This isn't about gay marriage, per se. It's about carving out exceptions to the general writ of legal equality for all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity?
I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm not even against gay marriage, I just don't 'get' why it's a big deal...
Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty of other exceptions when it comes to equality... Old people, minorities, pregnant women all get preferential treatment in a variety of circumstances, and it's not a bad thing...
In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the word "marriage".
Similar thing when it comes to marriage ceremonies. Why lobby the state to try and force a religious institution to hold a same-sex marriage ceremony when the teachings of that religion are clearly against same-sex relationships? Can't we accept that in the diversity of opinions out there, some are like chalk and cheese? They simply don't go together so why force the issue and make everybody unhappy?
What I find interesting about this last point is that campaigners only focus on the Christian religion. It seems nobody wants to try and force mosques and synagogues to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why is that?
Well either the government is separate from religion in which case it's legal definition on the rights of marriage theoretically has no bearing on the religious component or it is part of the religion in which case it can decide how it wants it's religion to develop. I can't speak to civil unions in the UK but in New Zealand there were definite rights that were excluded from civil unions (adoption being one) so the argument to have it be recognized as one entity so that distinctions can't be made is a fair one.
As to forcing a church to marry two people I'm torn. I put it in the ball park of refusing to marry those of a different race or have mixed race weddings. I think you can make the argument that any religion that has a form of tax exemption could be required to not discriminate and hold basic human rights. Ofcourse it's a bit of a mire as you could argue back and forth all day between the "state opression of religion" to the "no they can't make human sacrifices" extremes.
As to the mosque/synagogues stuff I'd assume any law that was created would hopefully lead to a lawsuit (from the muslim/jewish/XXX couple or human rights group) which would show that the law did apply to those institutions. But I agree political discussion is generally avoided out of either the fact that they're a smaller part of UK culture or fear of inciting violence(even if this fear is unjustified) or being called a racist(or the theological equivalent (I for one wouldn't like to be called a theist ;) ). I think the "and they are lynching negroes" point is going to be a particularly useful one for the catholics/christians to argue.
Well, the state is church and church is state in UK, so there is no surprise people want to control what Anglican church does or does not in UK. The sovereign is also the defender of faith and acts on advice of Parliament on temporal and spiritual issues. If UK were to adopt Islam as state religion tomorrow, we can also talk about forcing the mosques to do stuff according to will of Parliament.
Here is an example from the UK, August 2013 (not sure what the current status is). I have no dog in this fight but to me this does not seem like tolerance on the part of the gay couple, this action comes across as somewhat spiteful.
"Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church.
The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place.
Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.'
The legal move means an early test for David Cameron's promise to the CofE and Roman Catholic bishops that no church would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings against the will of its leaders and its faithful.
...
'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.'
You'd be surprised, some people think non-profits shouldn't be allowed to follow their beliefs (if those beliefs discriminate against whatever the cause célèbre is).
The Commonwealth has different restrictions on interference with churches. There is no constitutional guarantee in the UK. Similar to how common law countries generally limit freedom of expression to not include hate speech.
I agree with your reasoning that arbitrary advantages could be viewed as discrimination. I'd argue though that in those cases the goal is to cancel out disadvantages (directly or inderectly) directly related to inherent parts of a person (sex,handicap,race) or are benefits that a person can generally choose to acquire (old age,veteran,handicap;) ).
In the case of maternity leave it cancels out the propensity to fire/not hire a woman because she can get pregnant and is likely to be required to raise the kid for the first few months. Native cards to reduce inherent inequality produced by past events. Handicap to allow the handicapped to function to a level similiar to the non handicapped.
Were as age benefits in theory apply to anyone who doesn't croak and presumably if they so desired. Veterans choose to serve the country and are compensated by society at large, admittedly you could argue not all people can join the military so fair point there. Food stamps, just lose all your money.
So onto gay marriage. Marriage is both a legal construct and a religious construct but the government can only recognize the legal part (seperation of church and state). Now the government is currently not recognizing that the couple can be together based on the sex of the partners which is something they can't change (reasonably(you could argue for separate drinking fountains on the basis that skin colour can be medically altered if you think this is reasonable)), you can argue that the marriage is for reproduction but sterile couples can get married, you could argue the child is adversely affected this has been shown not to be the case, you could argue friends will cheat the system but that can already be the case, the issue is the government has no reason to grant the various special right (tax,visitation laws, adoption) to a couple based on the sex of the people in the couple.
The key to that argument is that the government can't use the religious part of marriage as a basis for their decision. It's also worth noting that even if the government allows gay marriage that only guarantees you can get married in a courthouse, nothing about churches would be guaranteed (or in theory enforceable if they decided to say you could).
I can also agree that your reasoning is correct that a spherical rooster you modeled will roll off the roof. Doesn't mean you're right to argue that roosters can't stand on roofs.
Would my reply have been more useful if it did not acknowledge you have some reasonable points and instead just ignored anything you had said as you apparently feel is the appropriate way to frame this discussion. If that's the case I would expect it's safer to dismiss your view than someone's who does not subscribe to that particular philosophy.
More to the point I agree with your quote:
>> I agree with your reasoning ... (some stuff) ...
>Awesome.
>Let's boycott and protest everyone who does ... (some stuff) ...
Or be allowed to be included in the will of your loved one, or be allowed to visit them in the hospital, or be allowed to attend their funeral if your loved one's parents don't like you...
Can we argue it now?
Prohibiting same sex marriage is the government asserting that it is not possible for two people of the same sex to love one another, by any definition that would allow them to be considered legally "family", and that is definitely not equality.