Quote:
Quote by: Fangrim  There is no right to be married.
There is a right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
That gays don't have the right to marry a person of the same sex isn't surprising, considering that neither do straights.
The right to marriage is most certainly not being denied on the basis of sexual preference; the employment analogy is misleading. |
I think this is a specious argument. I doubt that any of us is so blind as to believe that marriage between a homosexual and a person of the opposite gender is equivalent to the marriage between two heterosexuals. The right to marry is not the question here, as homosexuals can be married by some churches -- heck, I'm a minister, and so is Isherwood; either of us can perform marriages from sunup to sundown. The government does not grant the right to marry. The issue is whether or not a particular couple may have the marriage they choose recognized by the government, and whether they may collect the benefits of that legal recognition of marriage. The government recognizes and subsidizes the chosen marriages of heterosexual, non-related couples; it does not recognize nor subsidize the chosen marriages of homosexual, non-related couples. Now, unless there is a logical reason for this differentiation, then it should be changed: either all marriages should be recognized, or no marriages should be recognized. No matter what the government does, people will still get married, but the government's treatment of marriage should be logical, consistent, and equitable for all citizens. Currently, it is not.
Do you have a logical basis for recognizing and subsidizing heterosexual marriage but not homosexual marriage?