SSM

It'll be up to the courts to take up same-sex marriage, but this thing is not going to be legal nationwide, if ever because of huge numbers of people who are opposed to it.

Democrats really need to give up on this loser issue; all it does is give the GOP more ammo.

There are issues far more important than this.

Anyway the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is the latest battleground. One can argue, though, that gays do have the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex if they so choose and thus get all of federal bennies such as Social Security and tax writeoffs. The states have long had the right to restrict marriage, and they have all sorts of restrictions. It's a stretch to say marriage laws restricting it to opposite sex couples is a form of discrimination when one realizes the purpose of marriage is two-fold: Since the vast majority of marriages produce offspring, this is a way for society to continue to perpetuate itself, and this leads to the second reason, and that is it enforces obligations on both parents to provide for the children they bring into the world. The REASON that until recently marriage was restricted to unrelated opposite sex couples has nothing to do with bigotry but that same-sex marriage makes no practical sense and isn't necessary (yes, I know gay couples can "have" children, but the kids are still a result of heterosexual relations be it through adoption, previous heterosexual relationships, or through test tubes, surrogates, or AI). The fact some married couples have no children doesn't change at all the purpose of why marriage exists. This has nothing to do with religion or tradition; this is just historic and practical fact. Marriage isn't about "love" and "commitment" or other flimsy reasons, for those can exist outside of that framework. When the concept of paternity was discovered long, long ago, some genius thought up a way to restrict male promiscuity or at least make males responsible for the children they fathered and for the women they impregnated. Marriage was the way to curb male promiscuity and enforce obligations. Society had and continues to have an interest in the children who are produced from such unions; after all, children are the future of any society. Religion came much later on the scene; religions merely adopted what had already been in place in virtually every society.

Given this reality, SSM advocates have an uphill battle, a battle that can easily create a massive backlash. Democratic politicians need to stay as far away from this issue as possible, for it is a loser.