Water Cooler Philosopher: Were you at the rally today?
Voice of Reason: Actually, I just came back from lunch.
WCP: You know what this is about, right?
VoR: I'd hate to ruin the surprise.
WCP: Contrary to popular belief, this isn't about morality. It's about people attempting to change the law in order to get something that they don't need...
VoR: Right. Except that last I checked, the law as it's currently written has been interpreted to guarantee the rights of same-sex couples to be married. It's not the pro's who are working to change the law, it's the anti's.
WCP: That's not how I see it.
VoR: I'm not sure how you would interpret it differently. The legislature is attempting to enact an ammendment to the Massachusetts constitution that defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" without a clear reason for the distinction.
WCP: That definition is implied by the law.
VoR: There seems to be some disagreement on that.
WCP: Ah, but there shouldn't be! That definition has existed from time immemorial.
VoR: I'm not sure that's a cogent argument. To support that, you would have to demonstrate that this was the case for the majority of cultures throughout the span of human history. Then, you would need to show that human cultures do not change over time, or at least that change is hopelessly destructive.
WCP: I promise you that is the case. What we are faced with is a group of people attempting to impose their own morality on the rest of society.
VoR: So it is about morality?
WCP: No, because there is no way to codify morality. What's happening is that a special interest group has politicized their morality in an attempt to dictate the fate of the rest of society.
VoR: ... and this is different from what the right is attempting, how?
WCP: Those who are against same sex marriage aren't trying to change anything.
VoR:</b></small> Except the law.
WCP: They're not trying to change the law. They are simply attempting to clarify it.
VoR: An ammendment to the constitution implies a change in the law. Legislative action to prevent and SJC ruling from going into effect implies a change in the law. The anti's are bending over backwards in an attempt to subvert the law as it currently stands.
WCP: Again, that's not how I see it.
VoR: Right. Essentially, you believe that if someone is changing the law to protect the status quo, they are not truly changing the law...