| mornelithe said: In theory, I agree with virtually everything you've said here. The problem is the speed in which the US Government works, especially on divisive issues, and most especially on divisive issues that include religious issues. So, because you cannot force anyone to propose legislation, and then force anyone to vote yes for legislation that is proposed, there has to be a short-term solution while the Government catches up. Otherwise, well, you'd have zero movement and the same problems for decade after decade. I don't think this judgement is the final say in this issue, but for now, it provides access to those who've previously been excluded from receiving the full support of US law. |
I agree 100%. I have no issue with gay-marriage legalization as a short-term solution, but I just hope all people, regardless of their sexuality, remember that these very same benefits they have been awarded (particularly the ones independent from the nature of marriage - like tax breaks) are not allocated to people who choose not to be married or who choose to be single. A common argument against this is "anyone can get married", but that is the very same thing that the religious right said to non hetero-sexuals, "anyone can marry the opposite sex." Ironically, as a sort of reaction to gay marriage legalisation the religious and social conservatives are supporting getting the state out of marriage. Of course, for the wrong reasons, but hey it is the solution that would make everyone happy.
