater understanding of differing POVs.
>>
>>And I realize already I am trying to impose ground rules. One of the things I liked about the Abraham Lincoln depicted in the movie "Lincoln" (a movie which in some ways I did not like at all) was that he listened to and tried to learn from people he did not agree with on basic terms. So let's behave like intelligent, respectful adults and talk about it, in whatever way you like.
>
>I think as a matter of social justice it is a no-brainer. The only argument against same-sex marriage is basically one based on perceived religious taboo.
>
>As a matter of law, it would seem clear - civil marriage is contract law. The state may have a compelling interest to limit that contract to two people - for legal simplicity if nothing else - but the gender of the 2 people should not be a factor as long as they meet other requirements of age etc as the state does have an interest in protecting minors from exploitation.
>
>I would think conservatives, particularly, should see this. (at least those who do not wear a "conservative" mantle as a cover for a religious agenda)
>
>The religious sacrament of marriage - an entirely different matter - should be unregulated by the state. A religion refusing to recognize same-sex civil marriage is perfectly fine, just as the Catholic church has been free for years to not recognize the remarriage of divorced persons who have not appropriately bribed the church for an "annulment" or purchased some other form of indulgence.
>
>Old-school Mormons or Moslems or other religions who want to sanction some form of polygamy or polyandry should be free to do so with the understanding that the marriage has no civil legal standing.
>
>The Defense of Marriage Act is an affront to reason and liberty.

In a nutshell, remove the problem, remove the State, deregulate marriage. ;)