.

Dear phanto,

.

You wrote:

"The only reason people want government sanction of their relationship is because they accept the government definition of marriage as something that is legally sanctioned by the government. Why do they accept this? ".
.

Abuse of political authority gave rise to the emergence of the notion of "civil rights" and the Magna Carter in 1215. Hitler and his henchmen sent homosexuals to the gas chambers not that long ago.

The fact that they did not accept " the government definition of marriage as something that is legally sanctioned by the government " did not prevent them from going to the gas chambers.

Societal attitudes around the world towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.

You observe:

" To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner".

I am afraid you are projecting images, thoughts and feelings on homosexuals which they do not have. This is part of the problem, phanto. I am sorry to have to say so, but people who think like you are part of the problem.

If you are sincere in your wish to understand, then you have to make the supreme effort of putting yourself in their shoes - even if it may be repugnant to you (which I can understand and appreciate).

You conclude:

" ... introducing issues that are based on personal insecurity are a waste of taxpayers’ time and money".

The security of individual citizens is one of the most important fundamental missions of the State, if not the most important. It is its "raison d'être".

.

.

Recourse before the French Constitutional Court

.

For those who understand French or are able to have it translated, here are the pleas of the right opposition party (UMP) opposing the new law legalising same-sex marriage, recently voted by the French parliament, and the response of the government in defence of the new law:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/recours-deputes-ump-et-udi.pdf

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/recours-senateurs-ump-et-udi.pdf

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/reponse-du-gouvernement.pdf

.

>>To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner.<<

That's a bit unfair. Wanting government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is - i.e. wanting to get married - isn't a sign of insecurity. I think most of us want to get married - I'd like to if I meet the right woman - and I wouldn't call most people insecure.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Banjo,

Occasionally you write with great wisdom, common sense and understanding. At other times you disagree with me.

What have you got against heterosexuals, phanto?

"To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner."

Two of my favorite heterosexuals were my parents... and I think they had every right to be married as they wanted to.

.

Dear david f, Tony Lavis and WmTrevor,

.

I am glad to see I am in such good company ... yet I meditate on this:

.

Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell
And the profit and loss.
A current under sea
Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
He passes the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(T.S. Eliot's "Death by Water)

.