[In an opinion piece about same-sex marriage]
Even more disturbing is Wilkinson’s contention that the Constitution should not be amended to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman because the Framers “certainly did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights.”
What right is being restricted? Prior to the appalling arrogance and power play of four judges in Massachusetts, where did this right exist? There is no duly enacted law granting a right to same-sex marriage. Furthermore, marriage never has been recognized as a right beyond regulation by states. Everyone has the same right to marry but no one ever has had a right to marry just anyone he or she chooses.
39 comments
See, when you pass a law that says "You are not allowed to __________," you are creating a restriction.
I could point out the bullshit in this post, or I can just be angry. As others have pointed out the bullshit, I will be angry. FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.
So everyone has the right to be happy, to a point?
Excuse me, are you hinting that I have not right to marry a man because he is black, for example, or because he professes another religion, or non-arranged pals from me?
"What right is being restricted? Prior to the appalling arrogance and power play of those judges who decided Loving v. Virginia, where did this right exist? There is no duly enacted law granting a right to interracial marriage. Furthermore, marriage never has been recognized as a right beyond regulation by states. Everyone has the same right to marry but no one ever has had a right to marry just anyone he or she chooses."
Well, this woman wants to mean that the right to marry is limited to man and woman, I think. However, should I remind her that interracial marriage was forbidden until 40 years ago?, moreover, I´m Spanish and married to an Irish man and if I had married prior to 1972, by the Spanish law, I would have lost my nationality. The law didn´t allow me to marry a non-Spanish man. You see, marriage was not always that clear.
"What right is being restricted?"Pay attention. We're talking about the right of two persons to marry each other.
"Prior to the appalling arrogance and power play of four judges in Massachusetts, where did this right exist?"
The fact that you and your beloved have the right to marry each other shows that right exists. All that is being done is to ensure that all couples are afforded the same right.
"There is no duly enacted law granting a right to same-sex marriage."
See above.
"Furthermore, marriage never has been recognized as a right beyond regulation by states."
It seems to me that "states rights" are the last bastion of those trying to impose unjust laws. It's an admission that they can't convince the whole country of their bad idea, so, for a time they'll settle for a few backward states.
"Everyone has the same right to marry but no one ever has had a right to marry just anyone he or she chooses."
Certainly not. One can't just marry whomever one chooses, one has to be equally chosen by that person.
Your claim to equality is specious as you and yours are afforded the right to marry each other, whereas homosexuals are denied that right.
Lighten up. It should make no difference to you who someone else marrys. It's really no of your business.
I'm making you marry this disgusting, badly mannered, three-hundred eighty-nince pound fatass that could be in great shape if it weren't for the fact that he's a lazy fuck. Oh, and he'll make you his unwilling sex slave. He's always on top too. And no more Jesus with him either.
"...no one ever has had a right to marry just anyone he or she chooses."
That's like saying "Everyone has the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean they can say anything they want!"
Too late. They've already been on that one, and even more so with the "Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean they can worship anything they want!" bit.
Everyone has the same right to marry but no one ever has had a right to marry just anyone he or she chooses.
Even more disturbing is Wilkinson’s contention that the Constitution should not be amended to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman because the Framers “certainly did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights.” What right is being restricted?
The right to marry.
Prior to the appalling arrogance and power play of four judges in Massachusetts, where did this right exist?
How is it so "appalling" that a group of judges ruled that denying marriage rights to homosexual people violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
There is no duly enacted law granting a right to same-sex marriage.
Everyone has a right to do what they want as long as they don't harm others, whether or not there is an official law authorizing it or not. If two adults both wish to get married, they have a right to do so. If the government declares gay marriage to be illegal, this is persecution, not revoking a right.
Furthermore, marriage never has been recognized as a right beyond regulation by states.
Marriage is a right. Period. Any governments, national state, or local, should fuck off.
Everyone has the same right to marry but no one ever has had a right to marry just anyone he or she chooses.
Really? Did your father sell you to a man of his choosing? Or are you single, and are hoping your father will decide on a husband for you and sell you to him?
Look, stupid, the enlightenment was some time ago. Most of us realize that any two adults who are in love are entitled to marry if they so choose.
Anyway, here's an idea to help solve the whole gay marriage "problem." Simply create a civil union which is identical to a legal marriage; all the rights, obligations, and legal details associated with marriage are attatched to the civil union. Make civil unions available to everyone, gay or straight. Then, have the government withdraw from marriage the government will issue a civil union to any couple that applies for it, but whether they're "married" is up to them. This way, the bigots can rant on and on about how gay people aren't "really" married, like they do now, but they'll be unable to deny rights to them.
This would also prevent them from hiding behind religion. Many of them try to justify prejudice against gay people by saying that marriage is "sacred" and will be "corrupted" by extending it to gays. Since they use this argument, we can make the case that if marriage is "sacred," then it's not the business of the government, according to the 1st Amendment, and that the legal details should be attatched to a secular civil union, instead. Once the legal details and rights are attatched to a civil union instead of marriage, the bigots can no longer use religion to try and justify denying those rights to homosexuals. They wouldn't be able to justify denying those rights to homosexuals at all without openly admitting that they're just doing it out of pure bigotry.
Just a thought.
NotMe said,
Maronan: That's a brilliant idea. There's bound to be a lot of social inertia against it, especially because the fundies are always happy to have "sacred" stuff backed up by the government when it's THEIR idea of sacred (witness the phrase "In God We Trust" on our money, for example), but your idea is immensely practical and progressive. Let's see if we can shop it around to a few blue-state legislators.lawyer and spouting this bilge? I hope to goodness she never becomes a judge! I would love to see what sorts of letters to the editor this op-ed piece generates. "Proudly Marching Into The 18th Century" Award nomination n +1thed!
~David D.G.
There is no duly enacted law granting a right to same-sex marriage. forbidding a right to same-sex marriage, either. If a state chooses to allow same-sex marriages, then it's none of the Federal government's business. That's why mostly Southern conservatives have been agitating to amend the US Constitution to allow the Federal government to stick its nose into the issue. They want Alabama to be able to impose its Southern Baptist values and homophobic agenda on Massachusetts.
Maronan.
"...marriage never has been recognized as a right beyond regulation by states."
"Everyone has the same right to marry..."
Whatever she's smoking... I want none of it.
Denying some couples the right to formalize their union merely based on their gender, that is discrimination in my book, just as much as a woman being denied the job of mason merely due to her gender.
Two men or two women marrying poses no threat to anyone, no harm can come of it.
Yeah, the thought of a father and a daughter marrying creeps me out a bit. But, the marriage of two men creeps other people out.
"Jan" is a boy's name here as well. Perhaps it's a nickname for Janet?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
