 |
| |
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
On the whole, the ruling is a good thing, however the state does have one compelling interest that applies only to heteros: The state has an interest in curbing the natural male impulse to copulate with as many different females as possible. Children who grow up in fatherless families tend to be more costly to the state so societal pressures should be exerted to prevent it. Long before love became an important prerequisite for marriage the vow of "Forsaking all others" meant sexual responsibility. Even in today's world of birth control and abortion, there are still millions of children born with no fatherly support: finacial, emotional or otherwise.
Contrast this to gay sexuality where the state has no interests whatsoever.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
The Dems are, not surprisingly, BLOWING THIS.
The Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right are massing, and Republicans in Congress and the White House are issuing strong statements against the ruling.
The Dems? Instead of firing back and trying to take control of this debate, trying to shift the debate back towards the middle (let alone the left), they say nothing, or they play to the current polls and say they are "against gay marriage" and leave it at that.
I'm so sick of the ****ing incompetence of the Democratic party. It was exactly things like this--pussyfooting around issues for fear of appearing (gasp!) liberal--that caused me to vote Nader in '96 and '00.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
Shi, I think the primary difficulty would be getting that amendment out of the Senate. Most of the Democratic Party have announced that they are against such a constitutional amendment.
Besides, I understand that most of the states have already passed "Defensive Marriage Acts." This, combined with the federal Defensive Marriage Act should confine the damage done by Massachusetts to that state as such marriages need not be recognized by other states, nor by the federal government for tax or other Federal purposes.
However, one never knows how to Supreme Court rule on the issue of federal benefits if the issue were squarely presented to them. They might say that the issue of who is a "married person" is a matter of state law and that the federal law could not override the state law based on principles of federalism.
Last edited by Ned on 22-11-2003 at 01:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Berz, I can agree with that, as long as we either extend the legal benefits of "marriage" to "civil unions", or, preferably, repeal them altogether.
But the way I see it is that in a private contract, individuals can define their terms any way they want, and if two men want to call their contract a marriage, then the government should have no right to stop them from doing so.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-11-2003 23:57
|