This guy nails it.
“But, why “between two persons?” As long as we’re redefining marriage, why keep this last vestige of the medieval idea of marriage? Why not three, four or as many as the blissful spouses could tolerate? If it is a denial of equal protection of the law to prohibit any two persons of the same sex to marry, then why isn’t it also a denial of equal rights for three or more persons to marry? What is so magical about a couple, as opposed to a trio or a quartet? What’s the big deal about monogamy?
Is it not discrimination against those who wish to practice polygamy? Why should marriage be denied to those who wish to define it in their own way? Isn’t this a denial of their equal right to marry?
You might respond that there are good reasons to limit marriage to two persons, and I can think of a few myself. But whatever your or my reasons are, by what authority do we deny someone else their equal rights?
Under the proposed act, the right to marry also would be denied to other folks. Siblings couldn’t marry. Nor could cousins of the first degree. Aunts and uncles couldn’t marry their nephews and nieces.
Hey, it doesn’t hurt me; why should I care if siblings marry? Let them have as many genetically damaged children as they want. Their birth defects aren’t my problem.”
Actually, with the implementation of Obamacare, it is your problem. At least until the Death Panels get rolling.
The real fight about gay marriage has always been a cultural dispute. Most conservatives see promotion of the homosexual agenda as simply more decadence and harmful to children and society.The big question is will religious people and their clergy be allowed to excuse themselves from the fiasco. When government entities begin to take actual punitive actions against institutions and individual clergy for refusing to participate, things will get really interesting. What the Supreme court ultimately decides in the mandatory aborticant funding law will be predictive.
Fantastic post! I have used the same arguments myself (albeit less articulately). To continue your line
And why all this talk about love in connection with marriage? Why can’t people get married for admittedly tax-avoidance reasons? Or just because they “feel like” it? Under current estate tax laws, inter-family inter-generational marriage (no sex has to be involved, since we are letting each couple/trio/quartet, etc. define the terms and conditions of marriage) could avoid estate taxes entirely, since there is no estate or gift tax between spouses.
This all boils down to words having meaning. The goal of same sex marriage advocates is to strip the word “marriage” of all meaning. They are succeeding.
You are being too restrictive. Why do you always say “persons” or “people”? (/s)
Gay marriage does provide a philosophical gateway for polygamy. But, at least for now, the pro-polygamy movement suffered a setback with Romney's defeat.