The 14th Ammendment Should Say It All
The one thing that has bugged me about this past election-aside from the constant commercials, Obama being so passive and non-committed to the concept of same sex marriage-I think he should of been more supportive
Why? Well,remember there was a time when a Black Man marrying a White Woman or vice versa was against the law-had he used that as an example-maybe that would have made people get of their moral high horse. And yes I am comparing Homosexuality discrimination to racial discrimination based on how wrong BOTH are. Just as important to the Civil Rights Movement, as Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus -was Loving vs Virgina winning their right in court to be called man and wife, Mildred & Richard Loving fought the system and finally were allowed after the courts decided that it was unconstitutional for them to be denied. Had it pointed out that injustice in comparison, maybe it would have made a point. It violates the 14th amendment in the constitution:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
If the state is not allowed to decide a racial marriage's validity, it shouldn't be allowed to decide a homosexual couple's marital validity. NEVER does it state a marriage is only valid between a man and a woman, it's a basic civil right of man (man being used as a term mankind). They say it is fundamental to our existence, as in we marry and procreate-so does that mean a barren woman is not allowed to marry a man since no children will come from the marriage? No one would ever dare say that. It's about companionship, it's about love-love should not have a bound like this. Two responsible adults in love, committing to each other is an excellent example of a human's capacity to love.
If it causes no harm to someone else, how could it be considered so wrong?
(as you can tell, this is a subject I am very passionate about)
Why? Well,remember there was a time when a Black Man marrying a White Woman or vice versa was against the law-had he used that as an example-maybe that would have made people get of their moral high horse. And yes I am comparing Homosexuality discrimination to racial discrimination based on how wrong BOTH are. Just as important to the Civil Rights Movement, as Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus -was Loving vs Virgina winning their right in court to be called man and wife, Mildred & Richard Loving fought the system and finally were allowed after the courts decided that it was unconstitutional for them to be denied. Had it pointed out that injustice in comparison, maybe it would have made a point. It violates the 14th amendment in the constitution:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
If the state is not allowed to decide a racial marriage's validity, it shouldn't be allowed to decide a homosexual couple's marital validity. NEVER does it state a marriage is only valid between a man and a woman, it's a basic civil right of man (man being used as a term mankind). They say it is fundamental to our existence, as in we marry and procreate-so does that mean a barren woman is not allowed to marry a man since no children will come from the marriage? No one would ever dare say that. It's about companionship, it's about love-love should not have a bound like this. Two responsible adults in love, committing to each other is an excellent example of a human's capacity to love.
If it causes no harm to someone else, how could it be considered so wrong?
(as you can tell, this is a subject I am very passionate about)