Marriage is contract law. So long as both parties in the contract are law abiding, and are not currently related by blood, there is no moral basis to exclude them from access to contractual,agreements.I would treat everybody the same with a law that says marriage is a union between a man and a woman.Based on what? Treat others as you would be treated?When public morality strays from the kernel of moral behavior, treat others as you would be treated, there are some who would exploit that breach by actually imposing an immoral point of view. I cite marriage equality as such an example. Treat others as you would be treated suggests the private lives of others are out of bounds so long as those others are committing no crimes. The morality that calls for sequestering others based on their individual and lawful feelings and attitudes is in fact immoral when viewed through the lens of the Golden Rule.And it is why the left chose to use the term "impose" when dispensing with the morality of the day, there was no law forcing morality on us just Americans shunning those they knew were immoral and the left taking up the cause of the shunned by denouncing their morals...so is your answer a yes or no? is there any benefit to our culture from turning our backs on public morality?...btw, trying to teach morals to those being shunned is where the phrase "don't impose your morality on me" came from.
So-called "gay marriage" is the opposite of morality.
What difference would it make if faghadist are blood related, it's not like they can get pregnant. And no one was stopping them from entering into contracts before.
.