-
An arrogant idiot? No, I don’t think anyone thinks you are that. As far as redefining marriage to be recognized by churches instead of the state, it has a superficial appeal, but it ends up creating more problems than it solves when you consider all the ways that marriage is intertwined with many everyday activites, in particular those that relate to the relationship between the government and its citizens. A legal marriage is fundamentally something created by the state, not the church.
One can be against what someone says, but be for their right to say it.
One can be against gay marriage, but be for the rights of gays to have it.
However, those who find homosexuality evil sometimes are unable to make the distinction, just as those opposed to the content of controversial speech sometimes can’t make the distinction.
As I said before, because of the consequences of trying to fight old ideas, the easiest solution is to allow gay marriage but not call it gay marriage. Call it a civil union, then sneak in a law that grants those with a civil union all the legal rights as those who are married. I predict that that is how it will be done in most states.
Once gay marriage is allowed in one state, doesn’t that sort of obligate other states to recognize the marriage? I would think most state laws regarding marriage respect marriage licenses in other states. There probably is no law that explicitly excludes marriage licenses from other states if the spouses have the same gender.
