🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Cormack wrote:

> 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.  

	The key word is "who".  Animals and inanimate objects,
are not - for the purposes of this discussion "who"'s.

> 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?

	Um - no.  The reasons "traditionally" used for denying
equal opportunity to same-sex couples have nothing whatsoever
to do with the reasons why people can't marry children (not that
that didn't happen in earlier times - look at the Bible for
copious examples), can't marry siblings, etc.  Your reasoning
of "we've always done it this way" is not only facile, it's
completely inaccurate.

> 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.

	The tradition is neither being ignored, nor denigrated.
It is, however, being brought into the 21st century, where
we recognize the decency of the human race and the ability of
consenting adults to enter into long-term dedicated relationships.
The beauty of it is - *you* won't have to marry someone of the
same sex if you don't want to.  See - that was very simple.

	Considering that the latest stats on marriage in the 
US places the average lifetime of a marriage at the same
(or slightly below) the average lifetime of a same-sex relationship,
one might think that if this trend continues for much longer,
that you might want to start soliciting tips on relatioships
from the non-heterosexual population.

	And I wouldn't rest too much on tradition.  Tradition
also says that for most of mankind's existence, slavery was
a respected practice (it's in the Bible too --- read Philemon,
and in the NT no less!).  If your "logic" suggests that tradition
outweighs civil rights, then you've opened the door for lots
of other people to use your "logic" to justify things that maybe
even *you* will find abhorrent.

	In other words, be careful what you wish for.