However, I think it is important in this debate for both sides to at least attempt to understand the other and for the stakes and definitions to be well understood pre-debate. (Many) Opponents of same-sex marriage should try harder to empathize with same-sex couples and to understand the consequences of them not being ‘legally married’. However, proponents of same-sex marriage (more particularly opponents of the opponents of same-sex marriage) need to understand that ‘marriage’ is traditionally defined as the union between a man and a woman. I find myself in argument mostly not even with homosexuals themselves, but with these opponents of the opponents that see anyone that doesn’t fully agree with them, doesn’t see homosexuality as the best thing since sliced bread, as bigots, on the wrong side of history. They should try empathizing a little and realize that just because someone’s beliefs (eg. that ‘marriage = man + woman) are different from popular opinion, doesn’t make them a bigot. Or were all southerners in the late 1800’s/ early 1900’s that didn’t think blacks were subhuman, bigots, simply because they disagreed with popular opinion? Although everyone seems to love that whole separation of church and state thing, more people need to realize that church and state HAVE been intertwined: ‘marriage’, defined traditionally as the union of a man and a woman, gives these people benefits by law. Maybe someone doesn’t want a ‘2000 year old book of lies’ (paraphrasing from what I’ve heard from others) implying their rights. But wait, is that my fault, the person who believes in the ‘book’? Should these internet activists be coming at me because of this? Or has the ‘religious definition of marriage'(the only definition of marriage there has been, since ‘marriage’ is built on ‘religious’ foundations) actually always underlain the lawful benefits of such a union, and should these activists thus instead be focusing on changing who gets benefits- regardless of whether or not they are actually ‘married’ – and not the concept that same-sex couples should be considered ‘married’?

In the end, I see how the ‘redefining marriage’ argument can seem like a classic grade school argument tactic to dodge the gist of the debate at hand. Nonetheless, we all should recognize that marriage IS being redefined, REGARDLESS of the consequences of this. Whether this is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing is a different conversation, but it is being redefined.

In essence, I don’t like to be blind to the situations of people I disagree with. This has just been me kind of reflecting, expressing. More likely than not, most proponents of same-sex ‘marriage’ are more adequately ‘proponents of same-sex couples having the same benefits as ‘married’ couples. I have no inclination against same-sex people to have the same legal rights as others. I just want the proponents that would be more adequately classified as ‘proponents of ‘marriage’ being expanded to include same-sexes’ to realize that they are in fact arguing for the definition of marriage to be changed. Many that call any dissenters ‘religious bigots’ likely don’t see the big deal in changing what ‘marriage’ is. However, I think Justice John Roberts described my previous thoughts well when he said: “if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.”

I realize that I might be appearing to be mumbling about something small, but I do feel like being sensitive to the use of the word ‘marriage’ is important. I do however realize that in certain environments housing this debate, my point (about the label of marriage), although it may have truth to it, might lead to some people focusing on it more than the rights of same-sex couples, a more humanistic, central part of the debate. My point still stands though. I just wish people, on both sides, would be more sensitive to the other, and not use exaggeration or ignorance of the other side to belittle the other’s claims.