Observations in Defense of the Obvious
It should go without saying that a person should be allowed to marry whomever they choose. Until the right-wing, religious fanatics in this country stop trying to control everybody else and force their “morals” down the throat of the country, there can be no real freedom in the United States. Civil rights cannot simply be "voted away," that is the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Religious activists should be left out of these decisions completely. I invite you to my web pages devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on our freedom: http://freethegods.blogspot.com/2009/06/san-franciscos-gay-pride-parade.html
Dave Scott writes:"It should go without saying that a person should be allowed to marry whomever they choose."There are many people I can't marry, and the prohibition does not seem unjust. I can't marry myself, my sister, my mother, my neighbor's wife or husband, my brothers, my neighbor's German shepherd, or dead people. Thus, marriage does not seem to be the sort of thing that is the object of one's will. It seems to be the sort of thing under which one binds one's will. And it is the only place in which the two halves of humanity--male and female--can join to create something more than themselves. "Same-sex marriage" dilutes the uniqueness and beauty of the only institution by which the wholeness of humanity may become one. If you're looking for libertarian freedom, marriage is not for you. But if you are looking for love and liberty within the confines of binding commitment, marriage is a wonderful gift.
David,Civil rights cannot simply be "voted away," that is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.Isn't this the very question at issue--whether it is, in fact, a civil right--and whether the California voters have a right to to change their constitution?Aren't there established procedures for changing Constitutions that provide citizens with the "right" to change them?Where is this civil right enumerated?
Post a Comment