View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Same-sex marriage not about rights

Posted: July 7, 2009 4:08 p.m.
Updated: July 8, 2009 4:30 a.m.
It’s a physical fact that you cannot marry the DNA of a same-sex couple.

This can be done with an opposite-sex couple, though.

Since this is a significant difference between same- and opposite-sex couples, isn’t it then appropriate for the government to have different definitions for them?

Well, they already do.

The government already recognizes same-sex civil unions and opposite-sex marriages.

After all, same-sex relationships cannot create descendants or dependents.

These are things the state is interested in.

Has there ever been a descendent of a same-sex couple? No. We come from Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

So why is there such a fight over a definition?

The government has already given the benefits it gives married couples to same-sex couples in what is defined as a civil union.

Therefore, I believe the assertion that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue is a canard.

Was the civil rights struggle about people wanting to be called white?


The government defines people in a whole host of ways, such as, by race, military service and social status — senior citizen, adult, minor, etc.

You cannot call yourself a veteran if you have not served, but sometimes you achieve adult and senior citizen status whether you like it or not.

I’m recognized as an adult; I’m not a senior citizen, not a minor, not a veteran.

So what?

If the government recognizes my racial definition is something different than another person’s, does that violate my civil rights?


Otherwise, if it’s not legitimate for the government to define differently same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, maybe we should revisit the legitimacy of the government’s different definitions for race, ethnicity and social status.

Yeah, right.


Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...