Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you believe that marriage as an institution is between a man and a woman - as an overwheming majority of this country outside of this Board seems to think - then his statement is patently true.
|
Would forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus be okay if whites were forced to sit in the front?
It seems disingenuous to me to say that equal rights are being protected as long as any person - gay or straight - is free to marry any other person of the the opposite sex. I think that leaves the state making an equal-rights distinction based on tradition and religious-based morality, and I'm not comfortable with that.
And, keep in mind that I'm not speaking of the religious component to marriage. Churches should probably be left alone to work out, in their own doctrinal fashion, on whom and on what combinations they're willing to confer their blessing. I'm only speaking in terms of state-confered benefits. I don't think our Constitution, in its present form, nor the body of existing con-law caselaw, allow for the distinction of gender this way. So, I end up thinking that the courts that are ruling like the NJ court are correct, legally, and I also end up thinking that we should make the religious component and the civil-law component of marriage separate.
