If the majority of the anti-gay marriage movement was comprised of people who just feel we should not have government legislated marriage, I would be a lot more comfortable with it ...
Of course the prop 8 effort was not comprised of people who are against government legislated marriage, it was comprised of people who want their own personal views codified as law. Likewise, most of the gay lobby is comprised of people who want their own personal views codified as law. I disagree with both, and as I say, I abstained on prop 8, which I think was the only right way to go.
I agree that gays have a right to equal treatment under the law, and the law has no business making distinctions about personal morality.
You must also recognize, though, the rights of those who oppose gay marriage. Marriage has been around for thousands of years. This is not about a desire to outlaw a behavior, this is about opposition to the redefinition of what marriage is.
Say, for example, that the government somehow got control over the definition of "celibate" -- I'll use this as an example, because I think it is illustrative, not because I think it is analogous in every way to the gay marriage issue. They regulated it, licensed it, and otherwise screwed around in what was no business of theirs. They keep a rather traditional definition, however -- a "celibate" person is one who does not have sex. Years pass, to the point where the public recognizes a "celibate" person as one who has been deemed so by the state.
Also, suppose the state institutes certain special privileges for those who are deemed "celibate".
Now suppose, for whatever reason, perhaps in an effort combat STDs, the state redefines "celibate" to mean, "one who does not have unprotected sex".
Can you see how this would cause an outcry? Monks, nuns, and priests who have centuries long traditions of "celibacy", as well as those who have vowed to be "celebate" until marriage, and others, would view this as a direct attack against them and their traditions.
It is completely understandable to me that gays are offended that they are not treated equally, and given equal rights. It is also completely understandable to me that those with a traditional definition of marriage are offended by the state's efforts to change it.
Gays must recognize and appreciate the rights of those for whom marriage is a millenia long oral and written, religious and moral tradition, and who do not wish to see the definition changed. Those who ascribe to a traditional definition of marriage need to recognize and appreciate the rights of gays to equal treatment under the law, and equal rights.
The only way everyone's rights can be protected is to stop fighting against each other, and recognize that the real culprit is out of control government power.
) consenting adults can't enter into a contract together is, well, retarded.
