Getting married isn't as much doing something as it is having a relationship recognized by the government
Not just the government. By friends, relatives, ex-lovers, future suitors, etc. Marriage is the way our societies legitimize and recognize a relationship. Without meaning to sound like a conservative here, marriage does fill an emotional and social need for the couple as well as the society at large who thereby recognizes their union.
That is only the emotional side. Even only from this perspective, people who can fulfill this wish with the person they love have this freedom to do so, and others are therefore less free. The definition of freedom is basically to do what you want to, when you want to, as long as it does not hurt anyone else. If Joe wants to marry Jim, and call him his "spouse", it does not hurt anyone nor infringe on anyone else's freedom. Therefore, he should be able to do so and if he cannot, he is less free than another man who can.
The current argument for preventing homosexuals from marrying the people they choose appears to be more or less "We find it yucky, so they can't". I find it unfortunate that this minority is being bullied by the majority in this fashion. Just like women obtained the right to vote, they will one day obtain this right, for its denial to this minority is an indefensible position under the principle of equality.
You have not mentioned it, but there is also the practical and legal reasons why two people might want to be married. Being considered a "family" has quite a few advantages if you are applying for a mortgage or an insurance policy, inheritance laws favor the spouse over blood relatives, etc. Denying homosexuals these advantages that anyone else can benefit from is obvious discrimination.
The difference is in Canada the government calls it a marriage and in the US the government does not. There is no issue of freedom involved, in both cases they are free
Of course not. In the US, homosexuals are not free marry the person they choose. I don't understand your insistance on this having nothing to do with the "freedom to marry whom you want".
The Supreme Court didn't say "the government can hold him with out showing evidence of a crime".
It did not have to. The man is STILL jailed, and the government has STILL shown no evidence of no crime. He STILL has not had his day in court.
Padilla has been imprisoned for years and he is there STILL. That is de facto imprisonment without due legal process. That the courts are not conflicting over this and hence there is de jure ambiguity over the prisoner's status does not change his reality. And that reality, unfortunately, is that an American citizen can be, and is, locked away for years without a formal charge or legal representation.
Re off-topic - Sure, we could take this somewhere else. Let me know. |
