I guess I should say that it’s a state issue, but it’s also a “social issue” and the left is expert at throwing these “social issues” up as cosmic grievances.
I’d never support penalizing churches for not performing gay marriages or denying facilities, services to things they don’t agree with. We can say that we think that a civil union is ok... but that’s not enough for some because they claim that it doesn’t have the benefits of a “straight marriage.”
There’s a portion of the gay community that presents themselves in a manner that causes people to say “faggotry is afoot”. These are the liberal gay people. And I don’t like the liberal gay people. When I was in college I had some friends that went gay (men) and I had to tell them that harassing a straight man was as bad as some guy harassing ME. I hope I educated some of them.
I recall reading about Reagan getting a letter from a schoolgirl about how he was going to handle the Lesbianese (Lebanese) and he asked, “How can I answer that without alienating a political action group?”
I think we need to remember that our basic unit of strength is the family. I’d never shun a family member for being gay. If gay people want to form a union... and look to form a cohesive unit....then great.
It’s only the bisexuals and willy nilly ... @#$% everyone all the time crowd that I detest.
That sounds nice. However, defining marriage has never been a State issue. Recognizing and upholding marriage has been in regard to State Citizens; Common law marriage comes to mind. The differences between states have been few and never actually involved defining characteristics of what a marriage is but rather the requirements necessary e.g. residency, blood test, age of consent, etcetera...
There are some things unalienable as well as things reserved to the people. Things are not always a States versus Federal issue.
Government at any level redefining marriage is something new, something novel, and something absurd.