IR is not a political movement and never was one. IR never sought to change the definition of marriage, which has always been between a man and a woman. If we seek to change the definition of marriage from what it was to something different, that's fine. but calling gay marriage, marriage is a misnomer..it is a marriage between a man and a man or woman and a woman. That is in fact, a different definition from traditional marriage.
I watched a documentary last night on gays that included gay black men in Harlem. There was an interracial couple who got married, who had been together for decades. The gay black groom's (black) best friend (also gay) asked him why he was getting married now, and his response was "security, so that whatbwas his becomes mine, and mine becomes his"
Even the lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court was about (monetary entitlement) rights. The other catalyst lawsuit was filed by a gay woman who was upset that she had to pay taxes on a property passed to her by her lover... again money motivation. Love, not so much. Which is fair enough. Single people should now also be allowed to marry themselves, and thus also receive tax breaks that married couples are afforded. Don't care what kind of marriage definition given to it, just give singles equal rights to the same tax benefits.
