>>What do you think about the fact that all marriage law has been historically enacted based on a contract between man and woman, and to suddenly require that the same law applies to man and man, or to woman and woman, goes against understanding of the basis of the original marriage law?<<
I think that's a weak argument. "We've always done it this way" is not a reason to keep doing it that way.
As for the "legal benefits" argument, well, I wouldn't rely on that by itself. Heterosexual couples are permitted to marry legally, while homosexual couples are not. I don't think one needs to go any further than that. In the absence of a rational argument against both groups having the same rights, denying those rights to one group is insupportable. The fact that not being able to marry also prevents homosexuals from enjoying the legal benefits of the institution is an important consideration, but it's secondary.
For a gay couple to have to go to court to win legal benefits equivalent to those automatically conferred on straight couples is obviously wrong, too. I know there have been such cases, but I don't have examples at hand.
It is true that anti-gay-marriage initiatives have enjoyed support at the ballot box, though margins of victory have not been large.
Personally, I don't think issues of discrimination should be left to voters. The courts function, in part, is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
There was a time, not long ago, when interracial couples were not allowed to marry. If the voters of any state passed a law re-establishing that prohibition today, it would be struck down by the courts. And rightly so. |
