Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stompy
Things that have already been ruled upon (Roe vs. Wade) are subject to change, and that's not right.
|
Hate to break it to you, but because something has been ruled on doesn't mean the ruling can't be changed - and that *IS* right. I only have to point to Plessy v. Ferguson to make that point. Or, of course, there is Marbury v. Madison - the decision that says if a law is found unconstitutional then it was always unconstitutional and was never a law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stompy
Or better yet, lawful marriage between a black/white couple. Anyone care to tell which state that was in? Was that right?
|
This is a very good parallel for gay marriage, and an even better argument for the Libertarian method of handling marriage. Before the "problem" of interracial marriage arose, the government wasn't really involved in marriages. When interracial marriages began to be seen as a "problem," that's when the government started to give out "marriage licenses" - giving the government the ability to approve or deny the right of two people to enter into a contractual social agreement.
The government doesn't need to approve gay marriage. The government simply needs to get *out* of marriage altogether.