It’s neither of those things; it’s a matter of civil rights and Constitutional guarantees under the law.
If they think morality is involved they are free to not participate in gay marriages by either performing them or attending ceremonies. Of course, if any of the moral values people are gay themselves, they’ve got a huge conundrum on their hands.
They want to talk about tradition, and traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman.
This is so not true. Marriage began as a union between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman…
In a few early cultures the reverse was true; women had many husbands.
Traditions
Traditions are made to be broken and change with the times.
Traditionally, marriage was to protect women. But women were also chattel -- the property of men to do with as they pleased. They could be mistreated, sold, swapped…anything men wanted to do was traditionally okay. Women had no rights.
We broke that tradition; women are equal under the law, while another tradition…that of fighting for certain rights, such as equal pay for equal work remains to be squashed.
Traditionally, certain religions practiced human and animal sacrifices, yet another tradition gone by the wayside, as are laws forbidding interracial marriage.
Some say gays don’t need anything more than civil unions. Fine! Civil unions for all. The anti-same sex marriage people wouldn’t like that at all.
California voters are a schizophrenic, illogical lot indeed. We voted to let chickens fly and be free, while taking a basic civil right -- that of marriage -- away from a small segment of the population.
In essence, they are more than willing to cage, hobble, confine and restrict the movement of gay people, but not chickens.
From sweet champagne to sour grapes
So jubilant are the antigay marriage people, that they are planning to expand their discriminatory operations to all 50 states.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
