I’m charro and I approve this timely message.

Should we also legislate sexual acts? If I scratched together several conservative asshats and legislated that people who have had sex out of wedlock should be denied the right to a fair trial in court on the distorted belief that the courts are there by the authority of God and such adultery is sinful, would that be cool with most of the US? Or would you rightfully believe that the actions taken by my supporters and I was a simple disagreement in beliefs to be respected?

Er, wrong. Greece, Rome, and quite a bit of modern Europe are societies which do NOT exclude them.
Furthermore, how do you feel about interracial marriage? A lot of societies STILL frown on that, and have for thousands of years. Yet we allow it, if only since the 1960s.

Will it be Pay-Per-View…?

Anyway, many states have outlawed even that.

stop using your religion as an excuse for your hatred.

He doesn’t mind if homosexuals have equal rights, as long as those rights don’t include marriage or adoption.

By the way, we’re not asking you to “Change the Definition of Marriage”. Mirriam-Webster already has it down correctly:

Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Taxes =/= equal protection. Apples and Oranges.

My issue is that if you have no stake, why vote against evening the field for another group. That is what bothers me.

I have LOTS in common with straight, infertile couples. NO Sp*rm at home, so we adopted. Should all infertile men be barred from getting hitched, too?

WHY is my relationship LESS loving and “good for society” than yours? You just say that it is so, without base, or fact.

Or is it just the “ick” factor?

Which is it? Honestly and truly. Is it that you cannot fathom a loving, committed relationship between two people when one of them lacks a P*nis? Because as I mentioned in my earlier post, I am grossed out “by these kids today,” who practically have sex on the NYC subway. And all I want to do is hold my partner’s hand in public without the fear of being beaten up.

So the fact that an infertile, or “childless by choice” couple choose to marry deems MORE legal guardianships than me?

Also, thanks to the rest of you for the hugs and support.

Xavier, do you actually bother to read and attempt to comprehend any of the replies to your posts? Or do you post simply to restate the same tired questions that have been repeatedly answered, in a variety of ways??

My relationship is my relationship. It is an intangible thing that can no more be codified than the smell of my favorite meal ( if you knew me, you’d know that food is only slightly lower than family on my love-o-meter). What *can* be codified are the rights that are afforded when two parties enter a legal contract. More accurately, what should not be codified against are those rights.

You still don’t get it, do you? Or do you just not want it? If my relationship doesn’t need to be codified, then neither does yours. Are you advocating the dissolution of all marriage, forever and ever amen? My question to you was, and is, what makes our relationship less worthy of “codification” as you put it? What makes our union undeserving of legal protection, and by extension subject to persecution? Quite frankly, I personally don’t care what the name of the institution is, but separate but equal is *still* inherently unequal.