Denying gay people the right to be married while granting that right to straight people in an unconstitutional restriction on gay people's rights.
Homosexuals should pursue that instead of trying to mimic the heterosexual model that they detest.
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that marriage isn't a right. You don't have a right to have a state issue you a marriage license for any model of relationship you want to have. The state defines the relationship models that fit; not you. The state is responsible for state sanctioned marriage; not you. You can live with anyone you want and love anyone you want and have sex with anyone that can consent to having sex with you. But you can't force the state to sanction your relationship.
But like I said. You are entitled to whatever opinion you wish on the matter.
Note that the states aren't banning homosexual liaisons. A state's ban on gay marriage is a statement that it is not going to be coerced into normalizing homosexuality and sanctioning homosexual unions and giving tax incentives for people to enter into homosexual unions. The "benefit" is that they don't have to jump through whatever hoops homosexuals want. Unless a state sees a benefit in doing so, it shouldn't be made to do so and this state sees no benefit in sanctioning homosexual unions as "marriage" and I think my state's decision is a wise one.
Of course not.
Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
You're not 'we the people. You're one person and most people in the USA don't agree with your ideas. Read a few polls.
here is a poll by Pew
And if this polling were accurate then why do the end run? Why not just enact the will of the people?
This is not about what is being done, but how it's being done. It very much matters how we get there.
This is the point at which you crossed the line into overgeneralization and prejudice.
But they don't have the power to do that, it's the end of our constitutional republic!
Yes, and the courts stepping in to overturn an unconstituonal impedement to individual liberty is exactly how it should work. Rights of the minority shouldn't have to wait until the majority approves.
You keep bouncing back and forth between saying equal rights would be fine but then insist that homosexuals not be sanctioned by equal treatment under the law. Seriously, stop pretending you ever supported civil unions.
I'm not bouncing back and forth about whether this is pertinent to equal rights. I've never considered this to be an equal rights issue and still don't. Homosexuals already have equal rights in all 50 states.
1.) I've never considered this to be an equal rights issue and still don't.
2.) Homosexuals already have equal rights in all 50 states.
It is an equal rights issue and that's why the courts will support it no matter what you say.
But homosexuals want their marriages to be treated the same as an traditional marriage.
I know. That's really the crux of it. It's not about equal rights for people. It's about demanding society consider their relationships to be sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. I just don't believe the state has to sanction them if the state doesn't want to sanction them. Heterosexual family units make perfect sense. Homosexual "family units" don't. I think it's unrealistic to expect society to consider them both to be the same.
I know. That's really the crux of it. It's not about equal rights for people. It's about demanding society consider their relationships to be sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. I just don't believe the state has to sanction them if the state doesn't want to sanction them. Heterosexual family units make perfect sense. Homosexual "family units" don't. I think it's unrealistic to expect society to consider them both to be the same.
Oh yes, I sure you will. You obviously care more about some folks agreeing with you than you do about the rewriting of the constitution by a few robed folks.
Marriage is simply the union of two entity's in matromony.
Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron — more at mother
Indeed they do, plain text and historical reading of the constitution is not the same as rewriting it to mean whatever you want it to mean.
I know. That's really the crux of it. It's not about equal rights for people. It's about demanding society consider their relationships to be sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. I just don't believe the state has to sanction them if the state doesn't want to sanction them. Heterosexual family units make perfect sense. Homosexual "family units" don't. I think it's unrealistic to expect society to consider them both to be the same.
Your English to Strawman translator is working like a champ, as always.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?