For some reason I cannot fathom many still consider it an "issue" ... and an institution that need "protecting". I guess I've completely missed the boat because I don't understand: if the government can decide that "this couple" can have these rights, but "that couple" can't -- how is that "protecting" anything?
If I marry another man -- how does that in ANY WAY effect a heterosexual couples marriage?
Many people also seem to forget our government previous efforts to "protect" marriage by legal barring interracial marriage (again - the populace, thru our elected representatives, felt it necessary to do this). The results were abominable laws like the Virginia "Racial Integrity Act".
All of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage are essentially re-hashes of those old ones: "marriage is for 'us' -- and we don't want the concept contaminated by 'your version' of love".
That's what the California Supreme Court said when it ruled that gay couples should have the right to marry as a matter of basic equality. Before you could say "Jonathan and Andrew request the honour of your presence," opponents were suggesting that civilization would crash and burn if two guys could register at Pottery Barn and raise kids in a ranch house.
I think it all comes down to this: many people don't like the idea of two men (or two women) shacking up... Marriage legitimizes these relationships and that idea scares people. The "protect marriage" argument is simply code for "these relationships aren't natural -- they gross me out -- I don't want them recognize" ...
I could be wrong -- but someone has to explain to me what -- exactly -- is being protected.
Capt Fogg put it best in his blog:
Regardless of the now apparently reduced sanctity of my own marriage [referring to the Calif ruling], I continued to wait for my dear wife to have her X-ray with undiminished dedication.Lets just move on... This should be a non-issue in a liberal, secular democracy (that is where we live right?)...
Sanctity, of course is indeed a subject that our Federal Constitution excludes from the business of government. Establishing religious rules or laws based on religious rules is specifically forbidden and not applying any laws in a discriminatory fashion, whether based on religious taboos or not, has long been established in the law. What does CNN mean to imply here: that we should get rid of that nasty secular Democracy thing so we can all be holy? What else can we infer?