|
tmyers, I'm not offended by your response...this is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and I don't consider it an attack when someone disagrees with me. I have opinions, not answers, and very seldom is there ever a "right" answer. This is pointedly so with the isssue you raise. On one hand, I see where you are coming from and take little issue with it. On the other hand, the reality of the situation is that in a representative government, as here, large majorities drive both the rule of law and morality. To put it in perspective, Brown v. Board of Education, wherein the U.S. struck down the "separate but equal" treatment of blacks in favor of integration, isn't even 50 years old yet, and racial prejudice still is alive and well, when we're only talking about differences in skin color. IMO, sexual orientation is an issue which engenders a much stronger negative response on the part of the vast majority of our citizens, due to religious beliefs and the "yuck" factor that many people can't get past (I personally believe that all sex is dirty, if it's done right, whether hetero or not). Bottom line is that the majority get to make the rules and they'll find what admittedly are often nothing more than lame excuses (eg, cost and confusion in spousal benefits, inheritance; putting children in danger by "confusing" them with "unnatural" gender orientation) to keep gays from being recognized as a legally protected class, much less permitting them to enter into a marriage which the government would hold to be legal. Since most people believe that marriage is limited in meaning to a legal union between a man and a woman, that's what it will be. Keep fighting the good fight, convince enough people otherwise, and maybe it won't always be that way.
|