In which ariyanakylstram makes an excellent point

[unixronin]

As ariyanakylstram pointed out about California Proposition 8,

If marriage is so damned sacred, get rid of divorce, not the right to marry.

Ah, but that would impact those who think they have a god-given right to say who may and may not marry and divorce as they please, wouldn't it?  Whereas banning gay marriage only impacts, you know, them.

Look, folks, it's this simple:  If you disapprove of gays marrying, DON'T MARRY ONE.  If your marriage is in such jeopardy that two people marrying several states away can put it at risk, maybe you should be paying more attention to your own marriage instead of worrying about who else is doing it.

You know, mote, eye, beam, all that jazz?  . . . You did actually read that book, right?

Comments

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I am not saying there is any reasonable correlation anymore. I am not arguing for withholding privileges from same sex couples. I merely state that discrimination is an incorrect term to apply to the current situation, for a number of reasons.

I keep hearing that it is no big deal, call it a marriage and be done with it, what does it hurt? Based on just the response to my posts on this blog, it is a very big deal. And I am not arguing against extending privilege, just incorrect rhetoric. Emotions are very high on the subject. I see it as an observer only, I don't have a position on the issue. From a social observer point of view, the courts are part of the government. The government power derives from the consent of the governed. If the courts go further than most of the governed want to go, the people have the power to restrict what the courts can do. People can only be pushed so fast. It is really interesting how things are shaping out.