Do you mean normatively or descriptively (i.e. “a sufficient reason why we should denied”, or “why we have denied”)? I agree with the former, but I’m not so sure about the latter.
Both. Descriptively, the practical difficulty of changing the law isn’t the reason the law hasn’t been changed in this way; the reason is that a great many people would oppose it on religious, moral, and other normative grounds. Many other laws have been changed over time despite the changes being nontrivial to implement, because the necessary people agreed in those cases that changing the laws was for the best.
The burden of changing many legal texts is not nearly a sufficient reason to deny some people equal legal rights.
Do you mean normatively or descriptively (i.e. “a sufficient reason why we should denied”, or “why we have denied”)? I agree with the former, but I’m not so sure about the latter.
Both. Descriptively, the practical difficulty of changing the law isn’t the reason the law hasn’t been changed in this way; the reason is that a great many people would oppose it on religious, moral, and other normative grounds. Many other laws have been changed over time despite the changes being nontrivial to implement, because the necessary people agreed in those cases that changing the laws was for the best.