He raises a good point though. Assuming homosexual marriage should be legal for the reason of equality under the law then those who are unmarried should receive the same considerations or there is still inequality under the law. Married couples have benefits that non-married persons do not. My wife and I love each other, we live together, we do blah blah etc. I could do all of those things without being married. The only difference between married and not married in this case is the 10 minutes we stood in front of a judge and the fee we paid to get a piece of paper saying we are married. Since the piece of paper changed not one thing about our relationship (to us) or how we feel about each other, all it did was give us certain legal rights/benefits/obligations that we did not have before. Why are married us treated differently by the law than unmarried us? I think that is his point. I get wanting to be married for the symbolism of it, but why should married people be treated any differently from the non-married?
Originally Posted by patski
To answer my own question it seems to me to be based on a certain idea of societal stability etc. That said, is that reason enough for inequality under the law?
somehow I manage to leave my intelligence and decorum at the door wherever I go. I doubt your journal will be an exception to that - not on the rug
What the F&#* is a decorum? - Mr. Anthony