Opponents of Maine's law allowing same-sex marriage claimed victory Tuesday night in their repeal effort, after a heated campaign that polarized the state and drew national attention.Maybe they can call it "garriage?" But this sums up the motivation behind opponents of gay marriage: it's about the heterosexuals, stupid. Why is it that a liberal can embrace a law that favors a select group they like, but cannot abide when a group they don't asks for protection?
"This has never been about gay rights," he said. "It's about marriage, and this is reaffirmation by the people of Maine that marriage between men and women is special and unique."
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Straight On, Maine!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
re-do on above post
Thank God for their efforts, I was worried about this one.
Maine, percentage wise has an above average older population. The younger population over the years have migrated out. Maine has done nothing to retain its youth, but rather listen to special interests to redefine marriage rather then use such public policy to make it more attractive for their own children to settled down and start families.
For the past few decades, Maine has been bleeding their population and all the law makers can do is say marriage has nothing to do with the well-being of children.
Even individuals who happen to be gay, have every right to know, be loved and nurtured by both their mother and father. Marriage promotes that. That doesn't mean parents must approve of their lifestyle though, there are a lot of things parents don't approve of their children but it doesn't make us love them any less.
My favorite passage from Bill Duncan in a 2007 Howard Law publication has in Portrait of a Marriage
"“The new kind of civil union exists merely to amplify the self-
confidence of the partners. Children, neighbors, community, the world –all such others are strangers to the deal.”47 For instance, mar-riage between a man and a woman has been understood to create obligations to children, because children may result from the marriage, whether as a result of choice or not. The decision to marry creates an obligation to support the children of the marriage, an obligation not contingent on desire. A same-sex partnership cannot create the same
obligation because there is no potential for unintentional procreation in that context.
Some of the courts try to compensate for the absence of obligation by invoking concepts like “commitment,”48 but commitment is an awfully diluted substitute for obligation. Commitment and even love are terminable in a way that obligation is not because both are subjective and can, to some degree, be chosen or unchosen. On the other hand, one may ignore an obligation, but cannot will it out of existence. An obligation is objective.""
Post a Comment