Gays working at the Boston Globe must now get married, or lose their partner's benefits.

It will be interesting to see what kind of logical pretzels they warp themselves into to explain why this is unfair, when unmarried heterosexual couples don't get benefits. I also wonder what Andrew Sullivan thinks? Not enough to actually link to him, though.

Chuckle

I am also looking forward to the day when they have to face alamony payments.

No malice intended. Not opposed to "gay marrige" in particular. Just want to see equal rights all around. They go both ways.

It's unfair because gays can't legally be married in the US, as only two states recognise civil unions. This is because your country is run by crazy fundamentalists.

I am also looking forward to the day when they have to face alimony payments.

First problem with this is that you need to legally recognise them as partners. Again, crazy fundamentalists.

First problem with this is that you need to legally recognise them as partners.

In your ignorant slams at the "evil fundamentalists," you're missing the point. They can get legally married in Massachussetts. That's why the Globe is telling them to do so, or lose their benefits (just as they tell heterosexual couples). They no longer have an excuse.

Hey Chris, who runs your country, crazy secular-progressives?

Some simple answers:

1) Andrew Sullivan says "good idea".
2) Local gay activist groups say "good idea"

Seems only the fundamentalist right is upset about this. They don't like the fact that gays are settling down and becoming ordinary married people, just like everyone else. The gay community is happy to accept marriage instead of domestic partnership, and are accepting all of its responsibilities. (And yes, palimony is one of them. It's already established law with precedents. No news here except for the willfully ignorant.)

Chris,
bite our crazy fundamentalist behinds!! Plenty of non-believing people think marriage is between a man and a woman.

Rand is right, the gay, les, tri, bi, fetishists have been whining about the inequalities of the laws for years. Now let them do like the rest of us. Get married or shut up.

Let's see how they deal with til death do us part and the most often aftermath, divorce, alimony, child support and all the other legal and financial woes that go with being married. You wanna be treated equal, step boys, girls and others, your time has come!!

Let them put their money where there mouth is!!

Let's not forget who owns the Boston Globe: the Leftwing Fundamentalists at the The New York Times Company.

Of course, the other unintended consequence is the realization that the state is deciding on a religious issue, rather than the church (directly).

In Germany, there is separation between the church part of the marriage and the state part of the union. There are two separate ceremonies.

The whole issue of marriage as it's implemented in the US system is now laid bare. Church and state are joined at the issue of marriage, and that is unconstitutional, is it not?

Church and state are joined at the issue of marriage, and that is unconstitutional, is it not?

No, because it allows the free practice of religion and does not involve anything with respect to setting a single church as the established religion.

There is also no legal requirement to have any church AT ALL associated with a marriage. The church is serving solely as the officiator, and the legal documents can be signed with or without a church's involvement.

You can still get married "at City Hall" by a "Justice of the Peace" if you wanted to, with two witnesses. Churches generally have more seating available than a city hall for people who want to watch the ceremony, though.

"You can still get married "at City Hall" by a "Justice of the Peace" if you wanted to, with two witnesses."

That is what my parents did, and after living through the madness of two weddings, my older brother's and my older sister's, she took me aside and said in all seriousness that if I got married I should do it the may her and my father did.

To echo other posters, Chris can "bite my ..." - I am an atheist and I'm not sure if I agree with gay marriage - but I am firmly in support of civil unions. There is a wide range of views on the subject, and they are not easily predicted by religious affiliation, geographic region, etc.

"This is because your country is run by crazy fundamentalists."

This kind of ignorant, condescending statement is why many Americans don't care what folks in other countries think about us.

A friend and I were discussing unintended consequences the other day and we happened upon the topic of gay marriage. We concluded that if being gay proves to be genetic then gay marriage should be the last thing that gays should want. Put another way. If gays are allowed to marry then fewer of them would be contributing to the gene pool.

While it is true that heterosexuals might carry a recessive gay gene it would still result in fewer gay births. Gay marriage could, in fact, lead to the extinction of gay people. Wouldn't be ironic if in attaining the right to marry gays were contributing to their extinction?

Also, it is erroneous to think that only 'crazy fundamentalists' oppose gay marriage. While polls do indicate that religious fundamentalist are against gay marriage by greater margins, they also show that many democrats, especially Blacks and Hispanics vote heavily against gay marriage. Most gay marriage bans pass by huge majorities.