Marriage Equality
It was nice for New York to catch up to Massachusetts and DC. *G*
The image that sticks with me is the Empire State Building with rainbow lights.
I'm so thrilled, and I hope this will be the tipping point. If the Supremes uphold the California decision, I'm pretty sure there's no turning back.
A comment I left at The Los Angeles Times in their comments on Marriage Equality (it's an old thread):
The original comment:
JohnDias
We're talking about the equal right to obtain a marriage license. Licenses by their nature exist in order to restrict something, and so when you are able to obtain a license you are exempted from those restrictions. But in this case, if someone does not have a marriage license, which one of their day-to-day freedoms is restricted? Unmarried and unlicensed couples are permitted to live together, sleep together, have sex with each other, have sex with other parties, produce children, and raise children and the government doesn't get in the way. The license to marry is therefore completely symbolic, and doesn't afford anyone any "freedoms" at all. If marriage licensing itself is now merely symbolic, carrying no penalties, fines or incarceration for the unlicensed, than what we have here is an attempt to use the symbolic power of government licensing in order to manufacture legitimacy for a sexuality. Proponents of marriage licenses for homosexuals really only want social legitimacy -- not just for their marriages, but also for their sexuality. If you disagree with this, then please point how one's sexual freedom is being hindered by one's lack of a marriage license.
My response:
The issue was approached as an aspect of contract law in Massachusetts. Why were two informed consenting adults denied the right to make a contract with each other to their mutual benefit and the benefit of society?
The ability to legally enter into a contract is one of the most fundamental rights of adulthood. You're absolutely right that proponents of marriage equality want social legitimacy. That's what is being denied to them -- the legitimacy of being equal under the law for inheritance, taxes, property ownership, medical decisions, etc.
Believe it or not, the right to marry has nothing to do with sex. The right to marry is the right to make a legal commitment to a life partner.
The image that sticks with me is the Empire State Building with rainbow lights.
I'm so thrilled, and I hope this will be the tipping point. If the Supremes uphold the California decision, I'm pretty sure there's no turning back.
A comment I left at The Los Angeles Times in their comments on Marriage Equality (it's an old thread):
The original comment:
JohnDias
We're talking about the equal right to obtain a marriage license. Licenses by their nature exist in order to restrict something, and so when you are able to obtain a license you are exempted from those restrictions. But in this case, if someone does not have a marriage license, which one of their day-to-day freedoms is restricted? Unmarried and unlicensed couples are permitted to live together, sleep together, have sex with each other, have sex with other parties, produce children, and raise children and the government doesn't get in the way. The license to marry is therefore completely symbolic, and doesn't afford anyone any "freedoms" at all. If marriage licensing itself is now merely symbolic, carrying no penalties, fines or incarceration for the unlicensed, than what we have here is an attempt to use the symbolic power of government licensing in order to manufacture legitimacy for a sexuality. Proponents of marriage licenses for homosexuals really only want social legitimacy -- not just for their marriages, but also for their sexuality. If you disagree with this, then please point how one's sexual freedom is being hindered by one's lack of a marriage license.
My response:
The issue was approached as an aspect of contract law in Massachusetts. Why were two informed consenting adults denied the right to make a contract with each other to their mutual benefit and the benefit of society?
The ability to legally enter into a contract is one of the most fundamental rights of adulthood. You're absolutely right that proponents of marriage equality want social legitimacy. That's what is being denied to them -- the legitimacy of being equal under the law for inheritance, taxes, property ownership, medical decisions, etc.
Believe it or not, the right to marry has nothing to do with sex. The right to marry is the right to make a legal commitment to a life partner.