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 : President Barack Obama

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: koan who wrote (45223)11/20/2008 9:04:12 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water  Read Replies (1) of 149317
 
Back to "Gay Marriage". Check out Anna Quindlen's column in current issue of "Newsweek" where she tries to break apart the US Supreme Court decision of "Loving v. Virginia" and apply that reasoning to Gay Marriage. (In "Loving" an interracially married couple living in Virginia were arrested and charged with a felony under a Virgina Law which banned interracial marriage.)

IN "Loving" the Court (Quindlen says) held that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man" and (apparently) later in the opinion added that it, marriage, is "fundamental to our very survival and existence".

Quindlen goes on to argue that Gay Marriage will come to be just like interracial marriage did. She also tries to make the same legal analogies that applied to racial discrimination to apply to Gay marriage.

Of course the reasoning that "marriage is fundamental to our very existence" doesn't quite cut it for Gay marrigae.

And most important here, legally, is who gets to define "marriage". The states? Currently, Yes. Or will it eventually become a basic individual (federally protected) civil right irregardless of gender---or as I pointed out earlier when I tried to stretch the definition to prove a point---species.

Pet Marriage anyone?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext