mik3cap: (Default)
mik3cap ([personal profile] mik3cap) wrote2006-07-15 10:58 am
Entry tags:

CIVIL. RIGHTS.

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!!

[identity profile] etherial.livejournal.com 2006-07-15 11:37 pm (UTC)(link)
Gay women can also be raped and therefore have children accidentally. Where, I wonder, does the NY legislation state that childbearing has something to do with marriage?

[identity profile] sirroxton.livejournal.com 2006-07-16 01:34 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, you're right, it's a case you could argue against in court. It's not exactly open-and-shut though. The State can claim that the law protects accidental conception between partners - end of story. I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding the NY case. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even a rank amateur. I'm just a guy that believes integrity means trying very hard to see how you might be wrong, and as much as I'd like for the Constitution to protect gay marriage, I think that might be wrong.