And I am not sure of why you think this is odd when I bring it up.
But if a group of people can change laws (and PLEASE don't compare this to
the black human rights issue) then what is to stop other groups from
changing the laws to further change marriage, age limits, sex limits, crime,
etc. Like a man wanting to marry his daughter. Do we further change the laws
to accommodate him? Or a woman who wants to sleep with a 14 year old.
Do you guys want a totally lawless society where everyone can do whatever
they please?
There must be some regulation in how we do things. And with that regulation,
you cannot expect to not meet some opposition when you want to change these
laws.
That is just common sense...all issues aside.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:30 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
Angel Stewart wrote:
> Actually..
> If currently the law supports Marriage between a man and a woman,
> Then Gays are imposing their will if laws are changed to allow marriage
> between
> two men or two women.
This would be true if the laws support marriage *only* between a man and
woman. This is the main point of contention in Massachusets. There,
the law isn't gender-specific, so under a more liberal interpretation of
it, gay and lesbian marriages are perfectly legal already. This, by the
way, is the interpretation currently adopted by the Mass. Supreme Court.
> If it wasn't in imposition, or an exertion of influence, then the laws
> would not
> be changed or rewritten. They would continue as they were.
>
> This is not a case where no law existed previously.
>
> So in that sense, it is an imposition and an exertion of influence by one
> community on those that would prefer the laws to stay as they are, for
> whatever
> multitude of reasons.
There are currently bills active that would, in effect, change the Mass.
state law by disallowing gay/lesbian marriage. There are also slightly
less stringent bills that would simply allow other states to ignore
same-sex marriages even if they were lawfully binding there.
So, here, we get into an argument over whether the new bills changing
the law but maintaining the traditional interpretations or letting the
old laws stand but re-interpreting them in a wider way would come closer
to sustaining the status quo. To be honest, disallowing gay marriage
would be closer to maintaining the status quo. However, the status quo
is not always the right way to go.
Would it be too much like smoking in a fireworks factory to point out
the the US had a whole civil war over the status quo vs.
re-interpretation of individual rights?
--BenD
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
