The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the fundamental provision of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. From what I've read, this was based on the concept of equal rights, with which I have no particular argument. I absolutely believe that the Gay community should have the state sanctioned right, and joy of entering into a legally committed union. It pushes my buttons, because I am just not wired that way. When I was a young and pretty surfer dude, Gay guys hit on me and it just fucking creeped me out. (note to Gay guys: Your Gaydar is better, don't try to turn straight guys - not helping your cause)
I also believe going through a divorce would be a real eye opener for the Gay community. In the entire history of the world, this is not something they have had to deal with. I am not being snarky here. With respect to the divorce part, I speak from experience. Even when you are young and childless, divorce leaves scars on your psych. When there are children involved, it leaves permanent scars on your heart, even in the best of circumstances. I have both.
When, not if, but when Gays finally acquire the universal right to marry, I suspect that there will be a massive boom for divorce lawyers as the Gay community goes through a long transition phase. Speaking in general terms, the Gay community has some fundamental issues with fidelity.
Regardless of which side of the issue you come down on, you cannot have it both ways.
The very first amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Fundamentally, Marriage is a religious institution, licensed by the state. (unkie sam always gets his cut)
Conceptually, and there has never been as short a document with greater conceptual reach than the U.S. Constitution, once you ask the State to sanction Marriage as being only between a man and a women, you have created the opportunity for the State to control Religion. Because, that is exactly what you have asked them to do.From the Gay community side of the argument, you cannot ask the State to force a Religion to sanction, nor Marry you and your significant other in a Church. Once done, the State becomes the Religion.
As a case in point I offer the example of Iran, where according to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they have no "Gays". The simple reason being, that when discovered in Iran, Gays are hanged.
The Religion in Iran is the "State". There are no Catholics, no Episcopalians, no Lutherans, no Baptists, no Methodists, Mormons, snake handlers, etc, etc, etc. And, no Gays.
No way this could come about in the U.S. is there.
You can't have it both ways.
You don't get to inflict religious persecution and still have religious freedom.
You don't get to use the State to force any Church anywhere to marry you regardless of sexual orientation. Once you take either of those paths, you are on the road to Iran.
The former Soviet Union has a perfect historical example of forced acceptance formerly known as Yugoslavia. If you don't know how that turned out after the Soviet collapse, you need to do some reading.
On a more positive note, at this moment, we still have religious freedom in this country. Which means that Churches and Religions have the freedom to choose to accept the marriage of Gay couples, or not.
Force only leads to more force, in either direction. Both sides have drawn the State into the equation.
You can't have it both ways.
As a footnote to the Male Gay community: Walking down Main Street in your ass-less leather chaps in the Gay Pride parade does really not help the cause for acceptance amongst the population at large.