Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
One man's bigotry is another man's religious values. Interestingly, the wording of these sorts of propositions avoids the issue of classifications altogether by simply stating that the marriage contract is defined as being between a man (the husband) and the woman (the wife). There's arguably no classification here whatsoever because a gay person has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as does a straight person. That might seem like word play or whatever, but it's a fairly legitimate argument.
The majority spoke and they think marriage = between a man and a woman.
Even if you want to say it's a classification discriminating against homosexuals, then why is that not okay when it's okay to discriminate against people who want to be in polygamous unions or people who want to marry close relatives? Why is it okay that the rules and requirements for divorce vary greatly from state to state?
The bottom line is that states should and always have had the right to define these things for themselves without judges overriding the will of the people. Personally, I think Prop 8 and similar measures are slaps in the face to a lot of very good people. I could even be persuaded to accept polygamous unions if we could figure out some way to not give extra rewards (tax incentives, insurance incentives, etc.) for doing so.
What's happening here is people are confusing what they subjectively see as right vs. wrong with what the law is. Judges shouldn't be basing their decisions (as the lone dissenter would have) on what is right (in their opinion).
|
Are you directing this toward me? As I explained, I agree judges shouldn't be basing their decisions on what they see as right v. wrong or going against the will of the people.
Threaded Mode
