"I'm an American and I deserve the same rights as you."
That can totally be argued. The people who wrote letters to the editor in my hometown newspaper have argued the shit outta that one. Wanna hear it?
Directed to a gay male: "You have exactly the same rights as me. You can marry a woman just like I can."
Come up with another. I bet I can produce a counter argument for everyone. I agree that just playing up the emotional side of it doesn't work, but arguing that gay people have the right to marry someone of the same sex can be argued just as easily as the emotional side.
In a circular arguement that works. In a constructionist arguement it doesn't. Here's why:
For a straight male to say "You have the same rights that I have, you can also marry a woman" does not hold up against the, and I'll say it again, Preamble. In the Pursuit of Happiness, a gay man may want to marry another gay man. The effect of such a union on someone else's morality is of no conseqeunce. The only time the government should be concerned is when it effects someone else's money, which gay marriage would have a miniscule affect upon, much less than that of abortions or unwanted children, national security (laff), or things of such high importance.
To block a gay man or woman from being married is to deny them their pursuit of happiness. This is a single case of two US citizens, age 18 (or lower applicable to particular states) consenting to be wed in the ceremony of their choice.
Now, while the Founding Fathers would have found the concpet of gay marriage appalling, they were smart enough to realize that times would change and wrote a flexible document. Times have changed. For the better, I do not know. But they have changed. And that single line, "the pursuit of happiness..." should be honored.
Now of course, this opens a whole new can of worms. "But what if my pursiut of happiness means I want to smoke pot all day and watch Litfetime?" Tough shit. Pot is a gateway drug, it leads to worse things, which lead to even worse things. Are there those that smoke the shit all day every day, never harm anyone, never steal a dime and never move on to anything harder? You bet. Is it a majority? Depends on what you read. Some say yes, some say no. I've seen enough expousing both to the point I have to call it 50-50. Even that being said, 50% is a lot. Anyone know any upstanding crack addicts? Me niether. Drug use is detrimental to society in a lot of ways in terms of lost monies, lost time, and lost lives. Thus, your "pursuit of happiness " is detrimental to the nation, and thus, is treated the way it is.
However, I do not see where gay marriage could possibly fall under the same heading. Some people scream "AIDS!!!, what about the AIDS???" In reality, the most dangerous group in terms of spreading AIDS in America are black males and females 16-20something (forget the true number). This probably has something to do with down-lowism and you can always throw the odd prison reference in there, but the point is, no one single group of people in America have been hammered home about AIDS prevention than gay males.
Outside of this arguement, there is no arguement. Well, at least not between people that read and understand the spirit of the US Constitution.
Which presents a problem. Because at some point in time, there has to be some kind of discussion about the following:
As Americans, what do we we value more? Our Faith, or our Countr?.
Because on this issue, the two directly conflict.