By as many citizens as possibly, ideally.Fairly as defined by who?
But why even question this? Do you feel YOU'RE being treated unfairly, by the allowance of same-sex marriages?
Please explain why on EARTH we need to care about fair treatment as it relates to marriage.It was just as fair to treat all men and women the same as it relates to marriage
Marriage doesn’t care about receiving fair treatment. PEOPLE care about that. There you go again, putting “Dictionary’s Rights” ahead of human rights. We don’t make laws to establish fair treatment toward words or concepts.
But a huge change in the understanding of many men and many women has taken place. You don’t just leave the old rules in place when you learn new facts.It the legally recognized union of husband and wife, in 1950, as it was in 1970, as it was in 2000. The constitution didn't change, nor did men and women.
With society coming to a new realization about gay people, the game has changed. It needs NEW rules.
You continue to simply argue for tradition for tradition's sake, without presenting an actual REASON that same-sex couples can't be recognized alongside their opposite-sex citizens. "We've always done it that way" is not a reason. It's an empty rationalization. Wow me with a good REASON.
Neither the states nor the judges are authorized to legislate according to what they believe, other than the belief that the Constitution must be upheld. How individual politicians or judges personally feel is irrelevant. Voters too. They don't get to supercede the constutional mandate that all citizens must be treated fairly and equally.Did all the state governments believe that way, or did a few judges?
How does the saying go? Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. No one voted to treat all men and women the same. This was never anyone's motivation. They voted to curtail the rights of gay people, ONCE AGAIN. They do this a lot, and they just wind up getting the UNconstitutionality of their vote thrown back in their faces.What of the people who voted, to treat all men and all women the same in regards to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, which said voters voted to constitutionally maintain?
How can it be consistent if my state grants me a right that other states are free to disregard, and that other citizens do not have? I have the right to enter into a marriage with the partner of my choice, regardless of gender. In some places in the nation, some people have the right to a civil union or a domestic partnership, which does not exist in many other states. How do you call this patchwork “consistent”, without simply IGNORING these glaring inconsistencies? That’s some world class cognitive dissonance, right there.It's still consistent, you still possess such a right, and if you chose to exercise it, the marriage you entered into, of husband and wife, would be legally valid in all fifty states.
Changes in what way? Changes BACK? Is that what you’re saying? Could you calculate me some odds on that happening?You should act fast too, before that right changes yet again.