In The New York Times of March 30, 2004, Carl Hulse describes how the debate over gay marriage sometimes appears to be about everything except whether government should recognize same-sex marriage. Arguments are wide-ranging and often typical of how lawmakers confront intensely emotional and potentially divisive subjects by trying to find more socially and politically acceptable ways to frame issue. Proponents argue that amendment is not about discriminating, but about keeping traditional family intact, while opponents say it is way to incorporate bias into Constitution and meddling in area that has been province of states.

Note: To purchase the complete text of Carl Hulse's article, see Fine Art of Debating a Point Without Getting to the Point. After 5 - 30 days, the NY Times will remove this article from its archives of free publications and will require a fee to return a single article. As of the date of this article's publication, this fee is $2.95 and permits unlimited viewing for 90 days.

For more on The New York Times policy, see Frequently Asked Questions About Rights and Permissions