Well of course. We have both freedom of thought and of speech. They can present themeselves any way they want to. I don't have to believe them but it is still their right.
This is the history of marriage. The fact that today it has gotten outdated and more complicated than the statute of federal tax laws is irrelevant unless one wants to say we should change the marriage laws. Which I would agree with.
Well when I said the state sweetened the pot I never said that they did not do it as a result of a strong lobby that cared about nothing other than its own interest. And yes I have already stated that the state applies the laws unequally.
The state of the written law today bears little resemblence to the intention of the people who wrote the first laws on marriage. All the more reason to make some changes. Like getting the state out of our private lives whether or not we are gay.
In a sense they are treated differently because they have not been forced into a contract that is designed for the benefit of the state. yep. In another sense they are treated the same because they also can marry any person of the opposite sex that they want to. I normally don't bring that up but because of what you say next it is relevant.
Yes the state rules our all sorts of people from getting married even when they are raising children together. so even though those people who are raising children together cannot get married would you argue that gay people who are raising children together can then get married. You have just provided an excuse for the state to deny marriage to gay parents.
That has already been addressed. It is too difficult for the state to know which hetero couples will be infertile and it really doesn't seem to care as long as it can promote the marriage of other hetero couples. And since forcing infertile hetero couples to stay together unless they get a legal decree of divorce strengthens the states right to force hetero couples with children to stay married that is what the state will do. IN the case of homo couples the state can predict with almost 100% accuracy that they will not produce children so they have no leg to stand on if they want to infringe on the rights of gay couples to do whatever they want in the bedroom. That is until now. Now that they both just might have children and the state can say that broadening their powers to include forcing gay people to stay together would strengthen straight marriage it has two new reasons to create laws that apply to gay people.
In fact that is the argument you need to be making if you want to gain any headway. You need to argue that broadening the states powers to regulate the marriages of gay couples increases the ability of the state to strengthen straight marriage.
