LA Times has an interesting report on the debate on same sex marriage in the California Supreme Court. The various comments are worth reading, although this sentence particularly struck me:
Lawyers in favor of same-sex marriages said a 1948 California Supreme Court ruling that struck down a ban on interracial marriages set a precedent for upholding a fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice.
Person of one's own choice eh? If you happen to have read my posts arguing why same-sex marriage should not be legalized, then this is one good reason. If a man can marry a man, why can a man not marry a dog? Do deny him the right to marry an animal seems discriminatory, IMHO, as if marriage is something that can only be restricted to human beings (an arbitrary assumption).
It might be reality that same sex couples want to marry, and it might be reality that other people might want to marry animals or fruits, but that doesn't mean reality ought to become law. No, no.
It might be reality that same sex couples want to marry, and it might be reality that other people might want to marry animals or fruits, but that doesn't mean reality ought to become law. No, no.
No comments:
Post a Comment