In a message dated 2/15/04 1:56:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As I understand it, a big concern of opponents is that once MA allows gay > marriage, other states will be forced to recognize the marriages (IIRC, > states are required to recognize marriages done in other states), and their > own states will be vulnerable to lawsuits forcing gay marriage there as > well.� (In other words, the slippery slope problem).� So they are less > inclined to write it off as crazy Massachusetts liberals, and more inclined > to attempt pre-emptive actions to prevent that possibilty. > The US Constitution requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts of each other state. That's why some opponents of gay marriage want to amend the Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. My problem with that is, it enshrines discrimination in the very founding document of a country that supposedly believes in and celebrates liberty. Forty years ago, some of the very same arguments being made today against gay marriage were made then against interracial marriage (which still upsets some very conservative people today. When Clarence Thomas was nominated for the US Supreme Court, there were some Southern Republicans who were not happy about the fact that his wife is white.) To me, all the arguments opposing gay marriage are based on fear, prejudice, and attempts to pander to other people's fear and prejudice. I don't see how permitting two adults who love each other to solemnize that love in a legal relationship can possibly "threaten" the institution of marriage; if anything, it shows just how strong the belief in marriage is. And besides, what's more "threatening," anyway: two gay people making a commitment that lasts years, or Britney Spears on a whim marrying some dope for a few hours and then ditching him? Why is it legal for her, and not for a committed, loving, responsible same-sex couple? Some conservatives seem to want to have it both ways: criticize gays for being promiscuous and irresponsible, and then not let them be monogamous and responsible. Basically, they want that there shouldn't be gays at all. Well, they can't be stopped from believing that, but why should the rest of us let them bulldoze and bamboozle the entire country into following their reactionary meanspirited hatefulness? It's the word "marriage" that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). They don't mind some kind of legal protection for gay couples but just for some reason don't want it to be called "marriage." But why should their insensate fear be permitted to cause genuine harm to other people? You don't have a right NOT to be offended. There's no right to have your every whim and prejudice codified into law. Gay people are subject to all the laws of this country. They pay taxes. Why should they not have the right to the equal enjoyment of all the other laws that everyone else enjoys? If they can't marry, can't serve openly in the military, can't adopt, can't inherit from a partner, then maybe they should be exempt from paying taxes, etc. Man, can you see the rush of straight tax-avoiders claiming to be gay? Biggest new tax shelter in years. My final thought: Don't want gay marriage? Don't have one. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
