So why arent more gays getting married? I mean yeah, when it happens you see all these gay couples getting married together in one big ceremony on the courthouse step and everyone seems happy, but then… its almost like who cares?
Here in the Kansas City Star they publish articles of people getting married and I think in 10 years I might have seen ONE same sex couple.
I think you misunderstand the point of the thread.
Same-sex marriage isn’t legal in your state. Do you think that might have something to do with it?
Neither Kansas or Missouri has legal same sex marriage.
Never minding the fact that as others have pointed out, that’s not surprising for Kansas or Missouri, gays and lesbians make up a very small part of the population.
When Minnesota legalized gay marriage there were some absolutely bitchy comments from county clerks in East Bumfuck, MN about how they went to all this trouble to print off some certificates and then nobody came in to get married. Well, dummies, take 2% of your counties population and then quarter that and that’s probably about how many gay people are looking to get hitched.
Benefits: A tiny increase in tax revenues from the design and sale of wedding-related items featuring same-gendered participants.
**Losses: **Quite a long time ago (mid 90’s perhaps?), I saw a newspaper article about some conservative group that was involved in many legal efforts, including sales taxes on birth control (particularly condoms), and increasing restrictions on women-oriented medical practices, etc. It was, all in all, a very bible-adherence-oriented political organization. The article opened by noting they were celebrating a victory for having the US legislature pass laws that overcame what they called the “marriage penalty” which structured income taxes so that married people, filing jointly, ended up paying a higher tax rate than single people (or those who were married and filing separately). So the income tax laws that made it so that United States gays and lesbians (who, at the time could not marry) had to pay more income tax than married people (what the group termed the “gay tax” but oh, perhaps single people just take collateral damage, oh well…) will now provide the federal government slightly less overall income tax revenue as homosexual couples marry and file joint tax returns.
—G!
Should Five Percent Appear to small
Be thankful I don’t take it all!
…–George Harrison (Beatles)
…TaxMan
…Revolver
It’s a small thing, but finally something concrete. It’s better than all the, something bad will happen…we don’t know what but it will!
Not quite. We have to account for the bigots who will get divorced because they no longer want to be associated with the now-tainted privilege of marriage. It may all balance out in the end.
[QUOTE=Hershele Ostropoler]
On the contrary, it’s next to impossible to dissolve a union that never existed in the first place. All that stuff currently has to be resolved by detailed and protracted negotiations between people who by definition aren’t getting along all that well. Divorce has processes and precedents. Divorce is one of the benefits of marriage.
[/QUOTE]
You quoted the 
but didn’t seem to get the tongue in cheek aspect of my reply there. So…WHOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH! 
But lots of gay couples have commitment ceremonies which are essentially the same. The KC Star announces those also.
How do you know they announce them if you’ve never seen one? That’s something they would only known about if someone called and told them, unlike marriages which would be a matter of public record.
Because the paper says it will print them if asked. It has nothing to do with being legal or not.
Frankly I just think gays have seen the problems straight couples have with it and dont want the hassle.
[quote=“Urbanredneck, post:52, topic:688371”]
Because the paper says it will print them if asked. It has nothing to do with being legal or not.
[quote]
Ah gotcha. Looks like they don’t do very many at all, at least judging from the online archives.
Is this about getting married at all? Because if so, that’s not true in any way.
Since everyone’s pretty much covered the pros, I’ll mention another con: homophobia could actually increase. I think the situation we have now, with all of the states inevitably legalizing SSM one by one in the next few years but doing so at their own pace, is better than a blanket legalization. The “culture wars” in politics would become even more inflamed, further bringing the focus of elections away from economics and more towards repealing SSM - other issues like abortion and the teaching of evolution could be dragged backwards as well. What’s more, people in states who are now lukewarm about the whole thing and who will eventually come to accept SSM would have a knee-jerk reaction against the Federal Government telling them what to do, and would become full-fledged homophobes. Right now, all we need is patience - give people time to adjust to the new world order. Better to take a bit longer and not send the country into a tailspin.
So you do see them? This is confusing. Anyway what you are seeing are probably articles that are assembled and submitted by the wedding planner as part of a package deal. So they’ll run in the newspaper only if the people who are getting married feel like paying for them. Not everybody does. Since commitment ceremonies aren’t even legally binding, gay couples have an extra reason not want to bother.
Actually, in Minnesota, nearly 70% of the counties had same-sex marriages performed in the first 30 days after they were legalized. (SSM’s made up 1/3 of all the marriage licenses issued in the state during that period.) By now, a year after the SSM bill was signed, it’s probably much higher – I doubt that you could find more than a handful of counties that have not issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Well, in discussing SSM with an anti-abortion male protestor , I was told “Now that gay marriage is legal, I have to be more careful about not being raped by a man.”
Yeah, they are really reaching.
Factually, this is inaccurate, unless you mean they have the “option” of leaving their profession. To claim otherwise is dishonest and unethical, regardless of your political persuasion.
Was it Bruce Heffernan?
Perhaps he was worried about a potential paternity suit.