...I find myself amused by the reaction to the state of New York recognizing gay marriage; while predictable, it's also instructive. Most people -- yes, even anarcho-capitalists and libertarians -- go with what they're comfortable with rather than what's Constitutional or logical.
This includes the beneficiaries of the new law, seen celebrating in the streets of NYC as though WW II had just ended.* It's pretty difficult to believe that city was especially hostile turf -- or that accepting same-sex marriage applications (and presumably recognizing such unions from the other states and nations that perform them) has made the population of NY and NYC any more accepting than it was before the law passed. Given the general state of heterosexual marriage (vs. living together or friends-with-benefits relationships and in light of the divorce rate), it's difficult to see this as more than incremental. It was nice to see that nobody -- police or celebrant -- tried to replay the Stonewall Riots.
The "it's what I'm used to" crowd also includes the same forces, pro and anti, that argue for or against state's rights on, say, firearms and the opposite way on this issue. Pick a side and stick with it!
Indiana has a law against such marriages; I don't approve of the State's meddling in wedlock (other than treating it the same as any other sort of contract) but the law was passed by the Legislature fair and square and when the time comes, it can be removed just as Jim Crow and eugenics laws were. On the other hand, there's a push on to make same-sex marriages even illegaler, by putting it in the State constitution. This makes it a lot more difficult to adjust and ought to be repugnant to anyone with half a brain; using the State constitution to label any group of law-abiding citizens as having fewer rights than others is and has always been a bad idea.
My favorite bit of paranoia is the assertion that this is all a plot to destroy the churches. In New York (and elsewhere), they specifically exempted churches from being required to solemnize unions at odds with their beliefs; but this has been the fact for as long as the United States have existed. There are a good many religions that won't even marry a couple of their own oppositely-sexed parishioners unless the arrangement's been approved by one of their clerics and as far as the courts are concerned, that's hunky-dory; they can always get someone else to do the job. (Know who can marry you in Indiana? --Anyone you think is qualified; the State issues you the license and as long as it comes back with signatures on it, the deed is done.) --But say it is a plot: cui bono? There's some cult of Cybele lurking in the wings to take over? (Good luck with that. Chick tracts notwithstanding, most people stay with the faith of their parents or that of their spouse).
Now, if New York would only put the same kind of effort into reforming their firearms law. Hey, I know -- they could start with that "full faith and credence" clause and recognize my License To Carry Handgun the same way they'll recognize the marriage of a gay couple from Iowa or New Hampshire.
1. Although the Marylin Monroe impersonator who was front-and-center in one network's footage had somehow not managed to find a sailor to smooch. I guess that calls for a nurse's uniform, really.
2. Any legal adult, that is.
One Evening On Kansas II
2 days ago