Can Michael Steele Really Reframe Gay Marriage as an Economic Issue?
> Its interesting how you tip toe thru my comments as if they were a minefield, and like the California supreme court ignoring points that would invalidate their ruling, you ignoring points that would invalidate your position.
I respond to the points I think are more important, same as you. If you’re going to hint that I’m arguing in bad faith, please just say so and quit responding to my posts.
> It’s a benefit. And being a benefit afforded by society. it must be available to all people whose life style is deemed legal.
It is available. That’s where the definition of marriage comes in. They just can’t marry someone of the same sex. It’s not a question of equal protection under the law. It’s a question of whether we change the definition of an institution under the law.
> One’s Right, like one’s right to pursuit happiness ends where it interferes with another’s right. That ‘s like saying my happiness ends when I am forced to do business with Hispanic people, therefore as a retailer I shouldn’t be forced to do business with them.
You’re arguing that my right to deny someone my approval must be trumped when it interferes with someone’s right to receive my approval. Please explain how you arrived at the idea that someone has a right to behave in a certain way that I happen to disapprove of, and to receive my approval. Explain, please, why his right to receive approval is more fundamental than my right to withhold it.
