🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <31629575.41C67EA6@skepsis.com>, Bob Donahue <donahue@skepsis.com> says:
>
<...>
>
>        If they vote it down, then the issue of passing laws
>forbidding laws that great equal rights on the basis of orientation
>is dead.  Furthermore, it sets a strong precident that similar
>laws forbidding the recognition of same-sex marriages will also
>run into problems constitutationally.  
>
                                                                        
I don't believe that there is any precedent relationship here at all.
If marriage were a civil right regardless of who was married to whom,
then marriage should be extended to any and all, including animals,
inanimate objects, etc.  In fact, there is a very long tradition of
marriage being limited to a man and a woman, and even this has been
denied to certain classes of men and women (siblings, 1st cousins in 
some states, parents and children, etc.)  If same-sex marriage is a 
right, then surely these other proscribed marriages are as well?  
Simply assuming that same-sex marriage is a right will not convince anybody,
since it ignores a long and nearly universal tradition of human
society.  Hoping for a legal coup declaring that everyone must accept
same-sex marriages without addressing the deeper issue is useless -- 
even if it succeeded temporarily, it would trigger a legislative
backlash that would eventually nullify the court's decision.

No, the case for same-sex marriages must be made on merit -- the ideal
case would relate to the long-standing traditions of society.  Ignoring
or denigrating these traditions is not going to work.

Bob Cormack