View Single Post
Old 02-04-2005, 11:37 PM   #61 (permalink)
daswig
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halx
My only reasoning as to why this keeps being disputed is the fact that many people refuse to accept the rules of the constitution that they live under. Our nation's constitution, in more words than this, tells us that we are free to live in peace with our fellow man in equality. If men are not being treated equally, then we should adjust our treatment of *them*, not the constitution.

Does anyone have a rational arguement against me?

I think you're greatly oversimplifying the Constitution. If it says we're free to live in peace with our fellow man in equality, doesn't that mandate a complete redistribution of wealth and a voiding of personal property, or a complete lack of discrimination in employment (before you freak, think about it. If all men are truly to be treated equally, what's to prevent a junior high school dropout from declaring himself to be a surgeon and operating on people, or somebody who has never been on an airplane opening his own air charter service with him as the pilot) or a wide variety of things that it clearly doesn't intend?

In all 50 states, a homosexual is legally free to marry any person of the opposite sex who can legally be married. There are lots of people who can not legally get married to their potential partner of choice. These include but are not limited to cases of incest even if both parties are consenting and of age, or bigamists or polygamists, or people who wish to marry a person not of age. They all have the same rights as everybody else: There's a statute which specifies what constitutes a legally valid marriage, and anything else which doesn't meet the criteria doesn't count as a valid marriage in the eyes of the law. I recall a case recently from overseas where a woman wished to marry her recently and unexpectedly deceased fiancee, so that she could take his name. Under the statute, such a marriage was prohibited, so the legislature basically passed an "in this specific case only" law to allow it.

Under DOMA, IIRC, marriage is explicitly defined as a union between one man and one woman. That's the law. If people don't like it, they can lobby to change it, just as they can lobby to legalize any other form of currently prohibited marriage, or any other law they don't like. But I wouldn't suggest holding your breath waiting for it to happen.
daswig is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360