At 02:21 AM 2/15/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My problem with that is, it enshrines discrimination in the very founding
>document of a country that supposedly believes in and celebrates liberty.
That is your *only* problem with it? Seriously?
This after all, is the same Constitution that enshrined slavery,
disenfranchised women, arguably discriminated against Native Americans, and
was amended to outlaw alcoholic beverages.
The Constitution is above all things a *political* document. If you want
high-minded idealism, its the Declaration of Independence you should be
looking for.
>To me, all the arguments opposing gay marriage are based on fear, prejudice,
>and attempts to pander to other people's fear and prejudice. I don't see how
>permitting two adults who love each other to solemnize that love in a legal
>relationship can possibly "threaten" the institution of marriage;
Please keep in mind, however, that a key component of the current debate is
whether or not civil unions for homosexual couples are sufficient, or
whether their unions *must* be termed "marriages." While there is
undoubtedly a sizable anti-civil-union contingent in this country, they are
not currently winning over a majority to their arguments. Rather, the
question at hand is whether or not marriages can be reserved for
heterosexual couples, while giving States the right to recognize civil
unions for homosexual couples.
>And besides, what's more
>"threatening," anyway: two gay people making a commitment that lasts
years, or
>Britney Spears on a whim marrying some dope for a few hours and then
ditching
>him? Why is it legal for her, and not for a committed, loving, responsible
>same-sex couple?
I think that a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriages complained
loudly and vociferously about Britney Spears' stunt.
So, can I mark you down as a support of restricting the nation's no-fault
divorce laws?
>Some conservatives seem to want to have it both ways: criticize gays for
>being promiscuous and irresponsible, and then not let them be monogamous and
>responsible.
Ahem. I am unmarried and also monogamous and responsible. There is
nothing about being prohibited from marriage that prevents one from being
monogamous and responsible. Homosexuals are ultimately responsible for
their own actions.
>Why should they not have the right to the
>equal enjoyment of all the other laws that everyone else enjoys?
I'll try not to be too pedantic here, but every adult of sound mind in this
country has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex of their
choice, no matter their sexual orientation. That is a very important
difference - it may not be a sufficient difference, but it is an important
difference.
Comments of Tom to the effect that all opposition to homosexual marriage
must spring out of hate have been snipped.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
