|
I can understand people opposing gay marriage because they don't like homosexuality. I don't agree with them, and I don't think their dislike is reason enough to deny a segment of the population equal rights, but I can at least understand it.
I can understand people who oppose it on religious grounds. Their beliefs are not my own, and the government could recognize gay marriages without forcing churches to marry them, but I can at least see where they're coming from.
But to oppose it because of semantics, because you'd have to buy a new dictionary? To have no moral or religious opposition, but to oppose it because you'd have to change the wording in Webster's from "man and woman" to "two persons"? I don't get that at all.
|