But it comes back down the issue of what role the state has in mandating social attitudes, maintaining discrimination in the law, even as a reflection of popular attitudes, is a form of social control.
So you're saying that self-governed people have no right to live according to a particular set of values that they see fit? One would say that this is
exactly what -- among other reasons -- governments exist for: to protect a particular way of life.
You dress your posts up in language like diversity and gender respect while adhering to a framework that appeals to tradition...
And sociology, biology, human development, etc...
The recognition of gender, as a means of state discrimination, should be completely removed.
Recognizing gender now counts as discrimination? Interesting, given that the protected status currently granted at many state and all Federal levels to gender, sexual orientation, race etc doesn't mandate that we
eliminate such factors, just that they can't be deciding factors for why someone can't be hired.
The declaration of party on the state registration form shouldn't have any bearing on a couple. It doesn't nullify a husband and wife, merely ensures that other couples can be registered without extra printing costs.
So you're willing to agree that this is a far cry from saying that same-sex marriage won't affect heteros, then?
Diversity should mean that people of different genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships without fear of state persecution.
You mean "diversity should mean that people of the
same genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships," right? (Which actually kind of is the definition of monotony, isn't it?) Regardless, people do indeed have that right. The government isn't allowed to bang down your door and prosecute you based on who you're sleeping with, and when the government has done so, those individual rights have been affirmed. But to take it to the next level, and argue that the Government must then
affirm such relationships, is an entirely different matter altogether.
Gross reductionism of gender roles by those who don't even recognize gender importance aside, to say that the government should not recognize the value of gender within families -- against the will of the people -- is problematic at the democratic level, as I've repeatedly pointed out.
Gay marriage is also an issue of individual liberties, which are often threatened by democratic tyranny.
The tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority are constantly at odds, aren't they? This is why in a democratic system we put such matters to a vote. (And, incidentally, why we have both a popular system and an Electoral College.) To passionately advocate a particular position or worldview is a Constitutionally-protected right (as is the right to call me a bigot). To decry my ability to vote with my conscience is quite another, and to attempt to subvert that right flies against the very principles of democracy that we (say we) hold dear is troubling in the extreme.
The guaranteed protections on liberty which preserve unpopular speech, freedom of belief and freedom from government persecution must be applied equally, that includes equal state recognition of relationships (or the abolishment of such recognition altogether).
When I can have my apparently-Constitutionally-protected right to marry more than one wife, I'll agree with you.
ETA:
quoting Martha: Eagerly awaiting the quote by quote refutation of the above.
Can I have my cookie now, Martha?