Replies

You should let the taxpayer marry whom they want to marry.

Your use of the word "let" or "allow" is misleading. No liberties are being denied. The individuals are free to pursue happiness.

The state's definition of marriage, fixed for centuries, follows the traditional definition. The question is whether the state's definition should be changed. Why should it?

(Having an "alias" called civil unions is almost the same thing as changing the definition, if all legal structures of marriage apply to civil unions as a matter of principle.)

I certainly don't think my marraige or anyone else's is under attack because the women down the street got married. My marraige is strong and doesn't need defending from homosexuals.

My main concern is that I know this profound change will affect the next generations. I cannot predict what that change will be, but noone has yet enunciated a satisfying reason why the change is needed.

If such a law was proposed, I would debate against it, and the law would then be passed, or not. This is not what happened in my state (Massachusetts) - four people with robes "passed the law" - and I am very angry about that. Do you blame me?

What I cannot counter is the civil union point. I don't know much about what they do. I think it's important to point out, even counter to my own position, that with a will and living trust it would seem you can do much of what it takes to ensure your "partner's" financial security and your status if seriously ill.

I take somewhat of a libertarian view, get governement out.

However, if government is in, then it would seem to be the obligation of those who want to exclude others to make their case, as opposed to the other way around.

You know I agree with you on this, NutCrackerBoy. And when you read the original article that started this thread, it would have us believe that we are somehow preventing two men from standing in front of their religious leader and performing a solemn ceremony of commitment. Hogwash! We are preventing them from acquiring the same legal status, yes, but nothing is preventing them from pursuing their private commitment.