SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (30249)2/18/2004 11:23:25 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) of 793901
 
I would be more impressed by this article if the author explained why the Massachusetts opinion on gay marriage was wrong. It leaves me wondering whether he is outraged and offended by the outcome, rather than the reasoning.

I am very cynical about lawyers who talk about "original intent" and "judicial activism" -- it seems to be code for "I don't like the result."

If the Massachusetts legislature passed a law which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, wouldn't it follow that prohibiting gay marriage was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? I don't see any other possible result. I suppose the only way out is to define "marriage" as something only a man and woman can possibly do. But if you break it down to the essentials, gays can do anything that heterosexuals can do except procreate, and not all heterosexuals can procreate or intend to procreate. And you certainly don't need to be married to procreate.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News