Kansas, of all places

Of all places for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Kansas has stepped up. The thing that I find most interesting, though, is that there was already a law banning gay marriage. It was supported and enforced, but the proponents of the state constitutional amendment say that it was necessary to shield marriage from attack.

You've got quotes in that article from people basing their vote on the Bible, and God's word. Now I've long been one to defend peoples' right to vote whichever way they desire for whatever reason they desire, and I'm not about to stop that now. If somebody wants to vote for Bush because they find their daughters more attractive than Kerry's, that's entirely their right. The right is a right to vote, not an obligation to vote intelligently.

But sometimes I wish people would take some time and consider more than just their own visceral reactions. Gays have done nothing to damage the sanctity of marriage. Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor (not to mention Rush Limbaugh) have done plenty, but not the gays. They haven't had the chance yet. But even if the divorce rate of gays were to be higher than the divorce rate of heterosexuals, or if the rate of adultery were higher with gays than with heterosexuals, who would they be hurting? If divorce and adultery are not criminal for heterosexuals (and those are the only real "dangers" I see in marriage.....point some more out in the comments if you've got some), then it must be because they are not judged to infringe upon the rights or safety of anybody.

How would that be any different for homosexuals?

Fargus...