From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 02:07:55 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 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.
>
Huh? Lesbians and gays have no interest in marrying anyone of
the opposite sex and they are not allowed to marry partners of
the sex that they are interested in. Sraight couples can marry
people of the sex that they wish to marry. This in unequal
treatment under law. What "equal protection" doctrine are you
referring to and how is any such thing in the least applicable
in this context? Siblings, parent/child and NAMBLA are all
irrlevant to whether lesbian and gay people can marry their
partners if they wish as straight people can and to whether TS
people can marry anyone at all without having the marriage
nullified on some bogus grounds at some arbitrary future time.
> 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.
>
When it comes to marriage, bogus discrimination needs to be
dropped immediately if we care about equal rights. This does
not mean that even things that we recognize as inherently broken
like NAMBLA should be legitimized. And it is not the least
hypocritical to point out that gays, lesbians and TS people are
being discriminated against unfairly by current laws.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST