Q: Why not give a "Congression Medal of Honor" to everyone who want one?
A: Because then they would have no value.
Same thing with marriage. You don't give marriage licenses to just any person who wants them for any reason whatsoever because then they don't mean anything. The are specific guidelines which determine what can and cannot be a marriage and if you allow those to be stretched then marriage doesn't mean anything.
I mean, how would you feel if they didn't let you get married?
I am allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex; not the same sex, nor sheep, nor pigs, nor am I allowed to marry multiple other peoples, just one, nor am I allowed to marry relatives closer than a second cousin. And yes, I'm a-ok with that.
The best answer is to ignore them and hope they mind their own business.
If you really think that is valid, why are you interjecting your own opinions instead of just ignoring the issue and hoping the rest of us traditional marriage fiends mind our business? You can't have it both ways. If the issue warrants no activism it follows you shouldn't be involving yourself in it.
Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality.
The only just implemenation of the law is as a moral instrument. Murder, rape, theft, these are all moral issues. Laws which punish these are rooted in the premise that they are immoral actions.
But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.
Laws which say "homosexuality is ok" are every bit as morally loaded as laws which say "homosexuality is not ok". It follows that a law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals would in fact be "legislating someone's version of morality".
Again, you can't have things both ways.
Because if everybody who felt that way did that, there would be a "silent majority" who were opposed, yet wouldn't say anything about it.
Laws which say "homosexuality is ok" are every bit as morally loaded as laws which say "homosexuality is not ok". It follows that a law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals would in fact be "legislating someone's version of morality".
Yes, but is not having a law "homosexuality is not ok" morally loaded? I'm talking about the federal government here actively taking the "homosexuality is not ok" line, and using it to spread its power and morality. If by your definition, any law or lack thereof must have moral consequenes, why not take the tack with the fewest limitations?
Legal marriage is purely a social institution between two people who "love" each other, and I defy you to prove otherwise. If you could show that a sheep "loved" you, I'd be out here arguing there shouldn't be a law against marrying sheep. But I don't think you can do that.