Friday, June 18, 2010

THERE IS NO REASON OR EVIDENCE TO PROHIBIT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

A six-month trial on whether to overturn a California ban on gay marriage ended dramatically on Wednesday when a lawyer defending the prohibition said he did not need evidence to prove the purpose of marriage....

Conservative Charles Cooper led the defense, arguing that it is reasonable to fear that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriage and self-evident that the purpose of marriage was procreating and raising children.


[For the full article, see here.]

The reason that the attorney advocating for Prop. 8 "said he did not need evidence to prove the purpose of marriage" as we currently define it in most states in the U.S. is because there is no such evidence that can be presented! The purpose of marriage, be it heterosexual or same-sex, is to legalize (and solemnize) the committed love between two people, and there is absolutely no reason why heterosexuals should have a monopoly over that institution.

Despite the attorney's assertion, it is not at all "reasonable to fear that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriage." My wife and I just celebrated our 48th Anniversary yesterday, and I can assure you that same-sex marriage will in no way impact our marriage!

Same-sex couples who wish to make a life-time commitment to one another should have no fewer rights than do my wife and I. Their love is no less valuable or deserving of legitimacy than is the love between my wife and I!

Moreover, it is not at all "self-evident that the purpose of marriage was procreating and raising children," as a lot of heterosexually married couples have no interest in having children and many older people who wish to get married are not able to have children. Yet, we don't prevent these heterosexual couples from getting married!

In sum, there is no rational reason to prevent same-sex marriage, and repeating inanities, and not giving substantial (or any) evidence to prohibit same-sex marriage, shows the level of desperation, and the bankruptcy of the arguments, of those affirming Prop. 8, and also shows the blind prejudice that lies behind the facade of appealing to "tradition" that seeks to affirm Prop. 8.
Share |

2 comments:

DON CHARLES aka "STUFFED ANIMAL" said...

Jerry,

An analogy: There is parenting and adoptive parenting. We don't deny adoptive parents the right to be called parents because they didn't give birth to their children. We know there is a distinction, but we refer to the two kinds of parenting in the same way. And adoptive parents love their sons and daughters no less than biological parents do. The arguments against extending marriage to same-gender couples amount to a bunch of cock-and-bull stories, and (provided the judge has integrity) cock-and-bull stories don't stand up in court.

Jerry Maneker said...

I agree with you, Don Charles! My guess is that Judge Walker will find against Prop. 8, and it will then find itself before the U.S. Supreme Court about which I'm not that optimistic. There are too many Reactionaries and wild cards on that Court for any of us to feel comfortable once Prop. 8 gets to SCOTUS. Best wishes, Jerry.