"That analogy does n't work here . It appears that your beef is with the prestige associated with being able to say `` We 're married. `` as opposed to recognizing yourselves as `` same-sex couples with all the rights and privileges afforded married couples `` . The fact is that people are not prohibited from being married because of their sexual orientation . A gay man can marry any woman that will have him . A lesbian can marry any man that will have her . You are not denied the right to marry ... so long as you comply with the rules of marriage ... including the one about one male and one female . Changing definitions just to satisfy the ego of any one group is patently ridiculous . One might ask why we ca n't call ourselves female when we are actually male or why males should n't be allowed to enroll in an all girls school . If it benefits you want , have at it . Work on Congress to come up with something like PACS . If it 's an attack on the definition of marriage , then get lost ."
"What foundits attitude proves is that the homosexual agenda 's standard claim for decades now that it is `` EQUALITY `` which they seek has been nothing more than a huge smoke screen which I have been saying in every debate we have ever had . When a compromise plan is recommended and is working fine in France , which gives them every single right of social and economic equality they have ever asked for , that still is n't enough . They wont rest until they redefine marriage for the rest of us . I 'll bet the Goodridges would love this plan , in hindsight . First Same-Sex Couple to Marry in the U.S . Files for Divorce"
"That analogy does n't work here . `` We 're married. `` same-sex couples with all the rights and privileges afforded married couples ``"
"proves is that the homosexual agenda 's standard claim for decades now that it is `` EQUALITY `` When a compromise plan is recommended and is working fine in France , which gives them every single right"