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