From: Mike Lorrey (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 13:19:12 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote,
> > You also might want to remember that most of us don't want
> > "domestic partner" laws. We want to be able to have the same
> > rights to marry and have our unions recognized as everyone else.
> > The "domestic partner" stuff is a dodge from many sources,
> > most of them not gay, to avoid running head on into
> > fundamentally relgious objects to lgbt marriages. There are no
> > "special rights" involved.
> Thanks for pointing this out. I forget how this stuff is portrayed to
> mainstream America.
Well, I'd have to contest some of this. lgbt individuals have the same
right to marry someone of the opposite sex just as straights do. Giving
lgbt individuals the right to marry someone of the same sex, while not
conferring the same right to hetero individuals, is a violation of the
equal protection doctrine. Furthermore, even conferring this right on
heteros still discriminates against sibling and parent/child,
aunt/uncle/neice/nephew/cousin couples, whereupon you wind up legalizing
the sort of garbage that NAMBLA promulgates.
When it comes to marriage, it needs to be recognised that it is very
much a discriminatory institution, and discriminatory for a signficant
purpose, so use of 'equal protection' arguments by lgbt
couples/advocates is simply hypocritical.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST