Dear Republican Party,

I am writing to you today in support for the equal rights of same-sex couples. As an American with an acute sense and appreciation for the tenets of individual rights, equality before the law, and liberty, I have come to understand that no free society – perpetuated as a representative republic – can stand so long as a minority remains deprived of those three tenets.

I write to you less in favor of extending marriage to same-sex couples, but more of eliminating government’s detrimental influence on the institution itself. I primarily seek to ensure all citizens are given the same fundamental rights, and that no majority may reign tyrannically over the minority. Such is the case today in marriage contracts. Currently, the law stipulates that only a man and a woman may be legally bound to enjoy a certain set of benefits which same-sex couples are not entitled to. Even with the advent of civil union contracts across the nation – and despite the inherent inequality in semantics – it falls very short of the same treatment opposite-sex couples receive.

Some fear allowing for the legal recognition and equality thereof of the rights of same-sex couples, our society would set a dangerous precedent; a slippery legal slope plunging into the allowance of other behavior such as polygamy. I contend however that such legal recognition and equality would set a radically different and much more positive legal precedent; one which allows greater freedom as opposed to one that disallows freedom. Moreover, polygamous marriage is a different debate at its core. Same-sex marriage is about removing a gender restriction. Polygamous marriage is about changing a two-person contract to include many people. Arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are incongruent with those of polygamous marriage.

Additionally, voices from the religious quarters of our society contend that homosexual behavior is a sin and thus should not be subsidized by the government. They attempt to bolster their argument by ordination of their line of thinking with those of the founding fathers, claiming that noble men such as Benjamin Franklin, and John Madison allowed their religious inclinations to help shape our country, and that by abandoning such spiritual jurisprudence we diverge from the intent of the framers. I contest this notion, arguing rather most importantly is the preservation of equal rights, than that of religious preservation. I argue vehemently – conscious of the idea that there ought to be a separation between church and state – that the spiritual obligations of some in society should not be enforced by secular law onto others.

I end by asking you, party leadership, and those skeptical of allowing for equal protection of the law for same-sex couples, to read the famous excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, which I’ve quoted below, and ask yourself if you are denying same-sex couples the basic human rights exemplified by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote this document.

Good stuff, Tetra.

Run for (R) POTUS nominee?

Are you asking me who I want to run?

I haven't really picked yet. I kind of like Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota, but I don't know if he's going to run, and he doesn't make my slacks all that tight. Gary Johnson turns me on a little.

I'm still waiting.

Edit: The irony police just informed me that I shouldn't try and be funny by pretending to be sexually attracted to political candidates in a gay rights thread.

It's a problem of pragmatics. Marriage should remain a religious institution and the state should be involved with civil unions for couples. Unfortunately there's no way to turn back the clock, because people would scream that the gays are killing marriage by removing it from government purview. So instead the gays are going for the next best option, extending marriage rights to themselves.

Quite right.

What some people don't understand is that much of the opposition is not really about marriage. It is anything to do with gay people. Its not about defending marriage at all, its about opposing homosexuals. Its the same people who came out to fight us every slow step we've made, right back to when homosexuality itself was a crime. There are many who would still support criminalization today. Its just some people's mission to oppose us at every turn, they simply want us gone so they don't have to deal with the reality that we exist.

The first thing that will happen if the government ever changes legal marriage to "civil unions" for all, even just a semantic change, is the outcry of people who contend the gays have finally succeeded in their goal of destroying marriage. There will be the perception of something taken away, being downgraded if you will. Which of course would be rich since many who spent years saying that gays should be content with civil unions (which they don't really support either) will turn around to cry of persecution and find themselves yet another reason to scapegoat the gays who they have really just despised since day 1.

It is quite sad that those same people think they are morally superior. Some need to be slapped across the face with a bull whip.



I also find it rather ironic that the it's many in the "anti-government" crowd that hold these beliefs. If they were truly anti-government, like myself, they would want marriage to have nothing to do with the government, outside of upholding the contract (even that is debatable). It's a change in principle. And it isn't good.

I don't even see why this is still an issue.

1. US Citizens are entitled to equal rights
2. US Citizen is homosexual
3. ???
4. US Citizen gets equal rights

Why is that so difficult?

Clearly you forgot the "protecting the sanctitiez" exception.

This.

Sanctity of what? The institution of divorce after a year or two of finding out you should have spent more time seeing if the person you 'hooked up with' was actually the person you can spend the rest of your life with in a committed partnership?

Exactly.

I don't believe people getting divorced is a valid reason to take a crap on the institution of marriage( or the sanctity thereof)... and quite frankly, i'm tired of reading such quips on PCF and now here.

Legalizing gay marriage = taking a crap on marriage?

Interesting opinion.

How is gay marriage "taking a crap" on the institution itself?

Sorry man, not dumping on marriage, dumping on how warped society is. I don't believe something that many Americans don't even feel is important enough to try and keep together when s**t gets difficult is any excuse to deny a specific group of Americans the same right as any other American.