I've actually been asked why my husband and I bothered to get married since we're choosing not to have children. ;) There are a lot of people who don't get the desire to be legally bound to and responsible for another human being without it involving a child at some stage.

"State-mandated compassion produces, not love for ones fellow man, but hatred and resentment. The breakdown of 'basic civility' and the rise of the welfare state occur concurrently."

I'm not sure how it works in the US, but here, in the eyes of the law, my bf and I are just as good as married as we've cohabited for a year. So even without a wedding, we are legally responsible to each other.

We might get married if one of us has the opportunity to work overseas - it makes bring the other MUCH, MUCH easier

EXACTLY!

When my uncles husband went into the hospital, , he was barred from seeing him because they would only allow family. He didn't know what was wrong or how badly he was hurt because they couldn't disclose that information to him.

They had been married for 14yrs! Tell me that doesn't deserve the title of marriage!

IP--there are laws that define marriage as between a man and a women. Hence the need for laws contradicting those laws, that take rights away from specific people.

It isn't about forcing anything on anyone, it's about NOT taking AWAY from someone.

I don't understand the "only family are allowed" rule. I mean, ok, I get the point of HIPPA laws.
But not letting anyone but family in doesn't make sense to me. After all, your family is as likely to want you dead as a non-family member.

So if it isn't about keeping people from axing each other in hospitals, why keep well-wishers out, regardless of who they are? Wouldn't it be better for the ill person if they had company of some kind rather than isolation?
What if you have no family? Then what, you can't have any visitors?

He should know. Texas wrote it into the state constitution.

Hey - how do you know my family? ;)

It depends on the state. Co-habitation laws vary widely, and don't specifically give you the same legal right as being married. Common law marriages are recognized for some things but not others. For me, specifically, without a piece of paper from a state government, the US military does not recognize me as a dependent, and all the benefits therein are denied.

Why are we allowing the majority to decide what rights the minority has?

because we are a democratic republic

A democratic republic that is supposed to have protections from a tyranny of the majority.

And it does. Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean they will get it.

fyi, disagreement is not tyranny

I started writing this three hours, forgot about and came back to see more comments. So here goes some responses.

nikneven: Aren't men and women separate but equal? Different locker rooms, gyms that cater to one sex versus another? Its not discriminatory.

chinook: I agree with you to an extent. I would not be opposed to the government completely disassociating:

dontgivethedogchoccy: WTF - how do you make the comparison. Equality can still have nuances. Black people are not white, white are not black. They both fall under the same category of human. Marriage can define male and female, where as another word can define a same sex union. It doesn't have to imply better or worse.

runninutes: As I said earlier, marriage shouldn't really be institutionalized. As Chinook said, people "living in sin" should not be different than those that made an elaborate ceremony. At least as far as the government is concerned.

It is when the majority is taking away rights from the minority, especially when those rights do not effect the majority in any way.

And I do want to make it clear that this is exactly what happened in this situation. Maine legalized gay marriage in May. Boom. Done. Everyone had the right to get married.

This referendum was specifically to revoke rights that a targeted group of people already had, and that, I think, is a very dangerous precedent to set.

And why can't marriage define a same sex union or commitment in the same way?

Why do same sex relationships need a separate word?

It's not that it can't. It's that it doesn't, and people want to change that. This leads to unnecessary conflict. I just proposed a peaceful solution.

As much as I hate this, I have to at least respect the process that goes into this.

I am much more pleased with gay marriage going from state to state than a federal mandate.

Frankly, I don't understand why we don't eliminate marriage as a legal institution, but that we provide a civil partnership that has the exact same rights as marriage.

That way, people don't get all upset at the "marriage" sanctity being ruined. But every legal couple (gay or straight) has the same rights.

However, all this being said...this should have already been decided in Loving v. Virginia, but the specification of race as opposed to generic "human" makes this non-applicable to gay marriage.

Says who?