On 29/10/2006, at 12:44 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Its the creation of law that did not previously exist before.
Is it? It's only since homosexual couples have been trying to get
married that they've been told "No you can't". In fact, in the UK and
Australia they had to add legislation to prevent gay marriage to
existing marriage laws.
Your arguments above are along the vein of "why should I care?",
rather
than the vein that they do not constitute law being imposed by a
Court.
Not at all, they're along the lines of "What's actually different
about a gay relationship that means they can't be allowed to marry?"
Well? What's the answer?
Moreover, I am willing to venture that none of the people who wrote,
debate, or voted for the New Jersey constitution ever imagined that
the
constitution could be construed as to mandate such a requirement.
None of the framers of the US Constitution could have imagined mix
race marriages either. So what?
Not true.
OK, you're correct, they could have imagined it. But many states then
passed laws specifically banning it, and these laws weren't repealed
until after WW2, with California being first in 1948. A similar thing
is happening with homosexual marriage.
Churches can refuse to marry anyone they like, but I do not see how
it is the state's business who I choose to marry, as long as we are
consenting adults.
<http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/
lewisharris10250\
6opn.pdf>
Didn't work for me.
I do think there should be some form of civil unions of homosexual
couples. I think that couples have a right to live together, and
that
it would be good for the State to provide some streamlined procedures
for these couples to establish a single household unit.
There are streamlined procedures in place already, which are being
denied to a section of the population. It's called "marriage".
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
