Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/08/06 5:37 pm:
The only way it is denying gays rights is if the definition of marriage is changed . As already noted in other postings ;marriage is restrictive and not for everyone .

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/08/06 5:43 pm:

Hello again, tom:

Couple things about that. I think the definition of marriage doesn't have to be changed at all. That's what all the brouhaha is about. As a matter of fact, it’s the religious right who is rushing out to CHANGE existing marriage statutes. Indeed, most of them do not speak to the gender of bride nor the groom.

Again, the founders, in their wisdom, had it right.

Secondarily. Marriage only became a state interest recently. It has always been in the perview of the church prior to that. Then the state conferred certain legal rights upon the married, that were available to anyone who got married. That's as it should be - available to ALL.

But, now, the religionists among us, want to deny a certain group those legal rights. However, in America, you can't do that. As long as there are LEGAL rights attached to marriage, it can't by definition (the 14th Amendment) be restrictive, and it IS Constitutionally, available to everyone.

Now, if the government wants to remove all the legal rights associated with marriage, that would be fine with me. Gay people could get married in their church, and you could deny them that privilege in yours. You could even proclaim that they're going to hell, if that floats your boat.

excon

PS> Civil unions, by the way, are not equal. It really smacks of "separate but equal". And, we know that's a crock.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/08/06 6:24 pm:
look through these statutes and tell me which ones are not restrictive .I did a quick perusal and found all types of restrictions . By your definition any consenting adults would be permitted and that is just not the case .I think only one State permits it at this point .