MARK MILLER ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

[Replying to Eve, here:]

Just to clarify, this amendment that you support would allow state legislators to extend some of the specific legal privileges of marriage to any two people who share the same residence. For example this could apply to unmarried couples, siblings, friends or a parent in the care of their children.

And you feel this amendment is in the interest of "protecting the institution of marriage." The government can give the benefits of marriage to any two people who share the same household (which, ironically, is not a current requirement of marriage).

This amendment succeeds in making your point. It makes absolutely clear that there will never be any legal recognition of gay relationships. It sends the clear message that a same-sex couple who wish to commit to themselves is the legal equivalent of two roommates sharing a home with a one year lease. And given the choice between providing the privileges of marriage to any two people who share a home and limiting those privileges to those who make a commitment but then having to recognize gay relationships, the
government would rather provide the privileges of marriage to anyone.

I have said it before and this proves it in my mind: This debate is not about "protecting the sacred institution of marriage" at all. It is about denying gay relationships legitimacy.

Is my view correct?
posted by Eve at 11:03 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home