Gay marriage debate centers on history vs. change

Stephen Henderson wrote:

Opponents say same-sex marriage is - among other things - a historical contradiction. Marriage, they say, has always been between a man and a woman and the laws are written to reflect that.

That argument echoes reasoning that has been proffered time and again to defend such outmoded laws as those that defined wives as the property of their husbands, or that prohibited divorce, or even prevented epileptics and other disabled people from marrying.

"It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

She may fumble her words, but BBB would never stand by, while others assault individual rights.

If the one who paid you lip service doesn't really think you are really any different than the rest of the human beings on this earth, why does she deny basic human rights that affect your life?

I know my mode of speaking doesn't engender affection, but I can't bear you to allow a word to let a snake slither up beside you, while a real friend is cast away from you.

Lash, thanks for understanding my meaning. We are reminded that some people (who shall remain nameless) always turn every posted issue into one about them to get attention.

BBB-- You're welcome.

I just can't stand to see how smoothly some people lie and slither up to people, and as soon as their heads are turned, they get it in the jugular.....or at other sites, where "Christians" gather to judge others' souls...

individual attitudes amass to create a social ethic, and yours MA amounts to a heinous regard for your fellow human beans.

pissing in the wind is gernerally regarded as futile

And, smelly

Good luck, DrewDad. I had this very same conversation with MA and it goes nowhere. Pissing in the wind is right, Dys.

Only if one has recently eaten asparagus

One of the key questions for the justices in New Jersey, and for courts all over the nation, is whether the long traditions surrounding marriage trump demands to eliminate eons-old gender restrictions in the name of equality.

"It's about a man and a woman, because it's about children, procreation," she said. "Even the Greeks, who were very accepting about homosexuality, never confused it with marriage."

I missed your post, Q and have deleted my last attempt to refocus, thank you.

I agree with you that history and tradition is not a sufficient basis for righting wrongs. I think the NJ case might well be a groundbreaking case. I'm not familiar with the particulars in Massachusettes and how same-sex marriage became law there.

Question to those who might know... Did same-sex marriage become legal in Massachusettes through a SC decision or directly from legislative acts?

I know in Vt the SC insisted the legislature create 'something' and civil unions were the result. I'm not sure what happened in Massachusettes.

IQuestion to those who might know... Did same-sex marriage become legal in Massachusettes through a SC decision or directly from legislative acts?

Massachusetts normally has a three-day waiting period before issuing marriage licenses, but many couples obtained waivers of the waiting period in order to be wed on May 17. Among these were the seven couples who were party to the lawsuit that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including Julie Goodridge and Hillary Goodridge, who were the first to apply for a license in Boston and whose eight-year old daughter Annie was their ringbearer and flower girl at their wedding at the Unitarian Universalist Association of Boston.

MARSHALL, C.J. Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

J_B,

No, Jesus did not discriminate. But, He also did not tell people that what God considers a sin is ok to do.

seaglass, thanks for the link.

I hope, before I die, that such discrimination will have gone the way of the dodo bird.

BBB

I feel like I am beating my friggin head against a brick wall!

The state, in other words, has an interest in seeing that kids are raised in families that have both a mother and a father (even though, as the dissent admits, Massachusetts allows both gay couples and single persons to adopt children).

Do we have to cling to the ancient notion that the purpose of marriage is to procreate?

We already have too much procreation going on. The planet's resources and the population count are meeting a critical point.BBB