It is an issue of state's rights, the federal government has no business mandating an issue like this. Different regions have different values, everyone knows this. Let them decide on a state by state basis is what I say.
To be clear on my stance, though, I think the term 'marriage' is the problem. I think the institution of marriage should be reduced to a purely religious institution, governed by religious institutions and distributed as they see fit. As far as the government is concerned I think that all peoples wishing to partake in the state and federal benefits of cohabitation and commitment should be issued unions by the state. Let the religious keep their sacred marriage, but completely separate the word from government mandate and just make unions legal between anyone. It is a win-win situation, everybody concedes just a little while still getting what they want.
However, I also think the legalization of gay unions could pave the way to the legalization of polygamous and polyamourus unions, and any rational human being can see the down side to those.
One more thing to tack on, I disagree with your assessment of the lack of a polar nature to sexuality Syme. I think bi-sexuality is a purely social creation only partaken in because of the social expectation of child production and heterosexuality, and that all bi-sexuals are actually just homosexuals who aren't willing to commit sue to fear or due to nurture.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks