First off, I disagree that any set of benefits can ever be considered a "right", but for the sake of argument, let's accept your definition and go with it:
And that right cannot be infringed at all, or restricted?
I don't recall saying that. There are already restrictions in place, but sexual orientation shouldn't be one of them.
So under no circumstances can anyone be denied the right to sign a marriage license and receive the benefits that go with it? Is this an individual right? Or can only two people enter into it jointly? Cause that's a restriction, right? Can siblings enter into it? How about adults and children?
You realize how stupid you sound, I assume, but let's play along, shall we? Right now, marriage is only between two consenting adults (male and female in most states), and they cannot be related. In my opinion, it should be open to however many people wish to participate, and sibilings (or other relations) should be allowed to enter. But children are not allowed to enter into these types of major contracts, and I don't see why that should change.
I'm curious what the "right" entails in your mind. How do you define it in a way which allows us to only change our laws to include *** couples but no one else, while still saying that you're only removing an infringement of the right itself. I just think that far too many are focused on the specific issue in front of us and aren't really looking at the whole picture.
I think that you're just looking for a reason to discriminate against same-*** couples, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. But then, I am looking at the "whole picture," and I'm ok with removing more than just one restriction to who can participate in our rights.
Now, my turn. I'm curious why you don't want any same-*** couples to marry. Edited, Jun 29th 2010 4:00pm by Belkira