Because discriminating against people for something they have no control over is wrong.
Yeah, that seems a fair argument. Presumably the discrimination comes in the form of lack of legal benefits of marriage. If that argument held weight, presumabily a gay couple would be able to win the case for spousal healthcare support, inheritance, whatever they're after, in court.
Are you aware of any such legal victory by gay couples, where they claimed a lack of the legal rights of marriage constituted discrimination? For example, have the courts ruled that IBM's health care plan has to pay for a gay partners' cancer treatment, or something like that?
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?
In any case, if a majority of people still believe that, it's only a very small, and shrinking majority. I'd have to look up a recent poll, but as I recall, the numbers are close to being even.
As far as I know the gay marriage issues which have come to a vote have almost universally lost. If you're opinion that the view of the majority is shifting, then gay marriage will eventually be enacted at the ballot box. I think that's preferable to requiring it via the courts. |
