Some people say that we all get set in our ways, and while we might entertain arguments presented by others, we don't usually change our minds on issues we've already decided. For the most part they're right--at least in my case. I tend to form my opinions and then stick to them. That's how I, in the past, have treated the idea of marriage between homosexuals. Somebody said "gay-marriage" and I went, "Huh?" I've argued the "anti" position from perspectives ranging from linguistics and tradition to the notion that equal rights are provided for by the existing "conservative" rules for marriage: homosexuals have the exact same rights to marry under current law that heterosexuals do.
The thing is, I've changed my mind. I now think homosexuals OUGHT to have the right to marry any "of age, human" who legally enters into the union. I think every State should codify the notion, but that the federal government should present to the States an amendment to the Constitution.... "The several States shall have jurisdiction over the institution of marriage, but no State shall be bound to accept as legal any marriages that don't comply with its own laws."
What it boils down to is this... I've come to the conclusion that marriage between homosexuals in no way threatens the personal liberty of other individuals. "Gay marriage" is an assault against all sorts of stuff like tradition and the meaning of words, but it in no way infringes on other individuals. A State's allowance of homosexuals to marry does not violate the rights of any of its other citizens. Such an allowance changes the definition of marriage but it does NOT change the nature of more traditional marriages.
The fed has no role in the matter beyond a proposal to leave it to the States, and the individual States really OUGHT to let it happen. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
