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]

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.