Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
"In this context, the existence of marriage-like rights without marriage actually cuts against the existence of a rational government interest for denying marriage to same-sex couples. California's enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the State would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage in order to preclude same-sex couples from acquiring some marital right that might somehow be inappropriate for them to have. No party has argued the existence of such an inappropriate right, and the court cannot think of one. Thus, the state's position that California has granted marriage-like rights to same-sex couples points to the conclusion that there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well." - San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, in a ruling yesterday.
the logic of equality is so over-powering, and the arguments against it so fragile, that judges like Kramer are simply affirming the thuddingly obvious and the intellecutally honest.
can we agree that there is no argument to continue to keep a minority disenfranchised?
tradition? let's talk about the ban on inter-racial marriage.
procreation? let's talk about how non-procreative straight couples can get civil licenses.
non-procreative sex is immoral? let's talk about how non-procreative sex is the norm in traditional heterosexual civil marriage
the potential collapse of civilization?
can we once and for all accept that there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality? it is ALL simple-minded fear and prejudice and religious conviction that have NO place in our courts.
there is no argument against same-sex marriage.
none.
the debate should end here.
the logic of equality is so over-powering, and the arguments against it so fragile, that judges like Kramer are simply affirming the thuddingly obvious and the intellecutally honest.
can we agree that there is no argument to continue to keep a minority disenfranchised?
tradition? let's talk about the ban on inter-racial marriage.
procreation? let's talk about how non-procreative straight couples can get civil licenses.
non-procreative sex is immoral? let's talk about how non-procreative sex is the norm in traditional heterosexual civil marriage
the potential collapse of civilization?
can we once and for all accept that there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality? it is ALL simple-minded fear and prejudice and religious conviction that have NO place in our courts.
there is no argument against same-sex marriage.
none.
the debate should end here.