I find it quite comical how everyone (media/government) is getting so uptight about what two people do. Personally, I think we should be more intrested in bringing our troops home then what is going on in San Francisco.
The argument of 'what about insurance costs?!?' is a load of [censored]. Its not like a decent amount of the gays/lesbians that are being talked about here dont already have some form of insurance at work. So what
if the partner doesnt have insurance and the person with the job wants his/her insurance to cover the person they love? A decent amount of companies already do allow same sex benifits. There would be no difference to that as if Joe had the good paying job and he wanted his wife Jane to have the coverage he gets through work to cover the costs of their baby.
And I am just so sure that life is going to change... What is going to happen when you have two guys cruising around in their minivan taking their kids to soccer practice? Thats just going to be the end of the world, right? Its not like it HASNT ALREADY HAPPENED! Just because gay marriage is not legal right now doesnt mean that you dont have countless couples running their lives and raising children like any straight couple.
I think the article that sticks in my head the most was a line from the Salt Lake Tribune. The journalist was writing about how Utah is trying to ammend a ban of its own to our state constitution. She said something to the effect of, "Utah can pretend that the country isnt changing. We can pretend that gays and lesbians arent getting married elsewhere in the country. We can pretend that it isnt going to happen here. While we are at it, why dont we go erect a beautiful white pickett fence around the state to protect us from the avalanche of change that is coming our way."
I guess its obvious to which side of this I stand on.
