Steele can frame the issue however he likes. He will still be wrong. This is about equal treatment under the law. If gays can’t marry, nobody can.
Marriage as a religious institution is not at issue here, and even if it were, homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else.
Civil marriage is the institution at issue, and equal protection will eventually overturn restrictions based on the gender of the applicants. It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.
If you believe in marriage, and you don’t want to “share” with homosexuals, that’s too bad. It’s a word, and it’s an idea, and it’s free to all. You can deny them their civil rights for a time, but in the long run marriage will not survive as a civil institution unless all have equal rights to it. It’s the law of the land, at the most fundamental level, being a consequence of our Constitution.
It matters not if Steele can reframe the issue - the issue has already been practically decided, and the franchise will be open to all within the next few years. Demographics are key here.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment
Peace.