Marriage equity is for everyone. Start with the current
definition of marriage, one consenting adult male, one consenting adult female,
bound together. Well, obviously we cannot apply everyone to that. That limits
age, gender, species. Marriage equity is not for everyone in this case.
Marriage equity is for everyone. What if we broaden the
definition of marriage? Maybe that will work. Let’s broaden it to anyone that
loves anyone. Now we apply everyone to that, and it becomes both silly and
frightening, because now I can marry anyone that I deem to be “anyone”. Do you
believe that pets are people too? Then you can marry your pet. Do you love
multiple people; then marry them all. Do you love your neighbor’s 12-year-old
son? Why not get married? Okay, that doesn’t seem to work. Marriage equity is
too broad and everyone is too broad.
Marriage equity is for everyone. How about if we change it
to what the homosexual community wants to change it to? Two people bound together,
gender need not matter. Let’s apply everyone to that…oh wait, we can already
see from the first example that that doesn’t work, because now anyone that
wants to marry multiple people, or their pet, or a child are out of luck.
Marriage equity is not for everyone.
No matter how you define marriage, the moment you try to
apply “everyone” to it, it becomes either wrong grammatically, or morally. But
hey, if we’re going to redefine marriage, why not redefine everyone? Let’s make
everyone to mean whomever I deem to fit my definition. There, now marriage
equity is for everyone. It is rather subjective, but it gives just enough of a
boundary to make the statement work. As long as you apply your subjective
definition of everyone to your subjective definition of marriage, then you can
make it work.
