Mar 18, 2008 23:22
Before I get started, lemmie say I have no problem with same-sex marrage. So that said, my post is asking for comments on something I'd read earlier today in a blurb on the state supreme court's review of the state prohibition against it. The item that struck me, that I hadn't thought of before was the presidence of establishing arbitrary restrictions on marrage already being a practice. I thought "huh, what restrictions", and it mentions both the standing laws against polygamy, first cousin marrages, etc.
To be completely honest, I'm for the notion if they're of age (also somewhat of an arbitrary standard, 18 or 21), they should be able to marry. And it did seem arbitary to say that a man/woman can marry, but not same sex. But it hadn't struck me that random cultural elements already have an established history of setting up restrictions.
So the question at hand is: 1) does the prescedent of random cultural rules about marrage give weight to being able to say it should be male/female only. and 2) if it's consenting adults that want to be married then they should be allowed to do so, doesn't that also indicate that all the other prohibitions also have to be set aside? and just as it just hit me, 3) what catagory do post-sex change individuals fall into for the purposes of marrage filings?