The issue is whether or not they should HAVE that right in the first place. That's the issue. It's not whether or not we should take it away, it's about giving it to them in the first place. Please understand that. Because gay marriages are obviously not spelled out in the Constitution as a right, the government must decide if it wants to recognize and grant gay civil unions or not.
I don't believe that holds water. In this country, individual rights are extremely valued. The emphasis is not on me to prove why someone deserves a right. The onus is on the opposition (in this case, you), to prove why they should NOT have that right. The Constitution, has far as I understand, does not specify marriage has a spiritual and/or legislative bond solely between a man and a woman, either. You have to prove that there is a vital reason to the stability of the nation/states that gay couples can not and should not marry, otherwise you ARE withholding rights from them in the first place. Otherwise, it is discriminatory for no valid reason.
Comments
I don't believe that holds water. In this country, individual rights are extremely valued. The emphasis is not on me to prove why someone deserves a right. The onus is on the opposition (in this case, you), to prove why they should NOT have that right. The Constitution, has far as I understand, does not specify marriage has a spiritual and/or legislative bond solely between a man and a woman, either. You have to prove that there is a vital reason to the stability of the nation/states that gay couples can not and should not marry, otherwise you ARE withholding rights from them in the first place. Otherwise, it is discriminatory for no valid reason.