The first two points I made were not supposed to apply to the US as such, but were merely there to demonstrate that a simple majority does not imply rightness of action. Yes these things would be protected by the Constitution, but other situations, such as the one at hand apparently are not afforded the same priviledge.
Anyhow.
Quote:
Originally posted by LowRider
Again, no due process, and a opinion is vastly different from a fact. There are no such similar facts with regards to gay marriage.
Also, the assertion could be disproved by clinical testing for mental health, making it more a matter of education.
There are several tracks I can take with this. 1. That gay marriage is destructive to the family, which has been the basic operating unit of society since the mud hut and cave days. The government has a vested interest in protecting certain societal norms in the interest of public welfare. 2. There are those of us who think homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. It is not a great stretch to see why such people would also view homosexual marriage as wrong. 3. Do we really want to create a new set of "rights"? Right now, any man and any woman can marry each other, with respect to the prohibitions on incestious relationships and polygamy. Is it wise to change that just because a few people don't like the way the law is currently written? If we do so, then a precedent is set. Precedent is an important part of law and carries a lot of weight with courts. This decision would then be used as leverage to get other laws passed. It is the classic slippery slope theory. If laws are based on ever shifting public opinion, then there is no rule of law, in fact, it is based on mob rule.
|
1. Gay marriage is destructive to the family? How so?
2. Homosexuality is wrong in and of itself? How so?
3. As you said: 'Right now, any man and any woman can marry each other, with respect to the prohibitions on incestious relationships and polygamy.' How would this change? "Is it wise to change that just because a few people don't like the way the law is currently written? If we do so, then a precedent is set. Precedent is an important part of law and carries a lot of weight with courts. This decision would then be used as leverage to get other laws passed." Obviously this same argument could have been used against civil rights crusaders of the 1960's and 70's who wanted such crazy new 'rights' including equal pay for women and the right to vote for African Americans. Furthermore, from legal gay marriage, where do we have to slide?