I've supported the concept of homosexual marriage since the 70's, well before it was even an issue. At the same time, I know that trying to shove it down the throats of the general population (from an "activist" judge or through one area trying to force it on another) will create a backlash and actually delay it's acceptance. Look at school integration. I was in high school in Charlotte, NC when the landmark bussing decision was made there in the early 70's - the first case where bussing was forced by the courts. Charlotte is STILL under the court's control and STILL has wide spread bussing even after recent challenges to try to end it (over 30 years later!)
40 years ago my marriage would also have been illegal (black/white.) Though the courts were involved in a limited way, the elimination of racial restrictions on marriage came about gradually over time and mostly through legislative changes and not by court order. Even now there are people that object to mixed race relationships.
As for the "separation of church and state", though this is a popular phrase there really is no such thing in the US. The Constitution only prevents the establishment of a state religion or the restriction on the free practice of religion (though there are actually some restrictions - go figure.) Religions can not be taxed, but than neither can any other organization that has established a non-profit status.
As for tax breaks, it's actually more costly to be married from a tax standpoint, perticularly if both people are working (the "marriage penalty" - enacted after WWII.) There are clearly benifits to being married in other areas, but for taxes it is generally not an advantage. Health insurance, particularly if provided by an employer, generally treats the single person worst than the married one, and generally treats someone with children the best as far as cost/benifit ratios go. If nothing else, employeer provided health coverage (even partially paid) means the single person is paid less because he/she is single. With all the emphasis on "marriage benifits" there seems to be little consideration for discrimination against single people.
The one comment about an elected official representing "all" the people in his/her jurisdiction I find particularly odd. If 51% oppose an issue and 49% are for it then how does this person vote? An elected official, while technially maybe representing all the people in the district, actually represents only the majority.
|It seems that land of the free only applies to ppl that are white and christian
How many ways do I strongly disagree with this statement? My wife is a black female that came from poverty and put herself through college and med school. Her brother (black, male) entered the military (Navy) and had a very successful 24 year career. He's now retired and his experience has landed him a nice civilian job using the training he got in the military. A good friend of ours is Arabic from Jordan. He moved to this country a number of years ago and has established himself and is doing well (he's a teacher). Our Taekwondo school is less than 10 years old and is the largest in the world, the owners are a married couple and are a Korean man and a white American woman. I can go on and on, but that's enough.