| Friends....
I appreciate that we are engaging in an intelligent discussion on this issue (unlike some previous posts that resorted to name calling and reinforced bigotry).
The institution of marriage has its roots in religious doctrine and practice. It was actually an outgrowth of the new concept (at the time) of property rights. It became a civil institution when people demanded the right to pass on property as inheritance rather than the state or church automatically laying claim to people's property.
That's where the injustice comes in today. If a gay couple spends their lives acquiring property (home, cars, whatever) it is only through legal civil marriage that, if one of them dies, a spouse would be considered next of kin. Why should a family member of the deceased, possibly even someone in the family that rejected their gay relative, be the next in line to inherit that person's property? Doesn't make sense and isn't fair.
A legal definition of marriage for same sex couples has nothing to do with sexuality or religion. It's only about civil rights and benefits. Those who oppose same sex marriage want to make it a religious or moral issue so they attract more people to their point of view and keep a segment of society as second class citizens.
It's not that public recognition is needed. People can be against marriage equality for personal religious or moral reasons, but what we are talking about is equality under a constitution that governs us all.
It wasn't until 1958 that there were constitutional challenges to laws in some states that banned inter-racial marriages. Many in this country were horrified that blacks and whites should legally be able to marry. Same thing today with gay couples. |