|
Against it legally, or against it personally?
I'm personally all about both, but someone who goes beyond personally being against those things and thinks the government should have a say in either is, by definition, not a social liberal--- or perhaps, an inconsistent one.
Aaron Forr: Untrue, a conservative would want to "conserve" tradition, which would state that marriage is a legal status beyond a contract, and, traditionally between a man and a woman.
A classical liberal-- better known as a libertarian-- would want to eliminate marriage as legal standing beyond the stipulations of the marital contract (thus leaving it open to exist between any consenting adults, regardless of gender).
Knuckles36: explain to me how a child being fostered or adopted by an abusive or psychologically unstable straight couple would be better than a loving gay couple?
Actually, explain to me how-- other than guaranteeing no criminal record/recorded history of mental instability and stable financial situation, a home-- the government has a say in the viability of who can raise kids based on unproven claims and speculation? There's no determined criteria to be a parent (other than the ones mentioned), and a double standard or the government trying to play psychologist would be a logical fallacy in the face of the law.
Justagrandma: I totally agree with you, but just to clarify: giving gay "marriage" legal status wouldn't be forcing religious institutions to do anything (the government really doesn't have that power). "Marriage" vs. "civil union" is really just a matter of terminology, unless the union for gay couples is contractually different from heterosexual marital unions (which, in its legal terms, it shouldn't be-- there's no reason a hetero marriage should entail anything a homo marriage doesn't). Considering that a marriage being performed by an ordained minister means nothing to the state without a certificate, performing the religious ceremony itself would be up to the descretion of the individual church. Legalizing gay unions/marriages would just make sure the union/marriage was valid under the Full Faith and Credit Clause-- meaning that every state has to recognize the marriage as legitimate. Churches are free to reject the validity of the "marriage" or "union".
 |