otherwise you would have to repeat your marriage in every state where you wished to represent yourself as a married couple.
Hey, I wouldn't be opposed to that. Our wedding was a blast (albeit a very expensive one).
And try telling the IRS that the federal government doesn't recognize my marriage when I file my taxes
Or tell my mother that--she receives survivors benefits from the SSA that she wouldn't be getting if she'd not been legally married to my father.
What it boils down to is that I think the definition of marriage is really rather subjective.
This is not true. If you define marriage as being between one man and one woman, your neighbor across the street defines it as between any two consenting adults, and the group down the street defines it as one man with as many wives as he can stuff into his three-bedroom suburban tract home, who's right?
I feel like your logic is a little circular here, Terry. Can you clarify so I can better understand? You say that the definition of marriage is not subjective, and then follow it with examples of three different viewpoints on what different people believe marriage is. If that's not subjective, what is?
But what I disagree with on your post, Terry, is really where you ask which definition is right. Why does there have to be a right and a wrong? Why is it so important to set a legal definition? That's the part of the whole same-sex marriage debate that confounds me.
What is right for me may not be right for you and vice versa. I appreciate that you have a different viewpoint than me, and I respect it as long as I'm not forced to take the same viewpoint. I can agree to disagree. I guess the same principle applies to my views on same-sex marriages. I don't believe that any one individual, or even a collective of individuals, should impose what they think is right or wrong on someone else. If same sex-marriages are legalized, nobody will force you to get one. You simply have the
choice.
JD - Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I can appreciate your position.
