Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Really? So I guess before the US, there were no long-term relationships, since it takes the gov't to give official sanction to a relationship and to allow it to procede.
|
It certainly requires government sanction for them to receive the same official benefits. If the only difference between a "legitimate" marriage and a homosexual one is the gender of one of the parnters, why shouldn't they receive these benefits?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
You didn't prove nothing. Nobody is being denied anything. New rights are not being created to promote certain lifestyle choices, that's all
|
Then why is the amendment written to deny marriage benefits to anyone outside of a narrow definition? If you do not meet that definition, you do not qualify as a marriage. The rights that government normally bestows on those that are in a long term relationship are DENIED to certain couples, simply because they do not meet that definition.
Also, you assume that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. This assumption is faulty. Even if it is a choice, why is the alternative promoted instead? This amendment clearly promotes one over the other. It provides rights SPECIFICALLY for one "lifestyle choice". How is this non-discriminatory?
Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt