That may be true. On the other hand, the one constant in the marriage tradition for the last 10,000 years has been that it a heterosexual affair between a man and woman.
No its not. There have been cultures, including Greece, that have allowed same sex marriage. In fact, various tribes have allowed same sex marriage throughout their history. In fact, quite a number of cultures now, including some here in the US include homosexuals and/or same sex couples as being recognized as "married". And at least one country allows group marriages, more than two people are married to all the rest, so that would have to include at least one same sex partnership.
Not to mention, homosexuals have been getting into opposite sex marriages for those 10K years as well. Their being in an opposite sex marriage does not make them heterosexual.
The only constant that has existed for marriage throughout every culture and all the centuries has been that marriage unites people as legal family. It creates legal bonds between families. Nothing else is more constant than that when it comes to marriage, including marriage being between a man and a woman.
I disagree. The state has a definite interest in recognizing and supporting some cultural traditions. Christmas is one of them. Marriage is another.
You believe it has such an interest. Find me a ruling by the SCOTUS, that applies to laws today, that says that cultural traditions is a definite state interest that can be used to uphold laws that would otherwise be in violation of the 14th Amendment.
You cannot hi-jack something that already belongs to you.
Sure you can, if other people believe and make laws that say it doesn't.
Actually, marriage has, by-and-large, consistently remained a heterosexual affair across cultures and continents, since the dawn of human civilization. Same-sex marriages have been so historically exceptional that they represent little more than cultural plagiarism and parody. I believe we have discussed this already.
It doesn't matter how "exceptional" those marriages were, they existed. Which means that marriage has not just been a heterosexual affair.
As I have said before, the only thing that has remained completely true about marriage throughout human history has been that it legally binds those within each union as legal family.
Just the same, non-heterosexuals can and do get married (ie: Edward II of England for one). Indeed, over the ages, many a non-hetero has married often out of family expectations or political necessisty.
But non-Christians do not have to pretend that they are Christian in order to receive the benefits of getting paid extra or time off for Christmas. In fact, a person doesn't even have to pretend they have plans to celebrate the holiday or during the day at all to get those benefits.
The government does not refer to Christmas as Yule, or Saturnalia, or Winter Solstice, Channukah, or any of a long list of names for various winter festivals which have existed throughout the course of human history. It recognizes Christmas as "Christmas" due to its historic popularity with the overwhelming majority of its citizenry.
Right, it does. Doesn't make it right. Anyone wishing to challenge the use of the word "Christmas" as being wrong could do so.
And the only way that the federal government would be able to win the case to keep Christmas a legal holiday that is called "Christmas" would be to show that it does not discriminate against any person, no matter their religious beliefs, or other characteristics, in how the federal government's legal rules for the holiday are legally upheld.
They cannot do this with marriage because they do not even have a separate institution for same sex relationships currently that gives all the same benefits of marriage, no matter the two people's sex.
No, they have taken nothing. They are just going along for the ride, which is something that gays can do with the marriage tradition as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. If they want to enter into a same-sex civil union they should do so under a different title.
On the contrary, as I have said previously, in order to get the legal benefits of Christmas, a person does not have to pretend to be Christian or even pretend to celebrate the holiday at all. There is no obligation to anyone in gaining the legal benefits of Christmas that require a person to compromise themselves in order to participate. That cannot be said about marriage. In order for a homosexual to get the legal benefits of marriage, especially a homosexual with a partner of the same sex that they want to be their legal spouse and have those benefits/rights/responsibilities that come with legal marriage, they would have to compromise that by giving those rights/benefits/responsibilities to another person, one who is of the opposite sex just to satisfy the discriminatory requirement of the marriage contract.
It is interesting how you cannot see the problem with dismissing the argument that interracial marriage is so similar to same sex marriage, but you compare it to something like Christmas that isn't even close to the same thing. Notice how easily I can change your argument against same sex marriage to be against interracial marriage (which was indeed used as an argument against interracial marriage being legal):
"...which is something that
those who are attracted to people of another race can do with the marriage tradition as long as they marry someone of the
same race. If they want to enter into
an interracial civil union they should do so under a different title"
