Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:09:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2729 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
|
| |
| |
| |
Ok. So if your not using religon what is your justification for disallowing
them to enter into a contract.
|
The fact that many states expressly forbid it. If it’s illegal, it’s
illegal.
|
Wrong. Any law that violates the constitution is invalid. The government has
no right what so ever to declare gay marriage illegal. I would argue they
have no right to be involved with marriage at all.
|
Mike, I generally agree with you. In this case I agree with your logic, but I
think one of your foundational premises is questionable and really, this whole
issue revolves around it.
Is marriage merely a contractual relationship? I think it should be. But I
also think it is not. Marriage is a special status granted by the governments
that includes perquisites unavailable through the mere mechanism of contract.
Were this not the case, you would be 100% right. But if I’m right that marriage
is special, the states do actually have the right to regulate and limit the
award of that special status. The common law right to marry (which I think does
include the ability to self-award the special status) clearly applies to one man
and one woman through precedent. I think we should change that.
I agree that marriage should be done away with. But that will take some doing.
In the mean time, let’s just try to make it inclusive of everyone and their
loves.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
