Because the tradition is what people affirmed in the elections. They asserted that they have the say-so on this cultural institution.
But they would *save *thousands on wedding costs.
What about the elections that supported gay marriage? Are you saying gay marriage is OK if the majority wants it?
Let’s start with Social Security and Veteran’s benefits and see where we go from there.
The la-la-la-can’t-hear-you fallacy. :rolleyes:
Of course it does. Most laws are ultimately based on tradition and nothing more. Why do you think laws differ from one culture to another? Different traditions!
LOL.
Is that why millions of straights opt for weddings instead?
But nice comeback.
What happens when traditions change?
If you want a wedding, it can cost as little as the license you pay the state. Many states have explicitly excluded people from participating in the legal mandate of obtaining that license.
Why is it racist to support black slavery (which, despite your assertions, has actually been going on for thousands of years) but not discriminatory to support marriage restrictions?
The tax laws can be changed. I would support such changes. Guardianships are also possible.
The public are fed up with the methods and tactics that many ‘fringe’ groups are using to impose their wants.
A majority of the public supports gay marriage, and has exercised this support in elections in several states over the last few years.
Yes, we certainly are. 
Like the election where they picked a president who supported marriage equality? Or do you mean the 12 states where marriage equality was achieved by legislative action or by voter referendum? I count 6 states where this has happened through the judiciary (and three more where rulings are being appealed).
Yeah, you already tried this one a couple of pages ago and I don’t remember you posting a cite when I asked for one. There is no “bu- buh- buh tradition!” exception to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Imagine how quickly the judicial system would fall apart if anybody in the legal system believed this was relevant.
What do you mean? A judge handing down a decision is not a change in tradition. Don’t try that move.
Nice try. This clearly says that you don’t understand the issue at all. You keep saying what you think the issue is not and have shown zero understanding of what the issue is, or even might be.
For the benefit of anyone else that may actually be interested in reality, there are many legal rights and privileges that I want to be able to access. I want to be certain that if something happens to me, my fiance (soon to be spouse) will have the inarguable right to inherit my property or I his if something should happen to one of us, I want the government, at every level, to treat us the same as they treat my brother and his wife.
Even small things like filling out one customs form when we come home from international travel rather than being treated as complete strangers by Homeland Security like we have been many times. It really sickened me to be treated very rudely by an official of the federal government and being told exactly that when coming into LAX from a trip to Mexico.
Public opinion has changed enormously on this tradition. A majority of the people believe the tradition has changed.
This has nothing to do with the ‘Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment’ and that’s my point. It’s idiotic to think that.
You might want to thank Republicans for it, by the way:
Would you like to try arguing that point, then? The argument that this violates that clause is pretty simple.
LOL! No, sorry, you won’t be able to dodge it that easily
Whether you think there’s a LEGITIMATE issue is besides the point. There IS an issue because we’re all talking about it. If we were talking about nothing, then the issue would be nothing. Since we’re talking about gay marriage, then that’s the issue. Pretending that it doesn’t exist is meaningless. There are actual gay people being married right now, actual gay couples fucking and stealing mojos away from straight couples (or some shit), and actual gay couples being denied benefits RIGHT NOW. That’s the issue.
Now if you are too cowardly to say what your objection to it is, then sure, mum’s the word, you can’t think up a good reason to argue your way out of a wet paper bag, that’s fine and dandy. But you’re not going to get away with saying there’s no issue. There is one. The issue is gay marriage. So why do you object to it? What is your reasoning? Or just admit you don’t have one and slink away