|
....so it seems everyone agrees that a traditional marriage serves absolutely no social benefit to a "democratic" society, an any attempt to define and limit marriage further than a contract between two consenting individuals is an infringement of that persons civil liberties.
Well, marriage is a religious institution with what I believe social benefits. It's broader than two peoples confessing their lifelong commitment to one another, it extends further than legal benefits (in many peoples eyes). In essence, society is consenting to this "marriage."
Should one gay person that has devoted his life to a partner be denied legal leverage when it comes to matters of medical care for their loved one - absoltely not. But that's not what marriage is.
So in respone to Sparhawk's "Why are people exerting so much energy preventing gay couples from gaining the marriage label in the first place?" - Why are you fighting for it. What your really trying to say is exactly what ART said - marriage means nothing and serves no social benefit. There should be no marriage, and this contract should extend no further than the individuals that agree to it.
|