C'mon Dave....you're smarter than that...think about what you just wrote. "Same sec couples" as in walking around and saying, "We're here, we're queer, we drink white wine not beer".......kinda catchy....is relatively new. For most of American history, same sex sexual behavior was taboo, criminal, and hidden. Besides the idea of a "same sex" marriage is, inconceivable, pun intended. Why would ANYONE prior to just a few decades ago, think in terms of same sex couples existing, let alone marrying, or that marriage was just a union of "two people regardless of gender composition"?Continued...
. But if same-sex couples had always been allowed to exercise their right to marry those words never would have entered our vocabulary. They have never been required to make a marriage and those marriages that do not use those words are just as valid and legal.
Yes it is.....it sounds like you can offer no compelling state interest in a same sex union, much less designating it as "marriage".So no, it is not up to our side of the argument to justify same-sex couples marrying.
There's not "couple's right" to marry, it is the right of the individual. A right to enter into a legally recognized relationship as defined by the state....the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. It is the conjugal monogamous union of husband and wife that is crucial to societal stability. The fact that several states have dropped the conjugal basis of marriage does to change that. If men, or women, don't marry the same sex, will any one notice in society at large?It is your side of the issues responsibility to articulate why the state should maintain the restriction on same-sex couples exercising their right to marry. So far, not one of you or any state has been able to articulate one.