Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalCoug
I don't know - what if (and I believe it is) sexual orientation is as immutable as race? Shouldn't it receive similar protections?
What if homosexuals took control of the government of Nevada and managed to change the state constitution to provide that men and women cannot marry each other; that people can only marry their own gender? If you lived in that state, wouldn't you consider it an abridgment of your civil liberties?
|
A silly hypothetical.
May gays vote? Yes.
May gays own property? Yes.
May you fail to hire on the basis of orientation? In most cases, no.
May gays cohabitate? Yes.
May gays own property together? Yes.
May gays conjugate? Yes.
May gays have the name of Mr. and Mrs. legally? No.
May gays have instruments conveying property upon death? Yes.
I don't see much functionality in this debate.
And if I were denied the right to legal recognition, so what. The Church should get out of the business of "marriage" and focus upon "sealings". Sealing is a noble construct, marriage is a social construct that means whatever subcultures say it means.
Do away with the legal recognition of "marriage" altogether, make them all domestic partnerships or civil unions, and let the Churches decide upon what else should be heaped upon the union. That solution is much more elegant in my opinion.