I don’t think that it is “strange.” I just think that it is irrelevant; it is a holdover from a different time before significant changes in science and culture removed the cultural barriers and the biological impetus for recognizing only opposite sex marriage. I see no significant difference between celebrating the natural coming together of a man and a woman from that of a man and a man or a woman or a woman. I can think of numerous benefits to society from recognizing such a natural coming together, regardless of the sexes of those joining, so I see no point in making a useless distinction. Given that many marriages produce no offspring, many offspring are produced without marriage, and we now have the ability to produce offspring wihout copulation, I find that appeal to be less than useful, as well.
Dogs and cats are different: they are biologically distinct species with significantly different behaviors. Marriage is the same act uniting persons of the same species. Men and women are biologically distinct, but the expression of love that is distinct from blood kindred or distinct from friendship without physical intimacy is pretty much the same. Your analogy fails.
For what it’s worth, this is the first time it’s even occured to me to think of rights as something couples can have, as opposed to something individuals can have.
That is my point. If enough voters could be found to band together and force the issue onto the ballot in CA of all places, it’s practically inevitable that it will happen almost anywhere, and nothing seems to be gained by waiting for that to happen rather than proactively putting it to a vote in the first place.
Speaking of CA, I wonder how the effort to repeal Prop 8 going? I know they missed the deadline for the June primary and the deadline for the Nov general is coming?
The act is marriage to a person of the same sex. Both straight and gay people are forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex. Both are free to marry someone of the other sex. Compare this to stating that a person of a certain race CAN marry a person of another sex but not another race. This is discrimination of people as opposed to an act.
This completely misses the point. Government works to foster the creation of stable relationships and the production of children by encouraging male-female pairing. Government does not single out individuals who cannot reproduce and the overall goal is to encourage stable family units.
Marriage is the codification of a specific relationship. In this instance, it is the normal relationship between a man and a woman. Changing that disolves the meaning of the word just as assigning the word “gay” to mean anything sexually abnormal.
The legal ramifications of the this codification is a streamlinging of property rights and the connection between parent and child. All of that can be done through the court system without altering the meaning of marriage.
Your distinction is rubbish. Under your silly version of the universe, both Blacks and Whites are free to marry someone of their own race so there is no discrimination.
You’re simply wrong and your attempt and rationalizing this is laughable.
The act is marriage to a person of the opposite race. Both blacks and whites are forbidden from marrying someone of the opposite race. Both are free to marry some of the same race. Compare this to stating that a person of a certain sex CAN marry a person of the same race but not the not the same sex. This is discrimination of people as opposed to an act.
If it costs more by a factor of at least 10, and those painstaking legal measures aren’t as airtight as marriage against post-mortem or post-hospitalization court challenges, then it’s not equal. Period. That’s not even to mention the states whose recently-adopted anti-gay-marriage statutes or amendments act to prevent ANY facsimile of marriage rights for same-sex partners.
You’re trying to foist off an inferior product on what you obviously consider to be an inferior class of people. It’s not like the wingnuts are trying to help us to get something that’s just like marriage but with a different name. They’re actively trying to prevent us from legally stabilizing our relationships against outside forces (family, state, church).
> Would these same people in Maine or California vote 52-48 or 51-49 to make it illegal for bookstores to sell books on wiccan religions or atheism? I seriously doubt it
Yes, probably. Both have large backwater populations. I know - ex-bay area, now in the worst part of the very large backwater, part of the state. Where bookstores are already 30 miles apart if you are lucky, 130 miles apart if you are not. If they can get by with no books here, why should you have them? is the way the thinking would go.
I’m jumping in a bit late but everybody is willing to vote away other people’s “rights”. Some are willing to vote away property rights and take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Some are willing to vote away the right to take narcotics for recreation. At issue is that people disagree on the importance of different rights.
This also puts the “think of the childreeeeeeeen!” argument to rest. There already ARE offspring involved in many gay relationships. Their parent’s relationship (often the custody household) is inherently unstable because of the lack of legal protections. Even the piecemeal POAs and wills can’t make the non-biological parent of children capable of adopting or caring for those children if the biological parent dies. And these people who are so supposedly concerned about the emotional health of the children are actively trying to make sure that not only remains the case, but that places where it is not now the case revert to it.
Marriage isn’t the same as taxes. All Americans are taxed at the same rate. If a black race car driver makes 200k a year he’s charged as much in taxes as a Native American professional skier who makes 200k a year. Taxes aren’t levied based on who you are. They are levied based on what you have.
Also, all Americans are bound by the same drug laws.
Some Americans however, are unable to marry the person they love. Do you see how that isn’t the same?
That is your opinion and a reasonable one but other reasonable people disagree. Personally I’d rather keep my money and live in a non-official marriage than have my union blessed by the government that takes, say, 50% of my income.
You don’t read very well. If marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman then any man and any woman can marry…regardless of sexual orientation. But, stating that the male-female union is not permissible due to the race of the participants is discrimination of the people involved.