Let's start with the common definition of the term, per Merriam-Webster: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. The term has recently been bastardized by references to "same sex" marriage, an oxymoron. I personally think that two consenting persons, either opposite or same sex, should be able to enter into any cnsensual relationship they wish. Whether it is legally recognized, in the sense of spousal benefits, however, is another issue and a potentially expensive one for all of us taxpayers. Beyond that, there is the point already made, which is that same sex couples are asking for something they've never had...throughout history, the above defintion has remained unchanged. They represent a small but vocal minority, and by one psychological definition, homosexuality is a behavioral abnormality.
It's swimming upstream, under those circumstances, to expect anything more than civil unions and limited legal rights for gays. Finally, if you make marriage something else, the door is open to make it ANYTHING...my personal favorite would be a man and two or more women. And as for equality, the government has a compelling interest in defining areas where social health and welfare are concerned...otherwise satanists practising sacrificial killings of others, for example, would have to be allowed to practise murder in the interests of maintaining the kind of equality you speak of. Just my thoughts.
|