The cultural laws related to marriage have been around for centuries. Changing the laws (which are purely cultural) should be done with the consent of the people.
So if "the people" of a given area assert a cultural taboo on miscegenation, mixed-race marriages should be banned?
Do you also believe people should marry animals, siblings, or parents?
Animals are incapable of giving consent. There are solid medical reasons for banning incest, but like those good conservative Mormons, I have no fundamental objection to polygamy among consenting adults.
It's really a libertarian position, rather than a liberal one, and I still don't quite grasp how the removal of a government restriction constitutes the imposition of the will of the government. Isn't the removal of government restrictions a Good Thing?
Are the rights of any individual infringed upon by a same-sex marriage?
How many times a year do you think INS agents kick down doors, wave guns in peoples faces, seize people who have done no harm, and deport them to places where they live in horrible conditions?
I'd have thought everybody was used to it by now, it's been standard procedure for a long time. But apparently not.
That's what the INS does. It's what we pay them to do.
One of the professed Christians on this thread once told me that if he had his way, homosexuality "would not be tolerated". I wonder how he'd feel about the prospect of armed agents breaking into the houses of gay couples and dragging them away.
"Ve are not tolerating zis in Amerika..." |
