Friday, July 14, 2006

"too good for marriage"

this, from the nytimes:
What’s noteworthy about the New York decision, however, is that it became the second ruling by a state high court to assert a startling rationale for prohibiting same-sex marriage — that straight couples may be less stable parents than their gay counterparts and consequently require the benefits of marriage to assist them.
according to this article, the language here is used because it "sounds nicer," but it also sounds "more desperate." right. like this is the best defense you have? i can see the argument for heterosexual marriage from natural law, from procreation, whatever - but i really, really don't see this one. and i do think that a lot of this "defense of marriage" rhetoric is purely religious. this is a problem in a supposedly secular state, guys. seriously, base your arguments on something real, something not based on a church that's supposedly separate from the government, or realize you've lost the argument. in my opinion.

and also, this, from the same op-ed:
Hostile rulings delivered in friendly tones can take longer to overturn, as evidenced by the century that passed before members of the Supreme Court reversed their thinking about women and, in a 1973 opinion in a sex discrimination case, recognized that confining women in the name of cherishing them put them "not on a pedestal, but in a cage."
is this over? i'm not quite sure that it is. i'm a fan of the analogy, of course. not too bitterly. :) but it's really telling in this case. and i wonder if it's an indication of where we're moving in the gay marriage issue or not.

did everyone notice that i learned how to use the block quotation button?

No comments:

Post a Comment