Can Gay marriages be likened to inter-racial marriages?
Yes, says this group, which likens gay marriages to inter-racial marriages, and some argue that the Loving V. Virginia U. S. Supreme Court ruling applies equally to gay unions.
Are you swayed by the argument? What's your take on the whole subject?
Are you swayed by the argument? What's your take on the whole subject?
Labels: Constitutional Rights, The Constitution, U. S. Supreme Court
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 10:52 AM
10 Comments:
I don't see what the big deal is here - how does a legal definition of gay marriage affect the validity of my or anyone else's marriage - we're not talking about insisting that churches sanctify gay marriage. We are all sinners and nowhere in the Bible do I see homosexuality singled out as any worse than any other sins. Leviticus also prohibits shellfish and I don't see anyone getting so upset about Red Lobster. Can we not spend our time on more fundamental issues in government?
Homosexuality is referred to in the Bible as an "abomination against God" and eating of shellfish is banned in the Old Testament but NOT in the New!
Conservatives will argue, I suspect, that "an abomination unto God" is a FUNDAMENTAL issue in Government.
I'm against gay marriage.
Is there ANY comparison between gay marriages and inter-racial ones?
I think it's incumbent upon those who make the comparison to tell us what the connection is. I do not believe they can make a specific link.
Anyone who does not understand why marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, should read the very common-sense statement of the nominee for Surgeon General (for which he is being subjected to merely ad hominem attacks by the homosexual lobby).
Osi:
I don't believe they are the same. So called "interracial" dating is merely the actions of a man and woman to allow nature to dictate their affairs of romance, as it did in the olden days, rather than artificial disinctions of race; especiall those that have evolved over the past couple of hundred years but that seem now- thankfully- to be in retreat.
Historically, there were distinictions keeping men and women seperated because of different tribal roots-- other than practical concerns.
As usual, Cyberhillbilly gets the rest of us thinking at a deeper level. (Those unfamiliar with him should check out his blogsite.)
The American version of egalitarianism which began to surface with the advent of Jacksonian democracy, has arrived full scale in the present day. Marriage, in tradtional cultures, protected the economic interests of both parties (but particularly women, who had minimal legal rights). Thus, socioeconomic status was given maximal consideration.
With the well-deserved death of Jim Crow laws, race has waned as a factor, although much lingering prejudice remains.
In the Old Testament, Jews were admonished not to intermarry with non-Jews. This was a provision to preserve the worship of Yahweh, not to preserve a racial line for its own sake. Even then, there were notable exceptions to the norm which were celebrated in Jewish history (such as the non-Jews by birth, Rahab and Ruth).
For the homosexual-rights lobby to equate same-sex domestic partnerships with marriages involving differing ethnicities, has no basis in either logic, sociology or anthropology.
GREAT analyses, guys.
Cyberhillbilly's blog site is:
http://cyberhillbilly.blogspot.com/
jesus cries blood tears over the bigotry expressed herein
Thanks Nic Con and Osi. BTW, I meant to say there were "FEW" distinctions keeping men and women apart.
As for the notion that it's bigotry for the majority of Americans (overwhelming majority, Anony 12:43... meaning tons of so called "bigots") to simply say: we don't want to sanction what you choose to do through our laws, to pay our taxpayer dollars to sanction your relationships, or to equate your relationship with the ones we have... the notion that this is bigotry is silly.
Forgive the disjointedness. (word?)
Post a Comment
<< Home