They can make a commitment to each other, and they can even have the same legal benefits. I don't have a problem with that. But they are not married, in either the legal, historical, traditional, or religious senses of the word.
I'm saying that yes, marriage as a whole gets devalued. It gets devalued by the high divorce rate. It gets devalued when Britney Spears decides to get married and divorced in a weekend.
And if polygamy is legalized, it will get devalued even further. All you have to do is allow an individual to get married all by himself, and you will have removed everything that defines marriage, and it will be reduced to just a title.
Oh please, will you get off the definition of "dog owner," "voter," and so on? The definition of "voter" has never included any specifics about class, gender or race. When black people were allowed to vote, or women were allowed to vote, the definition of "voter" did not change. However, the definition of "marriage" has always been specifically a man and a woman, and allowing gay couples to get married will specifically change that definition.
Sorry, the definition of voter in the US used to be white property owner. Then it changed to white male citizen and 3/5 of a black person. Then again, it changed many more times as the circle of voters became more encompassing.When black people were allowed to vote, or women were allowed to vote, the definition of "voter" did not change.
So change "veterans" to "black," or some other characteristic that is well defined. Why should only black Americans have the right to be black? They have a right that I don't! Shouldn't I be able to apply for government status to be recognized as black?
My point about the definition of marriage is that marriage actually means something to most people in this country. You can’t claim to support marriage on the one hand, while dismissing part of its definition on the other hand. It just doesn't work that way, and it's a slap in the face to those of us who believe in marriage as it has been practiced for thousands of years.
Guess what? The Defense of Marriage Act, that is a possible amendment to the Constitution, has civil unions as one of its provisions, and guarantees that civil unions are given the same rights as marriage.
A state legislature could then create a similar system, usually called civil unions, for same-sex couples -- i.e. for two men or for two women. These would grant some or all of the approximately 400 state benefits that have been previously granted only to married couples. But over 1,000 federal rights and privileges that married couples receive automatically would be withheld from "civil unionized" couples because of the federal DOMA law. It prohibits the federal government from recognizing civil unions. The constitutionality of that law is in doubt.
Then it sounds like you and I both support the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
So , if "separate is never equal" as you say, then how is it that the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, and so on? And if equal protection can be applied to those separate but equal groups, then why could equal protection not be applied to civil unions?
And I like marriage the way it is right now.
Those same benefits could be extended to civil unions. You're acting as if it's impossible to give benefits to a group that has been denied those benefits in the past. Hasn't our country proved that that is simply not true?
Right now being handicapped is a swanky little country club that some handicapped people are afraid will be tarnished if they let non-handicapped people join.
Right now being black is a swanky little country club that some black people are afraid will be tarnished if they let white people join.
Right now being male is a swanky little country club that some men are afraid will be tarnished if they let women join.
See how ludicrous those all sound? By definition, a woman can not be a man, a white person can not be black, and a gay couple can not be married. Having rights in America is about having the right to DO things, not the right to BE things. If gay couples are given the same rights as married couples, then they can not complain that they are not also given the title of "married." Black people did not get equal rights by declaring themselves as white.
What if they ARE harming you, but no one else agrees with you? What then?
But it could be done. It's like you're arguing that equal rights for blacks isn't happening fast enough, so black people should be redefined as white.
Read it again. By definition, a gay couple can not be married, because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
What if they ARE harming you, but no one else agrees with you? What then?
But it could be done. It's like you're arguing that equal rights for blacks isn't happening fast enough, so black people should be redefined as white.
Exactly. And gay couples can demand to be treated equally to straight couples. There is no need for them to be considered married.
Last time I checked, we as a society agree with my definition. Even in California, arguably the most liberal state in the union, voted by an overwhelming 90% that marriage is between a man and a woman.
and soon, marriage will just be a word, stripped of any meaning whatsoever. I shudder to imagine what society will be like when that happens.