CIVIL. RIGHTS.

[mik3cap]

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/pxtowndebates15.htm

"Selectman Richard Olson said tolerance toward those who signed the petition is as necessary as toward those who support gay marriage. 'If somebody feels for religious or other reasons that same sex marriage is wrong, they're entitled to it,' he said."

WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Let's replace his regular coffee with Folger's crystals.

"Selectman Richard Olson said tolerance toward those who own slaves is as necessary as toward those who support the abolition of slavery. 'If somebody feels for religious or other reasons that the abolition of slavery is wrong, they're entitled to it,' he said."

NO. There is NO TOLERANCE FOR THIS. There is no tolerance for hate, there is no tolerance for discrimination, there is no tolerance for denying rights to human beings. The people who feel this way must be told that they are WRONG.

People are not entitled to be wrong!!

Comments

[etherial.livejournal.com]

or becomes sterile. or does not want children.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

That's the problem -- how specific does the law have to be to not be constitutional? For the logic to hold, the only requirement is that the law *not* exclude potential accidental breeders.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

We need hold only one case that is discriminatory for it to be unconstitutional. The law then has to be thrown out *completely*.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

It's complicated. A law that required submission of fertility information for marriage would pose an undue privacy burden. To a state agency handing out marriage licenses, it's clear that a gay couple isn't in danger of accidentally having children. It's not so clear when an infertile couple walks in.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, but this is the Supreme Court of New York we're talking about. They're not idiots. It's a reasonable argument. I wish it weren't, but it is.

We've been lucky in the past that the Constitution has been conducive to the procuring of civil rights. Maybe this time we're not so lucky. It does no good to be bull-headed about the subject.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Yeah, just like that bull-headed old Rosa Parks, eh?

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Like I said, we were fortunate that the Constitution was conducive to the procuring of civil liberties with that issue. Maybe this time we're not so lucky.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I think Rosa Parks did do good to be bull-headed.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

True, but she was being bull-headed about civil liberties, not about legal hair-splitting.

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a woman who's had a hysterectomy (for instance) could get married, knowing perfectly well that she can't have kids (unless stem cell engineering magically improves, and she can regrow a uterus and all that jazz--but then perhaps a gay man could grow extra bits as well).

And why do straight people need state-instituted marriage anyway? Clearly, it is far from necessary for having kids. There's plenty of cheating spouses as well, so only the woman can know if the kid is hers anyway. DNA testing seems a lot more reliable for determining family ties (except in the case of identical twins sharing sex partners or having sex with other identical twin pairs). DNA testing is already used extensively for child support and such.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

Actually, a gay couple is perfectly capable of having children, just not with each other. That's what sperm donors and surigate mothers are for. So is marriage for the purpose of raising children or breeding them? And if a woman gets pregenant by a man who is not her husband or a man gets another woman pregenant does that mean that their marriage is automatically disolved?

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

No, no. According to the New York decision, hetero-couples are permitted special protection because they can potentially have children accidentally, unlike gay couples. Surrogate and other options are planned. Marriage provides a safety net for "oopses."

The NY decision is really a backhanded compliment to gays.

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

I know but someone could argue that if you don't know if you're sterile, you might not actually be (so you might accidentally get pregnant or get someone pregnant), and if you don't want kids, you could still have an "accident" and not be able to get an abortion for some reason (it's fucked up but it could happen--especially given the direction this country seems to be taking). But if you have a hysterectomy due to cancer or whatever, you know that you won't be able to have kids "by accident" ever. And without your 'nads intact, you're on the same footing as a gay person. (I'm just arguing that some straight people know as well as gay people that they won't have children with the partner they'd like to marry.)

And, actually, there is plenty of people who believe that folks who don't want kids should not get married because marriage is for the chuldrin; I happen to be one of such "baby-hating freaks" myself but, technically, I could still have an oops, and this whole legal argument seems perched precariously on the probability of oopses, so I'm "safe" here. Except that I still think that basing marriage totally on breeding capacity is messed up when many married couples choose not to or can't have kids and when many others happily have kids outside of marriage. Again, there are people who know perfectly well that they can't have kids under any circumstances, regardless of the sex of the person they want to marry.

(But reproduction is the only argument the sneaky bastards could make without directly invoking religion.)