Do you not comprehend the difference between state involvement in something and banning something, the state's non-involvement in something and not banning it?
We're talking two different things here. As long as the state is involved, then they need to do so fairly. Banning certain people from entering into contracts based on race, gender, religion, etc can NOT be allowed to continue by our own government. We, as a people, cannot continue to allow such discrimination to happen.
But, if the state removed itself from it altogether, the right would be free to every single person in the country regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. Everyone could get married, any time they want. The state is not infringing on any rights or turning their backs on them because they are not involved. They don't NEED to be involved. Individuals can handle things themselves. We don't need big brother holding our hands.
But as long as they ARE involved, they need to be involved fairly. Currently, it is not done fairly. It is blatant discrimination and that cannot be tolerated. We can't tell women that they're free to marry women sans the state and jump through hoops to get privileges that are freely given to others any more than we could tell blacks to do that, or protestants to do that, or wiccans to do that.
If Massachusetts rules that gay marriage is legal, Utah rules that polygamy is legal, California rules that man can marry his mother or his brother, and New York changes the legal marrying age to 13 and 70-year-old man can marry a 13-year-old boy........
Do I have to recognize these marriages in Texas if they all move here?
Same-sex marriages are welcome as a variant on the theme just as humanity has welcomed many other variations of marriage.
Last edited by Jerry; 07-09-10 at 11:03 AM.