Wow, same-sex marriage arrives in the township of New Paltz, N.Y.:
After making headlines in San Francisco and Massachusetts, the national debate over gay marriage migrated today to a smaller stage, the Hudson Valley community of New Paltz north of New York City, after [Mayor Jason] West said that he would officiate at marriage ceremonies for up to a dozen gay couples.
Cool. By the way, you know where I’ll be on Wednesday:
RALLY AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
Oppose the Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment
Corner of 17th and Rhode Island Ave. NW
Washington, D.C.
In front of the HRC Building
March 3, 2004 (Wednesday), 6:00 p.m.
Let’s rally together on the heels of President Bush’s endorsement to permanently deny marriage rights to same-sex couples! Rally to demonstrate your opposition to the Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment, and show your support for marriage rights for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community!
Come out, come out, wherever you are! Lastly, this week’s Economist, in a cover story no less, makes its case for gay marriage (link via serendipity):
The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional.” Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married.” But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social, and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?
And once the slippery slope takes us to legal polygamy, shall we propose to that yummy groom on the right on the Economist’s cover?
<grin />