‘Denying rights’ is #1 on the pro-gay-marriage hit parade.
‘Deny’ means that something is being withheld or revoked.
‘Rights’ are, of course, those inalienable (?) things we spend so much time on here and elsewhere. The Constitution and Bill of Rights enumerate some of them but they are far from an all-inclusive list.
This is why the definition of marriage is the crucial item. Playing the game of what is a right and what isn’t and who is being denied and who isn’t does not lead to a binary decision on what constitutes marriage which is the crux of the issue. If we define marriage as being between one man and one woman then nothing is being denied and no rights are being infringed because ‘gay marriage’ in theory and in practice cannot and does not exist.
bfl
I believe you are right. On the subject of what is a marriage? I believe it is whatever your faith defines it as. It is a religous term. I am a Roman Catholic. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe that the real mistake in Olson’s reasoning is the use of the term ‘marriage’ itself.
Homosexuals should be fighting for all the rights granted in any other civil union allowable under the U. S. Code and reinforced by the individual state codes. The government out of marriage argument I believe is the best answer. By not recognizing any religious sacraments or rites, the government puts all citizens on equal footing. We already get a marriage license from the justice of the peace. Why isn’t that a domestic partnership license that is confirmed by a document and necessary signatures instead of a ceremony. This mixes religious rites with civic process. There is where the problem lies. Religious rites and sacraments take place in churches and synagogues and yes, mosques too I suppose. Civil contracts like domestic partnerships take place in goverment offices.
In my opinion, every marriage in this country should be confirmed by a domestic partnership contract. Every domestic partnership contract does not necessarily need a marriage. Marriage contracts per se should go away but church based Marriage Certificates should remain. All citizens should have access to a domestic partnership contract that is exactly the same for all (polygamy, age of consent, ability to consent etc. can be worked out through debate and discourse).