Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gude  ...you are denying someone(s) the right to engage in a typical legal contract based on what they do in their bedroom and that is, in my view, clearly unconstitutional. |
No one is denying a homosexual person from the right to enter into a marriage contract. They're merely defining what a marriage contract is. They (in CA, anyway, where we're talking about in this thread) have the option of going into a civil union contract since that fits the situation they are in should they want to enter with someone of the same gender
Quote:
|
Further, some seek to make this discrimination a constitutional amendment, becoming the first amendment, ever, that specifically singles individuals out based on a characteristic.
|
You mean, other than age?
Quote:
|
In my view, the intelligent thing to HAVE done, when we had the power, was to come to an agreement specifying that marriage is between two consenting adults and send that off through the system forever ending a contentious issue that has long put the GOP and conservatives in the unenviable position of seeking to use the constitution to DENY individual rights.
|
Then you would have the polygamists, then the incestuous......... Because, if you can't say opposite gender, then HOW can you put a limit on number, or relationship? Change it and it may never end changing. Leave it alone, and it's fine.
Quote:
|
It is one thing to fight for the rights of an unborn baby. It is a victim. Something is being done to it. It is another thing to try and control what consenting adults choose to do in the context of legitimizing and recognizing a committed relationship.
|
No one is trying to control it, just define the similarities through civil union contracts, and differences through civil union contracts.