The Los Angeles Times Supports Neutering Marriage

I know, I know… why hasn't their editorial board ever told us this before?

Same-sex marriage is a matter of common sense –

Really? Then how did the very idea of it escape so many people, including all of the great civil rights leaders in history?

there is no good reason to withhold the legal and social advantages of marriage from a group that has long suffered every sort of discrimination.

So because someone has been victimized by undue discrimination, we need to neuter marriage licensing? How does this follow?

The main social advantage of marriage is that it unites both sexes. It's like saying you want the educational benefit of a Doctorate, and if someone just passes one out to you, you'll have it. It's either self-delusion or a deliberate lie.

And there is good reason. It is a good idea to legally distinguish marriage (that’s bride+groom) from other kinds of associations to signify the importance of marriage in perpetuating society.

It's our fervent hope that the federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 will ultimately succeed, because we believe that such marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution by singling out homosexuals as unworthy of equal protection under the law.

Wrong. Homosexual people should be equally protected, and the California Marriage Amendment didn’t change that. However, it is Constitutional, moral, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently.

New York's historic vote should help speed things along. With its large population — third in the nation, behind California and Texas — there will be more [brideless and groomless couples with state marriage licenses] than ever and more opportunity for Americans to observe and grow accustomed to them. Many of those couples will move to other states where they will press to have their [licenses] recognized.

I'll be curious to see how many children they produce.

It is also significant that the legislative road to marriage rights for New York's gay and lesbian couples was paved in part with major lobbying donations from Republican billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay. Several of the politicians who supported the bill also have gay and lesbian relatives. As gays and lesbians have emerged from the closet, more Americans have learned that these are their friends, neighbors and loved ones.

The editorial goes on to praise the support in New York of "Republican billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay." If neutering marriage is a good thing, it is a good thing regardless of whether someone in our family is a homosexual person or not. Likewise, if it is a bad thing, it is a bad thing regardless of whether someone in our family is a homosexual person or not. This identity politics thing is so absurd.

California should learn lessons from New York's victory and quickly put itself back on the right side of history.

Readers of the Los Angeles Times can think of dozens of other legislative moves by other states that the Los Angeles Times somehow failed to encourage Californians to follow in order to be on “the right side of history”. But you know, neutering marriage is extra special.

Oh, and despite how the biased media always writes these stories, the existing bride+groom requirements, are NOT a "ban on same-sex marriage." I can correct them as often as they make that "mistake".