Replies

I disagree that taxpayers must pay for protection of anything other than inalienable human rights. Otherwise, the State does, indeed have the right to interfer - with its virtual and real guns and prisons - into the most private of actions in order to make sure that its laws are followed. If no one's right to life, liberty or property is being infringed, the State can't legitimately use tax money. Bastiat, Jefferson, Locke, and the Declaration of Independence echo that the only legitimate function of government is to protect rights.

State regulation does not make something a right: for example, the practice of medicine, law and nursing, the ability to drive on public streets, the ability to purchase alcohol and tobacco are regulated and certain pre-requisites are in place.

If a group of people wish for a non-right to be allowed them as a privilege, they should convince a majority of the voters to allow them that privilege. If they can get the majority to vote them a tax benefit, then more power to them. But there is no right to that tax money.

The problem with the current movement to same sex marriage is, as someone has pointed out, that it is a re-definition of marriage, and one that is using UnConstitutional court decisions on a Federal level rather than votes of the majority within a State.

You dismiss the notion that polygamy and incest are just as legitimate as same sex marriages. On what basis?

Re:
"..You dismiss the notion that polygamy and incest are just as
legitimate as same sex marriages. On what basis?...."

You're kidding, right?

The topic is the inability of two people to obtain a legal marriage
certificate because they are not of opposite sex. The topic is not
about three or more individuals wishing to group-grope legally, or
close family members wishing to cavort among themselves with
legal benefits for doing so. Nor is it about man and sheep, woman
and donkeys or you and the FR religious right.

[sorry for that outburst]

It's ridiculous to compare a one-on-one loving relationship between
two individuals that wish to commit themselves to each other for life,
to anything otherwise. Those that make such a bond for life deserve
the same respect and benefits for making such a commitment both
legally and morally, as anyone else. There should be no sexual qualifier
any more than there should be a requirement to have a child.

If the State licenses it, it can not discriminate prejudicially.

Argue it all you desire, the courts have said exactly what I have
and they will continue to do so, right up to our Supreme Court.

What's right; is right.

If you or the FR far right are so afraid that a couple of gays getting
married is going to undermine your own marriage, then you have
a lot more to worry about than exterior forces causing your marital
dismay.

UGH.