|
I have held my peace for a bit. But Professor Finkelman has fallen for a bait and switch tactic. The net result is that something the state calls marriage, defined according to its terms, is changed to suit something that homosexual activists call marriage, but which is, in nature and essence, a relationship completely different from the one known to the state.
Marriage is a relationship legally sanctioned by the state between persons of opposite genders. The right to enter into such a relationship is not conditioned on heterosexuality. Any gay man may enter into a marriage with any willing female. Any Lesbian female can enter into a marriage with any willing male. No heterosexual male can enter into a marriage with a willing male. No heterosexual female can enter into a marriage with a willing female.
I suppose this will be described by some as sophistry. Yet to say that homosexuals are being denied equal rights when they are prevented from placing their unions within the classification of marriage, is to ignore what marriage is, and demand a right to have marriage change into what it may become. Such a right would be more correctly described as the right to have things my way. But even heterosexuals do not enjoy the absolute right to have things "my way."
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
