He's serious. Don't look. You'll regret it.

OK, Moxie guided me to this next site, Rate My Rack, which I check from time to time. If you enter the site and click on the upper left, where you can view by score, you will see what may be the most perfect rack to ever grace the interwebnet. Trust me on this one. This is one even the ladies will want to see (for those that need encouragement). The others above 8 aren't too shabby either.

Happy Friday! Happy Friday!

OK, "Gay Marriage" is the topic. Andrew Sullivan has been simply killing this topic, and to be honest I am not interested enough to read all his posts, or the responses, thoughtful or otherwise. I just don't have a dog in this fight, as they say. But I did get a little drawn in to the discussion over at CapLion's, and posted a couple comments. Since I'd like to have a record (if somewhat one-sided) of my thoughts, and I'd also like to share them with you, I'll elaborate (for more, please read the comments at CapLion).

The first issue here is whether courts or legislatures should be deciding this issue. I tend to be a "states rights" type, and I believe it would be best for states to resolve these questions on a state-by-state basis. That way, people who approve or disapprove can vote with their feet. However, that doesn't solve the issues regarding federal acknowledgement and movement among the states. Therefore I agree with Andrew's (very long) post as regards court intervention:

I would much much prefer a legislative solution to a judicial one. But it remains a fact that marriage has long been fought over in the courts. How it is administered, whom it includes, the relationship between the parties, has been resolved in courts in this country for centuries. Why should that suddenly change now? And the rights of minorities - those that might never be able to command majority support - have also always resided in courts in a constitutional republic.

Some people just don't seem to feel that gay marriages would be "normal". But as far as traditional child-rearing families go, gay marriages can easily fit the roles. First, one or both partners may already have children. Also, for lesbians especially, they may have children during their relationship. Adoptions aren't the only exception. Anyway, marriage is an agreement and committment between two people, not among a family. Heterosexuals who are not willing or able to have children can be married. There is certainly no imperative to try to have a family, and people who are infertile or too old to have children have no marriage restrictions. Step-parents do not gain any new rights over their step-children just because they marry one of the natural or adoptive parents. Rights regarding children are based much more on parentage and legal guardianship than marriage arrangments, and do not substantively affect the argument that homosexuals be able to marry.

Precedent is also an argument against gay marriage - marriage has traditionally been only between a man a woman. There are a lot of reasons for that, including that gays have never had the standing in society that they now have, while religion had a greater influence. When gays were in the closet, when discrimination was really bad, marriage was out of the question. Therefore I think it makes sense to reconsider the question now without too much reliance on precedent.

There is also a question as to whether discrimination against gays as regards marriage is unjustified (some discrimination is justified - CapLion covers that pretty well). In my opinion, when people aren't actually having sex, they are not exercising their sexual preference. Thus, whatever their preference or perceived preference may be, it shouldn't be used to judge them. If I am hiring people for my company or picking players at a pick-up football game, it really doesn't matter what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes. There is no difference between being straight, gay, asexual or whatever, and therefore no reason to discriminate.

The act of marriage, however, makes that private conduct declared and official. In other words, one of the "benefits and obligations" is some surrender of privacy. By not allowing gays who are willing to make that sacrifice as part of the deal for the other "protections, benefits, and obligations", the State is essentially judging them based only on their perceived private sexual activity. I feel that is unnecessary and unjustified discrimination, particularly when done by the State.

I think the real problem here, for people who argue that the state isn't denying rights to gays, is that our legislatures have assigned to civil marriage a lot of rights and obligations beyond those strictly and traditionally associated with marriage. These include some of the most important aspects of life: financial incentives (or disincentives) to marry as enacted in our tax code, rights to shared property and financial accounts, the right to make health care decisions, automatic transfer of assets upon death, and on and on. Yes, any two people can make individual legal arrangements for each of these - but the point is that government has imbued marriage with a lot of policy. Denying - or not extending - those rights and obligations to a minority of the population based solely on their private sexual activity is, in my view, plainly and unnecessarily discriminatory.

On a personal note, I really can't imagine how other people getting married, whether they be gay or straight, would or should have any impact at all on my own family and marriage. In other words, why would I be so interested in what other people are doing? Live and let live, right? I think people would do better to tend their own lives more and attempt to manage the affairs and arrangements of others less. Am I a total hippie liberal to suggest that, instead of nannying over gays, perhaps we should "Marry, and Let Marry?"