Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
I have no say in the matter, so they wouldn't be pleading their cases to me. I would, however, like to hear the arguments.
|
-- I am not sure if the interviews are on YouTube or not.
Their argument is basically this:
If marraige is no longer defined as just between a man and a woman, then it can no longer be defined as just between two people.
They state that there is no argument for removing just the gender restrictions. If they can remove that, there is no way they can argue against removing the number restrictions.
What argument would they use against expanding the definition further? Tradition? Societal norms? etc. etc. If those arguments wouldn't wash for gays, it wouldn't/shouldn't wash for polygamists.
Same with WHO you marry. Why can't sisters marry if the reason is simply to ensure one has medical coverage or right to life insurance benefits?
They also brought up NAMBLA. Why can't there be a 'marraige' between a man and a boy? Their argument is based on the fact that in some states, a minor can leave school without parent's knowledge to get an abortion. If a child can be thought mature enough to choose to have a surgical procedure, they are mature enough to be married. The way around it would be a promise for it to be a 'plutonic' relationship until age of consent.
So I ask, where woul the line be? And more to the point...how would you justify it?
Apparently 'the will of the people' in a legal vote isn't enough to satisfy.
I don't think labeling over half the population of CA as homophobes is going to fly in the next round.