I, perhaps mistakenly, thought you had accepted the distinction between active abuse and passively allowing a unequal condition to exist.
I see the distinction. I also see that, whether the deprivation is active or passive, the party is equally victimized. I don't think you can justify unfair treatment on the basis that is is passive, not active. You may be on a tad firmer moral ground tolerating passive unfairness than active unfairness, but it's still unfair.
What action are you talking about that makes the state a party to excluding who?
If estate tax or government health benefits or survivor benefits or any other kind of benefit is awarded only to marrieds, and if gay couples aren't permitted to marry, then they are being unfairly excluded, IMO, unless there is some reason to exclude them other than that they are gay.
As I said, I'm not "actively" <g> pursuing changing the laws to let gays marry because I appreciate the significance of the terminology and the traditional institution, but I do think we need to do correct the unequal treatment. It's wrong, IMO. Alternatives other than opening up marriage to gays should be discussed, although I wouldn't rule that one out. I think it would be preferable to the status quo, from the standpoint of my hierarchy of values, that is. |
