From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 15:59:20 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> > Well, I'd have to contest some of this. lgbt individuals have the same
> > right to marry someone of the opposite sex just as straights do. Giving
> > lgbt individuals the right to marry someone of the same sex, while not
> > conferring the same right to hetero individuals, is a violation of the
> > equal protection doctrine. Furthermore, even conferring this right on
> > heteros still discriminates against sibling and parent/child,
> > aunt/uncle/neice/nephew/cousin couples, whereupon you wind up legalizing
> > the sort of garbage that NAMBLA promulgates.
> >
>
> Huh? Lesbians and gays have no interest in marrying anyone of
> the opposite sex and they are not allowed to marry partners of
> the sex that they are interested in. Sraight couples can marry
> people of the sex that they wish to marry. This in unequal
> treatment under law. What "equal protection" doctrine are you
> referring to and how is any such thing in the least applicable
> in this context? Siblings, parent/child and NAMBLA are all
> irrlevant to whether lesbian and gay people can marry their
> partners if they wish as straight people can and to whether TS
> people can marry anyone at all without having the marriage
> nullified on some bogus grounds at some arbitrary future time.
Let me say this one more time: all people have an equal right to marry
someone of the opposite sex. There is NO discrimination in this at all.
Gays and lesbians, transgendered and bisexuals all have the same right
to marry someone of the opposite sex that heteros do.
If you are going to invent a NEW right, to redefine the definition of
marriage, that is your business, but do not do so from an equal
protection standpoint.
The purpose of marriage is NOT about joining forever with the one you
love. Marriage, throughout history, has been a specific social contract
used for the purposes of providing specific economic and social
protections for the production of children. The fact that two people
that love each other tend to join in marriage as a symbol of that is
irrelevant, as that is not the purpose. While love is quite beneficial
to a stable marriage, it has only become an important ingredient in the
last century or so.
I entirely support the idea of redefining marriage, but lets not play
games with claiming a pre-existing right where none exists. If you are
going to redefine marriage, you still are going to wind up defining it
such that it discriminates against the desires of some segment of the
population.
Keep in mind that the social mores that cause people to be disgusted at
the desires of groups like NAMBLA are very similar to the ones that
create homophobia and other anti-gay sentiments, and which restricted
same sex marriages throughout history. Lets not claim that there is some
significant difference here.
I am perfectly willing to discriminate against relationships proposed by
NAMBLA, I just don't claim that there is an equal protection basis for
marriage laws, or that marriage itself bears any relation to equal
protection principles.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:45 MST