mek, I was afraid you had abandoned this thread altogether. I wanted to thank you for your comments back in post #50. For my part, I'm disappointed in my fellow conservatives in this thread. They shouldn't let your side get away with asking for reasons to oppose homosexual marriage, as if we were the ones needing to explain ourselves. They should be asking your side to explain why the law should be changed, and why we should pretend that men and women are interchangeable, even in such a conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual institution.
I've been working late and enjoying the fruits of overtime.
Recently bought some more woodworking equipment and have been busy making sawdust and wood shavings.
Why should the law be changed? I have a reason. With
DSM IV, homosexuality is no longer a treatable mental illness or a deviant behavior, but is recognized as merely an alternative lifestyle. This change coincided with laws being struck down that had made homosexual behavior illegal. Like it or not, for better or for worse, homosexuality is now accepted in the eyes of the law, if not every individual, as an acceptable alternative lifestyle in America. Therefore, denying homosexuals equality with heterosexuals in regards to the State accepting a formalization of a permanent relationship (whether it be called marriage, civil unions, personal incorporations or what have you, so long as the semantics and legal construction in the eyes of the State be equal, not similar, not equivalent, but equal) is a denial of liberty under Amendment XIV, section 1.
Quite a few more years ago, people of non-Caucasian races were considered inferior. Eventually this attitude changed leading to changes in the laws (see Amendments XIII, XIV and XV among other changes of law). Likewise, women were once not thought of as capable of being part of the People's self-governing process. Eventually this attitude changed leading to Amendment XIX (again, among other changes of law). It seems to me that sexual orientation is following the historical patterns of change previously exhibited in regards to the attitudes of race and gender. Aren't many of the arguments against homosexuality given here the same or similar to those that were once used against miscegenation? "It isn't natural." "No valid offspring."
If so, Mr. Damright would surely welcome same-sex marriage in Virginia if many people who believed in same-sex marriage moved to Virginia and thus became the majority of the Virginia populace and so decided to accept same-sex marriage at the state level. Right?
Hardly. Why would I welcome millions of people with yankee values (or lack thereof) moving to Virginia and taking over? If that happened, I might would move to another State where I'd feel more at home ... but regardless, I'd still be for a marriage protection amendment in the US Constitution.
But Hugh, isn't that flying in the face of your own statement? If the majority of the people in Virginia said they wanted "gay marriage", you would still stand against it?
Hugh, it's not a very good way to debate to claim State's Rights for when the State agrees with you but then desire the State be trampled by the Federal gov't when the State doesn't agree with you. If you personally are just against homosexuality and want laws against it, fine, but don't make it into a State's Rights issue unless you are willing to be ok with homosexuality if the majority of your state is.
