clamboy
Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006
|
The question to me is, why the h-e-doubletoothpicks is the state involved in this thing called "marriage" anyway? If people want to establish a legally recognized relationship based on mutual affection, or based on some shared interest in keeping property together, or because they want to raise children together, or because they each want the other to be the primary "decider" in emergency medical situations, or whatever, then let's have a standard legal means by which to establsh such. Then, if people want to go through a ceremony to call attention to the commitment they are making to each other, whether it be based on a religion or not, go for it.
In terms of what is commonly called "gay marriage," my problem is always this: those who are against "gay marriage" always place the onus on those in favor to provide some explanation as to why "gay people" should be allowed to marry. To me, that is such an unAmerican perspective. This country was founded on the rights of individuals, and if certain rights are to be accorded to some and not to others, it is up to those who deny that right to justify their actions in terms of the Constitution, especially in light of the 14th amendment. If we recognize that those above a certain age have the right to make decisions about their lives, and if we value the 1st amendment in full, then what possible justification can there be for denying two people of the same sex the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship, when that same recognition is granted on those who are of different sexes?
AND ANOTHER THING (sorry, went into afDave mode there): gender reassignment is a reality, folks, and a good thing, too. So here's the question: if a person legally changes his/her gender (read: state-recognized sex), and this person wishes to get married, what must the sex of the person he or she marries be?
*phew* Okay, that's enough, I know most everyone reading this gets it, I just put this up here hoping that t-diddy's head would 'splode.
|
