Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 Posted: 11:53 AM EST (1653 GMT)

excerpt:
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

This is certainly a victory for freedom, justice, equality, and... ::considers adding something comical:: .. the good of humanity as a whole.
Of course, many people are unhappy with this... It saddens me, but what're you gonna do.

As someone who is very familiar with this issue, and who supports civil unions, I think they went to far.

It's a "adjustment time" thing. I think the "separate but equal" civil union is a good way for gay couples to have the legal rights they need while making the whole thing palatable to conservatives who have a huge to-may-to/to-mah-to issue. After some time under a civil union system, renaming the thing as "marriage" would be less controversial.

Catering to the masses? Well, yes, in some sense. Since substantive rights are the real key, nomenclature only has an "ego" factor really.

And, pushing too hard too fast never bears fruit. In this instance, what will likely happen is that the constitutional convention in Mass will decide to make marriage only for 1 man and 1 woman. A court won't be able to overturn that. As for the gays that get married between now and 2006, their marriages will simply become null and void, the same as if they were brother/sister or any other pairing not recognized under the law.

So, by being too active, the court has done Massachusetts gays no favor.

What's really odd is that the legal case decided by the same court indicated the civil union may be enough and focused on substantive rights. I'll have to read the new opinion to see where they changed their minds.

[ 02-04-2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs...iage20304.html
_______________________________________
I disagree. I think it is mostly a nomenclature issue. If tt creates a second, inferior class of citizens, then so do the words "man" and "woman." It's like me claiming a constitutional right to mark "female" on social security papers and college admissions. That's silly. I have no such right. Men and women are equal, and the descriptive nominatives "man" and "woman" provide factual information about the person. I don't see why the same could not be said for "civil marriage" and "civil union."

[ 02-04-2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I tried to put paragraph breaks in that frikkin block quote, but it just ain't happening. Click on the link if it hurts your eyes cause I'm tired of messin with the damned thing. :mad:

When will polygamy be legal again? I mean surely if two people want to be married, they should be? Isn't that the Mass. precedent? What does it matter if the other already has a spouse! Fair's fair! If two people want to be commited to life who are we to stop them!

BRING BACK POLYGAMY!

(Would make my life easier.. :D )

(actually what am I saying? it would probably make it harder..)

Well, in some countries it never went out of fashion. :D

Besides, what have gay marriage to do with polygamy?

Well, in some countries it never went out of fashion. :D

Besides, what have gay marriage to do with polygamy? </font>[/QUOTE]The same thing is has to do with man on dog action according to the Right.

In the real world, absolutely nothing [img]smile.gif[/img]

Man on dog? That's similar to goat on woman, right?

Well, in some countries it never went out of fashion. :D

Besides, what have gay marriage to do with polygamy? </font>[/QUOTE]Well we're throwing open the definition of marriage. Why can't two men, or two women, or a man and women marry a third or fourth party? Why should marriage be preclusive? Two people commiting for life publicly right? What does it matter if they're committed to another? I mean we're opening up the definition now right? Why stop here?

In any case, you can't stop language. We'll just use words that describe procreating couples, as distinct from non-procreating couples.

At the end of the day, a healthy man and woman have to go to extra-ordinary lengths to avoid having children.

Same sex couples on the other hand, have to go to extra-ordinary lengths to HAVE children.

Kind of says it all really.

Equality is a myth, but blame it on nature.

Well, in some countries it never went out of fashion. :D

Besides, what have gay marriage to do with polygamy? </font>[/QUOTE]The same thing is has to do with man on dog action according to the Right.

In the real world, absolutely nothing [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Oh really?

Scenario. Man married lesbian woman, who wants to marry her lesbian lover but remain married to her husband.

Same sex marriage is allowed, so why can't she express commitment to one person per gender?

The pandoras box is open Rokken. It's open season. Bring back polygamy!

Yorick, I don't think ability to procreate is a reasonable factor to make any decision on. Many men and women in hetero or homo relationships are not able to procreate, and this is not a basis for marriage rights in any state.

On polygamy I note I've posted regarding that argument before and shan't do it a third/fourth time. Suffice to say that defining a marriage or union as a "coupling" of two people is distinct and separate from defining what genders may "couple." Also, suffice to say the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of polygamny, and it is "right out."

You mention a "scenario." Let me give you a scenario that you can find examples of throughout the country (and I know of one in particular in VT). Man and woman marry. Man has sex change to woman, but state/fed will not allow a change of gender on state/social security rolls. So now we have two seemingly women married, but one is considered to legally be a male. These two people can legally adopt a child jointly (being, legally, man and woman, despite REALITY) while a regular lesbian couple (comprised of two natural women) cannot do so. Is there a disconnect there? I think so.

I think it certainly is. Given perfect health certain couples can procreate and others can't. This should be the basis on whether a couple can have children or not. A 90 year old heterosexual couple, even in perfect health cannot reproduce. They should be deemed unable and unfit to raise a child because they will die, leaving the child parentless.

A man and a man cannot produce a child under any circumstances. Biologically impossible no matter how perfect their bodily functions are.

Basically I am looking at a society creating some sort of "break", some sort of encouragement for couples that create children, to create full siblinged families, minisocieties that instill love and community in the context of blood relational unity.

We could call it marriage, but seeing as politics mean that word has been watered down and now includes other elements, I shall look for new language and new ways of encouraging family building, as I have found it leads to greater mental health in those involved in the said functioning "mini society".

Let's call it a blood family. Procreationally united couple. The words are irrelevent. The reality that every same sex couple has to face - however painfully it may be - is that they are NOT on the same biological footing as procreationing couples. No matter how much you change the law, how much you use wording, how much reality you seek to avoid, it just delays acceptance of the inevitable.

Unlike a procreating couple, the same sex couple will never, no matter how healthy, look into the eyes of a human that contains a bit of them, and a bit of their partner, and was brought into existence through performing the ultimate intimate expression of their love.

Avoiding this painful reality only leads to denial and possible problems with mental health. As usually happens when we avoid reality and seek to avoid the painful truth of a situation.

Therein is the frightful rub. Should we test couples to see if they are able to procreate and grant/deny marriage licenses on that basis? I think not. However, if a male/female couple that is incapable (and knowingly incapable) of having children are allowed to marry (as they are) any argument (like yours) regarding procreation ability as a qualifier for marriage should be seen as discriminiatory and/or misguided. Simple as that.

Therein is the frightful rub. Should we test couples to see if they are able to procreate and grant/deny marriage licenses on that basis? I think not. However, if a male/female couple that is incapable (and knowingly incapable) of having children are allowed to marry (as they are) any argument (like yours) regarding procreation ability as a qualifier for marriage should be seen as discriminiatory and/or misguided. Simple as that. </font>[/QUOTE]Timber you're missing the point. It's not the ability to procreate, nor the couples state of health, but the ability to procreate given perfect health.

A 30 year old woman, all things in order, is perfectly able to carry children. A post menopausal woman cannot. Nature puts a time limit on procreation for a reason. Plenty of offspring would die with parents too old. Additionally, the woman herself could die.

However, given a womb problem, the 30 year old woman could still mother a child abandoned by another mother.

So, if either woman wanted to adopt, the ability - given perfect health - is a deciding factor.

If this is true for an individual, why not for two individuals? The issue is not whether the couple ARE in perfect health, but whether they could if they WERE in perfect health.

I don't see why this line of reasoning is so hard to see.

Yorick, what I'm getting at here is the legal benefits of marriage, not the procreation part. If you forbid gay marriage you are denying people those benefits based solely on their sexual orientation. Does that really fit into our democratic and presumably enlightened society?

Personally, I don't give a horses arse of they call it marriage or not. I wont weep if they have to settle with calling it 'Registered Partnership', 'Civil Union' or whatever as long as they get the legal benefits of marriage.

Hmmm... who says that the purpose of marriage is to procreate anyway?
Are we to deny heterosexual couples the right to marriage if they refuse to undertake to raise children, preferring instead to own a couple of dogs and/or go on expensive foreign vacations?

I see your reasoning Yorick, but to but it simply you are wrong [img]smile.gif[/img]

Besides there are already far too many people in the world, the last thing we need to do is encourge people to have more.

Yorick, you missed the point completely. You make the argument "marriage" should be based on ability to procreate. I point out many straight couples CAN'T do that and CAN still marry. You then create this hypothetical "perfect health" situation that we're supposed to use as a "test."

I just find that useless in any practical application. Other than to discriminate against a class of people.

If a marriage license should be granted based on the ability to procreate, then make it that way -- i.e. sterile people can't marry. If it's not based on ability to procreate, then drop it.

You have entered an alternate universe where you want to make it "based on the ability to procreate, if each member of the couple were in perfect health and had properly functioning reproductive systems." This new "test" is what you fell into because your original "test" (ability to procreate) got shot full of holes at some point. Now, it's obvious your "perfect health" caveat is simply a post hoc attempt to revive a failed argument.

Hell, here's my argument: if one of the men in a gay relationship had a vagina and a womb, they COULD procreate, so we should let them marry. It's not the same as your "hypothetical world test" but it's no more silly. Come back from the Twilight Zone, mkay?

[ 02-06-2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I'm gone for two days and THIS happens?

Ok, where do I begin?
The polygamy thing I'm not touching... I don't know if you're joking or not. It might be sarcasm, it might not be... so I'm leaving it alone.
Secondly, what if a woman is sterile, Yorick? Should she not be allowed to marry? She can't have kids.
Thirdly, read 1984 by George Orwell. This takes what you're saying to a logical conclusion. Maybe you think it's a good idea, but I certainly don't. Marriage should be based on love between two people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Or am I missing your point entirely? Are you being facetious? It's difficult to tell when you don't kno wa person...

My wife and I have been married for over 20 years and have produced not one child. As a matter of fact we decided not to have kids right from the beginning? Does that mean we have no right to be married. Do we not belong to that special club in which, apparently, gay couples are not allowed to be a part of. When you think about it, being married without children is a bad idea if you have no kids, taxwise. I married my wife Deb because I love her and wanted to make a lifetime committment to her. Maybe that was wrong?

Marriage is all about pledging your love to another and pledging to stay with that person for the rest of your lives. To not cheat and treat them fairly. To aid them in sickness, to support them through bad times and share the good times. I do not recall bearing children being part of traditional marriage vows. Procreating to me is a side effect of marriage, not a condition of it. ;)

Mark

[ 02-06-2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

Don't twist Yorick's argument guys. Skywalker, Yorick argues that because you two could theoretically, if you were perfectly healthy and desired to do so, produce a child.

It's a lame-o way to distinguish the fact that "ability to procreate" does not provide an acceptable test for who should marry. It's a "post hoc" and afterthought argument latched onto by those who are struggling desperately for ways to justify their predjudice.

I've found that a lot of people begin by not wanting to allow gays to marry based on prejudice. Then, once the conclusion is determined, they want to backpedal and reverse engineer an argument to get to that conclusion.

I ain't seen any such arguments that worked yet. I'm waiting with baited breath, of course.

I did read Yorick's posts before adding my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img] . I guess my view has been colored by the subsequent posts. Mostly I just get bugged by people (talking of people outside this forum, ok?) that seem to profess that marriage is a Special Club that only a man & woman can belong to. They take it as a religious union and then attach to it legal rights and that is just wrong to me.

But procreation has little to do with the act of getting married. It is a mindset that leads the human race into over-population.

Mark

I totally reject the notion that the earth is overcrowded. It is a simple cop-out that ignores the bad choices our societies have made.

There is more than enough land, food and water to sustain larger and larger populations.

What we could do is get rid of the car for starters. That would shrink cities and heal the environment.

With less space for roads, parking at both ends (origina dn destination) plus greater concentration of urbanality rather than the sprawl and wasted space that now exists.

I have comfortably lived in New York and SIngapore, both of which maximise space and fit enormous amounts of people into smaller spaces.

The car is the problem, not overpopulation.

And what is the easier solution. Mass genoiced of humanity or a lifestyle change?

Please, don't bring up overpopulation.

As to procreational marriage, I am precisely speaking about procreation because socities health depends on the existence of strong blood relational familys. It has been shown that drug addiction, crime and vioence in society is directly related to the breakdown of the extended and nuclear families.

I am speaking about providing some incentive, some encouragement to a man and a woman who are creating such a mini society, to stay together for life.

Even if I am single, gay or married without a child, I would like to see child rearing families encouraged above and beyond what the rest of us are, simply because our society depends on it.

All a society is is an extension of the family principle. The have's caring for the have nots.

Ask yourself what society is, what a familiy is, and ask yourself what you are doing to strengthen or undermine both entities.


And for the last time, Mark and others, it is about POTENTIAL. The ability to procreate PROVIDED all is well. Not whether the couple are well or choose procreation or not.

"I like wide open spaces." -- Woodrow Wilson

Frankly, I don't give a golly gosh darned if we CAN find a way to beehive more people together. I'm pretty well sick of looking at them all the damned time. If we were smart and controlled our populations, we could all continue to enjoy our cars and big portions of food and weekend wilderness getaways.

What's the point in trying to people the earth with people? Why do we want more of us? Viral tendancies? Because we enjoy each others' smell so much? WHY WHOULD YOU WANT TO GROW THE POPULATION????

Here's a real social trend: as people become more financially successful and educated, they tend to have less kids. natural tendancy, which is why the EU/US populations would actually be shrinking if it weren't for all the damned unwashed masses clambering across our borders to steal jobs.

Now, don't we WANT people to be successful, wealthy, and educated? Well, then, we need to accept the fact that there will be fewer of them. Natural tendancy -- their own behavior, not social policy, will dictate lower populations.

Or are you willing to trade comfort for all people in exchange for simply having more people? If so, WTF???? Please explain, because for me it DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Oh, and nice of you to sidestep the other issue. I note your demurrer.

Gay people adopt, Yorick. And they all have the POTENTIAL to adopt. And, from what I've seen, these function like nuclear families.

And, gay couples are much more likely to have one stay-at-home parent, meaning old-fashioned child rearing is more likely. Your argument fails again.

Step back and examine your prejudice. I suspect it is not any logical argument driving your belief but rather a certain "oogie-ness" you feel in the pit of your stomach about gays being "married." Do a little soul searching on it. It's one thing to live alongside them as second-class citizens, but to make them truly equal... gets you right in the gut, doesn't it?

[ 02-06-2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I am sick of the issue, and need to get to work.

On the overpopulation, comfort in highly populated areas is wonderful. The whole REASON for living in New York IS THE PEOPLE. People create culture. People are nice to look at and talk to.

Isolation is the worst punishment you can inflict on a prisoner.

I don't live in New York because it's easy, because it's pretty. Becasue I have a nice view. But the people. the collective energy of creative minds influencing each other is palpable. Intoxicating.

Masses of humanity is energy.

CROWDING doesn't mean the same thing as lots of people either. You can maintain personal space in cities with many people. You can be lonely in a city of many people.
You can, with better social choices, be able to access wide open spaces easier.

Remove the car, and plan wilderness areas nearer to cities, and people could access closer wilderness areas, instead of having to fly halfway around the world to Australia to find empty land.

It's not a matter of equality. What is equality? A gay couple cannot procreate, therefore they aren't on an equal footing.

1+1 = 2, 3, 4 or 5 with a healthy hetero couple
1+1 will only ever equal 2 with a gay couple.

That is not equality. That is DIFFERENCE. It is not a matter of discrimination. Nature already does that.

I am not discriminating against an individual homosexual. I am seeking to discriminate FOR child rearing families. Positive encouragement, because I believe society depends on it.

And if it comes to that then yes. Make a new word for "Mother of my child" or "Father of my child".

Makes a point that you can never get a new one. The child you created means there is a permanent and inseperable bond between you and your spouse.

And yes I AM divorced. In ten years together, we had no children either.

I see no reason why child rearing couples shouldn't be given breaks that nonchildrearing couples don't.

Why shouldn't we encourage a spouse to choose to stay home and raise the kids? A childless couple can both work. They are in a financially better situation.

So if it comes to that, just find a way to assist actively procreating couples. Seperate them from all other couples and give them tax breaks and whatever else helps them stay together providing a stable foundation of balance, love, rolemodelling and consistency for the young minds they are bringing into the world.

Yorick, you're prejudiced on the issue. You are guilty of exactly what I suggested -- deciding the outcome and then reverse engineering a reason to justify it. You need to do some soul-searching.

I've disproved your argument about 3 different ways, appealed to your sensibilities, and now I'm done. You simply can't see it, and that combined with you moving into what I affectionately call "Yorick Argue-with-stop-sign Stubborn Mode" ("YASM"), I'm going to bow out of the debate before I wind up banging my head on my desk.

Me either -- gay couples rear children. Statistically more successfully than straight couples, btw.

Oh, and the gay couple I saw on TV last night were rearing their OWN children. Each man had used the same surrogate mother to have his own children. Since they used the same mother, the children were even legitimately blood brothers and sisters. But, you want to cut them out of the loop based on some trumped up reason.

It's like picking any arbitrary factor to hang your argument on. It's the logical equivalent of saying gay couples can't wed because the don't have missionary sex. Or saying they can't wed because they can't have penis/vagina intercourse. These are all differences, but none offer a logical distinction.

As I said, I'm bowing out. I don't truck with those who discriminate. Prejudice is rooted in illogic, so one can't defeat it through using logic. Logic is basically all I know to use, so faced with an impossible task of changing your prejudice, I'll simply bow out.

Bye guys. See you next thread.

Yorick, overpopulation is not just about how many people are living around you in the city, it's about the lack of resources, food, fresh water, extinction of species, lower standards of living, etc. You make it sound very romantic, but the fact is that the planet cannot support the growth of human species as it is today. :(

[ 02-06-2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

Well, i find gay marriages or relationship icky but they probably feel the same about straight people. Its a new age and times are changing. Eventually its going to happen. I personally would not take any actions to stop it mainly because Bush (and conservatives) is against it. He and others like him think gay marriages will destroy straight marriages. I don't get it. How is it going to stop heterosexual marriages. People are going to get married and stay married until divorce or death does them apart. This IMO is just a religious issue. Oops! Should I have not said that since there is a ban on religious discussion. Then please just ignore that last part. Peace. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Me either -- gay couples rear children. Statistically more successfully than straight couples, btw.

Oh, and the gay couple I saw on TV last night were rearing their OWN children. Each man had used the same surrogate mother to have his own children. Since they used the same mother, the children were even legitimately blood brothers and sisters. But, you want to cut them out of the loop based on some trumped up reason.

It's like picking any arbitrary factor to hang your argument on. It's the logical equivalent of saying gay couples can't wed because the don't have missionary sex. Or saying they can't wed because they can't have penis/vagina intercourse. These are all differences, but none offer a logical distinction.

As I said, I'm bowing out. I don't truck with those who discriminate. Prejudice is rooted in illogic, so one can't defeat it through using logic. Logic is basically all I know to use, so faced with an impossible task of changing your prejudice, I'll simply bow out.

Bye guys. See you next thread. </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, I'm not seeking negative discrimination, but positive encouragement based on assessment of social ills and what I believe makes for mental health in individuals.

I am not prejudging anyone and don't appreciate accusations that suggest I am. I am pointing out the obvious - that gay couples cannot procreate - and arguing for some sort of social encouragement be given to couples that are creating life.

And yes, if you'll notice, as a result of this thread I have moved from "possible" to "actual" creation of life, so yes that means giving couples that are creating life breaks that are not given to childless couples.

Somehow, if society is not to completely fall apart, the nuclear family and then the extended family needs to be encouraged and supported.

I reject out of hand the assertion that there are too many people. The resource management of the planet is what needs to change. The amount of people may actually prompt a revision in the pathetic way we have ravaged the planet up until this point.

The motor vehicle is the single worst invention in human history. Unparalled pollution, desecration of environment through highways, parking lots, urban expansion and rubbish. Throw in the weight problems, back problems and accidents that all adversely affect human health, and the motor vehicle is a disaster.

"Wide open spaces" are wonderful, and I love them too. However, I do not call a seven lane highway filled with thousands of one-person cars a "wide open space" but an ecological nightmare.

Look at the example in Singapore. Go and visit it and see how 2.3 million people fit into an island it takes 45 minutes to drive across. Because car ownership is discouraged, cabs are everywhere and very very very cheap.
There is a proliferation of plants and trees . It is the greenest city I have ever seen anywhere, and leaves cities with abundant room to shame.

All this out of necessity. There are nations with far more room who could be managing their resources, their space, with way more effectiveness.

And yes it means a lifestyle change. It means a total rethink about our values, our planet, our life.

The suburban house is a modern phenomena only available becasue of the car. Throughout human history, you've either had apartment-style city living, or country style self sufficiency.

Self sufficiency is still attainable - I have visited places in Australia like this.

Add in increased mobility through the internet and modern delivery systems and things look even better.

Throw in the alternatives such as high rise cities. Polises that offer very high quality of life.

The finest place I have lived in was on the 30th floor of a high rise in Singapore, with unparallelled ocean views, abundant space inside, marble floors, a wonderful breeze. Downstairs was grass, trees and plants not concrete. You could breathe. Move. There were shops within walking distance. There was a community feel, yet space to move. ersonal space in a communal context.

The opposite, western suburban living, is an isolated existence, where TV is the community. People isolationally drive, alone, from place to place, to huge houses. Where they suffer from lonliness, to the point they stay up and chat online as their only means of speaking with other humans.

Community is rewarding. You can have community, and space. these are choices we are making that are not set in stone. Human society is constantly changing, and I see a future of better resource management and city planning.

I lived in the Australian desert as a child. You don't get more isolated than that. 20 million for a nation the size of America. Most live in the east. We were in the north west. No-one there. You could drive ALL DAY and not see another car.

Don't tell me there are too many people.

When I was in Atlanta I saw so much wasted space. Throw out the car, and the malls get smaller. No need for the huge parking lots you have to drive through to get from place to place. Put them closer and you can... (shock horror) WALK! Yes walk! And get this....

WALKING GETS EASIER THE MORE YOU DO.

In New York, you walk everywhere. Initially it takes energy, but the body adapts. Makes you healthier. Saves time and money spent in a gym.

The population of my country fits into an area the size of metropolitan Sydney.

It doesn't have to be the way it is. These are resource choices. DOn't buy the myth that there are too many people. It's bullshit.

Again, resource management. There is more water on the planet than land. Yes it's salt water, but then we'll find a way to remove the salt. Evaporation does that naturally.

We humans recycle water too. It doesn't disappear. We drink it, it flows through us, and comes out again. There is more than enough water on the globe. Again, with resource management, we could shrink the cities and create more farm land. We could start using ocean farming as well.

A shift in diets back to LESS MEAT, would mean more grain. The amount of grain it takes to feed one beef producing cow, can feed an entire village.

Humans don't need to eat meat every night. I'm not a vegetarian, but a simple shift to eating less meat per week is not hard. Better for the planet. Better for your health. Cheaper too.

Oh... but that's another one of those lifestyle change thingeys isn't it? ;) :D

[ 02-06-2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Evil or not though, those vehicles and eye sore roads are the lynch pin in keeping a large population of people sustained. Transportation of resources is what has allowed every major society to flourish. Waste management is another key pin.

As much as you like New York, it could not function today as you know it with out the massive supply infrastruct that feeds into and out of it.

Canals and rivers used to be the method of choice. In fact, the Hudson River and the New York Canal (completed in the mid 1800s) are the reason that NYC surpassed Philly as the major economic power house of the East Coast.

Those functions are now replaced by highways which are much faster and have higher through put than any current supply chain.

As for the topic at hand, the law allows for certain legal rights in a coupled relationship, from a legal stand point there is no reason that any couple willing to file the right paperwork should be denied those benefits. This country went through all of these arguements before during the Civil Rights Movement. Replace "Niggers/Negreos" with "Gays" and you have the same verbal sewage spewing from the hardliner's mouths, only this time the President is one of the sewers.

I don't care about religious connotations of marriage, who can procreate with whom, or by what methods of boinkin is done to do it. Discrimination is discrimination. If one class of citizens is granted certain rights of a legal paired partnership, then the law should grant that courtesy to any pairing, reguardless of race, creed, or sexual preference.

It was once illegal for Blacks and White to marry, and it was just a silly then to forbid it as it is today with gays.

Europe gets by with more people in less space with greater public transport. Highways are not the solution. Single occupant cars are not the solution either.

More people than America that is.

Europe is also very different from America in that it is criss crossed with many rivers while America only has a few large ones. And even with all the rivers available they still have large rail and highway systems. America's highway system did not develop into what it is today until Eisenhower beheld Germany's massive infrastructure and it's capabily to quickly move resources anywhere needed.

Though I agree with you that public transport is severely lacking in America.