uphold prop 8
| By Unknown user - Jun 19, 2010 7:15:27 AM PT |
As a U.C. Berkeley grad who is not religious and a staunch supporter of Prop. 8, i have been troubled by the defense of prop 8. As a foreign policy analyst, it has always been a tenet that one must tool or tailor their argument to meet the ears of those who will judge, not just espouse the "beliefs" that every attorney "feels" about the matter. From my perspective, counsel has been missing what should be the primary argument to the court:
1. Sexuality is not now and has never been a "condition" of marriage and people of all sexualities have ALWAYS been allowed to marry. (& people of all sexualities who have been interested, for whatever their personal choice, have married throughout history.)
2. Actually introducing sexuality to a law or code where a person's sexuality is not now a criteria would actually create potentially unconstitutional exclusions, not resolve them.
3. Now the court is being asked to do just such a thing, make sexuality relevant where it is not, and biased toward certain, limited sexualities at the exclusion of others. Why create something of questionable constitutionality.
4. Men and women are already free to marry in the United States; the court should not begin to construct a web of shackles where none now exist.
5. Just opening marriage to homosexuals would be unjust. Would we allow blacks to vote then say, sorry hispanics and asians, but we are not fighting for your rights, just what we percieve to be our own.
6. If homosexuals can marry, why should multi-partner bisexuals be denied their rights? Why should polygamists, male and female, be denied? Why should relatives who wish to marry be denied theirs? Remember, so many children need parents and they can adopt, too.
7. Leave marriage as it is, or open it to everyone. That is the only true and just way. Anyone who wants to create rights for themself and then deny others those same rights are hypocrits and pathetic.
Remember, what you may laughingly call a slippery slope are, in reality, the rights of another!
1. Sexuality is not now and has never been a "condition" of marriage and people of all sexualities have ALWAYS been allowed to marry. (& people of all sexualities who have been interested, for whatever their personal choice, have married throughout history.)
2. Actually introducing sexuality to a law or code where a person's sexuality is not now a criteria would actually create potentially unconstitutional exclusions, not resolve them.
3. Now the court is being asked to do just such a thing, make sexuality relevant where it is not, and biased toward certain, limited sexualities at the exclusion of others. Why create something of questionable constitutionality.
4. Men and women are already free to marry in the United States; the court should not begin to construct a web of shackles where none now exist.
5. Just opening marriage to homosexuals would be unjust. Would we allow blacks to vote then say, sorry hispanics and asians, but we are not fighting for your rights, just what we percieve to be our own.
6. If homosexuals can marry, why should multi-partner bisexuals be denied their rights? Why should polygamists, male and female, be denied? Why should relatives who wish to marry be denied theirs? Remember, so many children need parents and they can adopt, too.
7. Leave marriage as it is, or open it to everyone. That is the only true and just way. Anyone who wants to create rights for themself and then deny others those same rights are hypocrits and pathetic.
Remember, what you may laughingly call a slippery slope are, in reality, the rights of another!
Comments are closed for this post.
Sexuality, sexual acts, etc have, in fact, been introduced and written into law.
"Marriage is a Contract between 2 people ... a business agreement between bride and groom. The foundation of marriage is economic, not spiritual. Were it not the basis of ownership and property for couples who enter into it, the state would stay out of the business of marriage and leave it all up to religious institutions." (quote by RJ)
Polygamists may someday have a legal contract of marriage...if their points are valid then why not? I would think it is the vast amount of tax dollar services that couples may be entitled to in economic hardships would be the discouragement of this ever passing.
As for inter family marriage, this is not foreseeable as genetically they would be causing potential genetic harm to any offspring. Any other reasons they would seek to marry would be covered under their existing family law options and contracts available already to them.
The opposers to gay marriage ARE religious. The educated believe this law to be unjust to a group of our citizens who earn income, pay taxes and cannot enter into a legal contract with the person they love. It is the religious who made sexuality a "condition" of marriage, not those who seek to change it.
And I don't believe for one minute you went to Berkley, have no conservative beliefs and live in OC;) I live in OC and the majority hold your views....You should contemplate your point number 7...