The equality arguments weren't cutting it, but saying "Polygamy would be redrafting the rules, so *** can get married" works better?
The only reason Polygamy is involved is because it also isn't legal. But theres no other relationship between homosexuality and polygamy.
If you ever ask a opponent of *** marriage what the definition of marriage is they gerenally say "its defined as being between a man and a woman."
If that all that it is, then homosexual couples couldn't be definition. But that isn't even a complete sentence and there are terrible amounts of legal rammifictions that come with marriage.
The reason they short the definition is because they don't know. If the question was asked this way, "should anyone be denied the right, by the federal government to give their money to who they want when they die? Should the government be allowed to deny who makes their medicial decisions should they no longer be able to?"
if they equality argument isn't cutting it, then you're in favor of the Fed picking a choosing who can do what. And its inherently against everything the country, and certainly conservatives are vying for.
I can't pretend to know what the homosexual community is feeling about the word "marriage" being attached, I just don't know. But there are some school desks down in Kansas that say it can't be any other way. Theres a train car in the deep south that says unless its marriage, it isn't anything.
We are talking about equality here, under the law. If the laws of this country are as fickle as some would like them to be, why don't we just go back to Hammurabis law. Why don't we start breaking everything back down.
We're trying to better hold up ideals of the Constitution. That there aren't special privlages for some. That there are no second class citizens. I'm not going to tell you which side you should be falling on, its your decision. But in the end we're going in on direction or another. But i'd rather be with New England on this one than Saudi Arabia.
|