From: Samantha Atkins (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 19 2002 - 04:30:58 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> I can actually appreciate, and partially agree with, Mike's stance
> on gay marriage rights--arguing that it is merely the removal of
> discrimination from an existing right is not a slam-dunk argument.
> But there still is clearly a problem that /states/ grants specific
> rights and privileges to individuals based on sexuality: states can
> and do, for example, deny people the right to adopt a child (which
> /should/ be an entirely private contract just as "marriage" ought to
> be), and will even forcibly remove a child from a gay parent. /That/
> shit has to stop, whether or not redefining "marriage" is the right
> way to go about it.
Redefining marriage is required if the discrimination against
lesians and gays is going to end. If the courts don't believe
in our relationships how will they believe we will provide
stable homes for our children? If our relationship is not
"worthy" of being acknowledged legally as seriously as those of
straight folks then why would our sexuality not be taken as a
point or several against us in a variety of circumstances?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST