MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling.  For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others.  So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling.  On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral.  I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that.  I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable.  A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status.  I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men.  Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written?  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.

The example of a man wishing to join a sorority is a fantastically bad analogy to same sex marriage.  Being kept out of a private club doesn't have the legal impact that marriage does.  Not joining a sorority doesn't prevent you from adopting children, doesn't affect your tax filing status, doesn't affect your visitation rights at hospital, doesn't affect the appearance of your name on your spouse's death certificate, and so on.

I've read the US Constitution, you might want to as well (it doesn't take long) - there's not a single word in it about marriage.  But there's a LOT of words in it regarding equal protection under the law.

Boru