Voters approved the amendment by a 61%-39% margin with all counties reporting, according to unofficial returns from the State Board of Elections.
The state House and Senate voted in 2011 to put the amendment before state voters. Both chambers are Republican-controlled for the first time in 140 years.
President Barack Obama said he was “disappointed” by the vote, describing it as discriminatory against gays and lesbians, a spokesman said….
As an overweight gay man, I have a whole new hope for weight loss: Move to NC and become three-fifths of a person.
“As an overweight [polyamorous man], I have a whole new hope for weight loss: Move to NC and become three-fifths of a person.”
“As an overweight [adult-sibling-attracted man], I have a whole new hope for weight loss: Move to NC and become three-fifths of a person.”
Good to see yet another gay man interested in protecting [i]his own[/i] special, minority sexual attraction . . . but nobody else’s.
How typically hypocritical. There’s the [i]real[/i] prejudice and bigotry: “we want the definition of marriage changed in order to include [i]our[/i] particular, unique, minority sexual attraction — but nobody else’s.”
[blockquote] How typically hypocritical. There’s the real prejudice and bigotry: “we want the definition of marriage changed in order to include our particular, unique, minority sexual attraction—but nobody else’s.†[/blockquote]
Sarah, I’m impressed and touched by your concern for sexual minorities. I hadn’t realized that opponents of same-sex marriage were so motivated by minority concerns. Since you’ve transcended prejudice and bigotry while I’m mired in hypocrisy, perhaps you could enlighten my poor self on the fair way to treat sexual minorities in terms of marriage. What do you see as the just course of action?
The sad thing about this is that for a while people were willing to create a category that would give homosexuals rights similar to heterosexuals called “civil unions.” But it turned out that this just became a Trojan horse for homosexual activists to then immediately claim in court that they then must be given “marriage.” E.g., see litigation in California, Hawaii, other places. North Carolina quite properly realized that it must be clear that only heterosexuals are entitled to marriage, and that there are no substitutes. So what has now happened can only be laid at the feet of thnose pushing the homosexual agenda. Hopefully other states who have not passed a clear constitutional amendment protecting marriage will do likewise.
Of course, it is now crystal clear that we also need a national amendment to the Constitution protecting marriage.
RE: “Since you’ve transcended prejudice and bigotry . . . ”
Not at all. By [i]your[/i] definition I’m prejudiced, bigoted, and homophobic. . . . Which just goes to show why nobody cares any more about being called those words. ; > ) I’m indifferent to your opinion about conservatives’ character or morality and couldn’t care less what lib activists call me. They’ve already demonstrated that their morality and thoughts about character are precisely antithetical to ours, and so naturally moral opinions on either side are irrelevant.
Now, after pointing out your and other gay activists utter hypocrisy in your desiring to change the definition of marriage to include [i]your[/i] minority sexual attraction but nobody else’s minority sexual attraction . . . I’d be perfectly happy to change the legal definition of marriage to include [i]ALL[/i] sexual attractions other than the non-consensual ones.
So.
I’m perfectly fine with the state allowing legal “marriage” for those sexually attracted to multiples, those sexually attracted to adult siblings, those attracted to the “life challenged” [as long as consent is given through a living will], those attracted to the non-sentient but living [ie, the houseplant], and so on and so forth.
Of course . . . once that happened . . . once marriage was legally redefined to include [i]all[/i] minority sexual attractions and not just the currently faddish same-sex minority sexual attraction . . . none of them would really want it.
Heh.
Because in reality this isn’t about people getting to be “married” — it’s about one particular minority sexual attraction desiring to [i]force society to pretend as if it approves[/i] of that particular minority sexual attraction. Once marriage was legally applied to all minority sexual attractions, the societal effect of something being called “marriage” would lose all of its power or influence to affect society and the point of marriage would be ended — at least — for the activist gays that is.
The point for same-sex marriage is often more about benefits than anything else. Redefining the basic building block of society to solve insurance and tax problems is really the wrong way to go about it. Sarah points out rightly that expanding marriage to include same-sex couples would be by no means the end of it. By the way, would same-sex couples have to observe laws against marriage between close relatives? Why? I voted for the amendment because, beyond couples, once the floodgates are open, multiples will surely demand their rights as well. Polygamy, enforced by religious communities (Muslims, minor Mormon sects, etc.), involves coercive degradation of women’s rights and status.
The vote demonstrates reality: marriage is between a man and a woman, period, full stop, end of “discussion”. Activists don’t like it because it gives voice to reality and disrupts their self-image. Now, of course, they’ll try the courts or any other avenue available to subvert reality to their delusional status.
[blockquote] I voted for the amendment because, beyond couples, once the floodgates are open, multiples will surely demand their rights as well. [/blockquote]
Two questions arose as I read this:
(a) Has this actually happened in the states and countries where same-sex marriage is legal?
(b) Polygamy existed historically (even in the Bible) and, as you noted, holds sway in some places today. Yet our our modern, Western understanding of it is “one man and one woman.” Mightn’t that suggest that we’ve “redefined” marriage before3?
#4 Jim is right. The opponents of same sex marriage have generally moved from the 3/5 of a person argument to the separate but equal argument. NC tends to be a hold out for the old ways, but maybe QohelethDC can one day hope to have a separate drinking fountain and bathroom in NC. Dare to dream….
#8: (a) Court cases from polygamists are current in Canada. The UK has begun allowing Muslim immigrants to bring plural wives and is paying them welfare benefits. (b) The one man – one woman standard was practiced in Roman law and adopted throughout the world as Christianity grew. Christians living in Muslim lands have held to the Christian standard for 1400 years.
[blockquote] The one man – one woman standard was practiced in Roman law and adopted throughout the world as Christianity grew. [/blockquote]
How did folks adopt the Roman standard without redefining their previous understanding of marriage?
Yes, indeed they did redefine their previous understanding if they adopted Christianity and their previous understanding included polygamy (as did the Jewish tradition). I have yet to see any arguments which convince me that we ought to re-define it again back in favor of polygamy. The effects of polygamy in Muslim societies are pernicious in my opinion and observation.
By the way, I haven’t seen a detailed analysis of the vote pattern in North Carolina yet, but a look at the map showing which counties approved it shows that rural areas which are heavily black voted in favor of the amendment. This validates the pre-election poll showing 63% of black voters here in favor. Apparently these voters do not share the idea that the same-sex marriage battle is the equivalent of the struggle to end slavery and segregation.
RE: “but maybe QohelethDC can one day hope to have a separate drinking fountain and bathroom in NC.”
Heh.
But absolutely [i]nothing[/i] for those with polyamorous, or life-challenged, or adult sibling attractions. They don’t even get to get [i]on[/i] the bus, much less sit at the back.
Oh no, Sarah,
You drank Br. Michael’s Kool-Aid! You, of course, know that the State needs to have a compelling interest in prohibiting marriage. For example, the ‘blood laws’ are enforced in all States. Laws against polygamous marriage, when enforced, are enforced because of the State’s interest in property and estate law. What compelling interest does the State have in banning same-sex marriage? Keep in mind the Establishment Clause.
Marriage regulation seems to be one of those areas that is distinctly a state issue under state police powers. No. 4, suggests that this could be changed by a federal constitutional amendment. We conservatives resist those sorts of changes. There is no indication that the states are not capable of dealing with these issues. Obviously they are constrained by equal protection guaranties under the federal constitution. We will find out whether a state-bestowed legal status can be withheld on the basis of sexual preference as the California issue works its way through the court system. However, until that happens, I see no need for there to be any federal involvement whatsoever in this issue. It strikes me as constitutionally irrelevant what any sitting President or VP (or candidate for those offices) thinks about these issues.
Being libertarian I have no dog in this fight. My view FWIW is that the word “marriage” should be expunged from the legal code and replaced with “civil union” or some equivalent phrase. “Marriage” should be treated as a purely religious institution.
Thus anyone who wishes to have his or her domestic arrangements recognized by the state would go down to the courthouse and file the paperwork for a civil union. If they then wish to be “married” they would go to their respective place of worship and speak with their respective clergy person and ask to be married. That would be a private matter between them and their faith group.
For the general good of society polygamous and or polyamorous relationships as also incestuous and nonconsentiual civil unions would be proscribed. There are pragmatic reasons for this.
As an Orthodox Christian I find the whole idea of unnatural relations rather revolting. But while that is a great topic for a sermon, it’s a lousy one for public law. My right to tell someone else how to live their life stops at the edge of my property (provided they are not doing anything that infringes on other people’s rights).
[blockquote] But absolutely nothing for those with polyamorous, or life-challenged, or adult sibling attractions. They don’t even get to get on the bus, much less sit at the back. [/blockquote]
Oh no, Sarah! You forgot the people who want to marry their houseplants. I’d heard all the others before, but the possibility of wedding my begonia was an impressively original addition to the [i]Reductio[/i] litany this issue evokes.
I have some very nice begonias. It’s a short-term relationship, though; they’re annuals.
I actually agree with Obama on this point. I think it’s a state issue. Abortion should be, also.
[blockquote] Apparently these voters do not share the idea that the same-sex marriage battle is the equivalent of the struggle to end slavery and segregation. [/blockquote]
True enough. Oppressed groups don’t always manage to make common cause, and one of NOM’s strategies (mentioned in a memo that made its way into the press) appears to be driving a wedge between blacks and gays. It pains me to think that churches may be one of their tools for doing this.
I do take some solace from knowing that Coretta Scott King, not unfamiliar with black folks’ quest for freedom and equality, spoke out on the issue. “Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union,” she said. “A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”
I also found comfort in the words of Desmond TutU: I am proud that “in South Africa, when we won the chance to build our own new constitution, the human rights of all have been explicitly enshrined in our laws. My hope is that one day this will be the case all over the world, and that all will have equal rights. For me this struggle is a seamless robe. Opposing apartheid was a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination against women is a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a matter of justice.”
RE: “You, of course, know that the State needs to have a compelling interest in prohibiting marriage. For example, the ‘blood laws’ are enforced in all States. Laws against polygamous marriage, when enforced, are enforced because of the State’s interest in property and estate law.”
Well no — we’re all busy talking about *morality* not government, Brian. After all, that’s what QohelethDC began bleating about from the beginning — the *moral* problems with discriminating against him. I merely pointed out his rank hypocrisy and happy willingness to discriminate against all sorts of minority sexual attractions, other than, of course, [i]his own[/i].
As far as “compelling interest” you and I both know that, depending on the era, the State can dream up a “compelling interest” to justify any sort of discrimination.
RE: “I’d heard all the others before, but the possibility of wedding my begonia was an impressively original addition to the Reductio litany this issue evokes.”
Well of course the litany is reductio . . . as long as it’s not *your* minority sexual attraction. Yours is [i]deadly serious[/i], naturally.
; > )
[blockquote] After all, that’s what QohelethDC began bleating about from the beginning—the *moral* problems with discriminating against him. [/blockquote]
Given that that was the focus to all my “bleating,” it’s interesting that I never actually used the word.
As an overweight gay man, I have a whole new hope for weight loss: Move to NC and become three-fifths of a person.
Now Sarah, this was the first bleating and it is distinctly legal, constitutional and oriented to civil rights. And in your #5 you say:
They’ve already demonstrated that their morality and thoughts about character are precisely antithetical to ours, and so naturally moral opinions on either side are irrelevant.
So our morality is irrelevant. I have given you reasons why other minority sexual attractions have prohibitions which are compelling. What is the compelling, non-religious State interest in anti-gay bigotry? There should be some non-religious reason that conservatives have, right?
RE: “it’s interesting that I never actually used the word.”
Heh. That’s all you got, QohelethDC?
RE: “So our morality is irrelevant.”
Yup. As well as brazenly hypocritical, as I’ve demonstrated in this thread.
RE: I have given you reasons why other minority sexual attractions have prohibitions which are compelling.”
No you haven’t. You’ve given reasons why the State *currently claims* that they have a “compelling interest” in discrimination. But as you know, that’s not the same thing at all.
RE: “What is the compelling, non-religious State interest in anti-gay bigotry?”
; > )
There you go again. Making a moral claim, about a currently faddish minority sexual attraction about which you are deadly serious. But, you know . . . not all the others. They get relegated to the ash heap where they belong — those guys aren’t even 3/5 of a person for the Brians and QohelethDCs of this world.
And again, I’m happily for legally expanding the definition of marriage to include any and all sexual attractions that are consensual.
QohelethDC, I don’t think black opposition to same-sex marriage comes from some outside group’s nefarious plotting. I think it is indigenous to black culture and belief in this country. While you quote individuals who think the issues of race and sexual desire are the same, this election is another demonstration that those individuals are a minority within the ethnic/racial group. It is disrespectful of black voters to say that they only vote that way because some pressure group is using them as a wedge. Further, President Obama’s announcement yesterday that he supports gay marriage in the wake of this overwhelming defeat in North Carolina indicates that he doesn’t think this difference of opinion will cause those same black voters to vote Republican or stay home in November. Time will tell.
You’ve given reasons why the State *currently claims* that they have a “compelling interest†in discrimination.
True. And I notice that after repeatedly being asked, neither the State nor you (nor any other conservative for that matter) has given or can provide a non-religious interest. Conservatives love to claim that they follow the Constitution, until it comes to actually upholding it. The State’s complete silence on why it is OK to violate the equal rights of some individuals is proof positive that it has no defense. Your attempt at leading us down the rabbit hole with the red herring of other sexual minorities is a bit transparent for you…but I suppose you need a Hail Mary play when your arguments (or complete lack thereof) have no substance 🙂
#25, although your argument is with Sarah, you say no conservative can provide a non-religious interest in the definition of marriage. I do believe there are state interests related to the general welfare involved. Numerous sociological and psychological studies have shown that, speaking of averages, children do much better if raised in stable two-parent traditional marriages. The drug abuse and crime rates which we have seen since no-fault casual divorce and easy abortion began severing the relationship between marriage and family life are testimony enough, in my opinion, that the stability of marriage as traditionally viewed is important to the healthy functioning of our society. This does not mean, in my opinion, that parent-child relationships which do not fit the traditional template should be made criminal or that successes outside the traditional mold should not be celebrated. It does mean that the state has an interest in promoting traditional marriage and its stability. This goes beyond the prohibition of same-sex couples or multiples as partners. We are also doing a bad job with opposite-sex relations and need to do better if we don’t wan’t society to suffer even more.
RE: “And I notice that after repeatedly being asked, neither the State nor you (nor any other conservative for that matter) has given or can provide a non-religious interest.”
Well of course we can. All of us can provide non-religious compelling interests against every single expansion of the definition of marriage out there, including the ones we named! And of course . . . others would disagree that those were compelling interests.
RE: “The State’s complete silence on why it is OK to violate the equal rights of some individuals is proof positive that it has no defense.”
So far, everybody *has* equal rights — the right to marry. What’s under discussion is *modifying the definition of marriage and ever-so-slightly expanding that definition to include one minority sexual attraction and none other*. And it’s all based not on “the state has no compelling interest” but on “how dare we get discriminated against — we’re a *special* minority sexual attractions!”
No, Brian — the guy who five years ago would have cheerfully admitted that yes, this is all about trying to force a pretended public societal approval of one particular sexual attraction — you — is now descending to trying to distract by bringing up the compelling state interest herring when he well knows — as do all activists on both sides of the issue — that there can or cannot be a “compelling state interest” generated for anything at all that the State wishes.
Whatever compelling interest were talked about — of course the revisionist activists would assert that it is no such thing at all. And we’d be right back to the main assertion which is “how dare you discriminate against this particular, special, currently faddish, minority sexual attraction!” And people like me would be right back to pointing out your rank hypocrisy.
It’s just that the old Brian would have admitted that rather than try to play rhetorical games. But you’re a different — and far less honest — person now. That’s what happens when you submit yourself to a lie — you become a Person of the Lie.
And that’s just what you’re trying on this very thread — to very ill effect.
#24: In fairness to Mrs. King and Bishop Tutu, I think they’re more than just “individuals.” Each played a key role in blacks’ struggles for justice. That said, their perspective on gay issues may indeed be a minority viewpoint. Is it there therefore invalid? Like Katherine, I don’t attribute black voters’ decisions on Amendment One solely to NOM’s wedge strategy. If I gave the impression that I did, I apologize.
#26: In terms of the studies on how children fare, I think it’s important to know what the basis of comparison was. Were the researchers comparing stable opposite-sex couples with stable same-sex ones? Or were they comparing traditional marriage with, say, shared custody between folks who’d divorced or with single parents?
#28, I believe there are valid studies out on the outcomes for children raised in same-sex households vs. those raised in traditional married households. I don’t have links. On average, there are more problems for children raised in non-traditional settings. In individual cases, of course, there are children who do well, and that’s wonderful. I agree with you that children raised in households with a changing array of adults in loco parentis or in single-parent households have problems as well.
Did some quick Googling and came across a paper from the [url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full]American Academy of Pediatrics[/url]. Have not, I confess, had time to digest it in depth, but a few sentences toward the end caught my eye: “There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.”
The unasked question in this thread – strongly suggested by #16 – is what interest the state has in privileging any relationship. Once that question is answered, then you have a basis for determining which relationship patterns should actually be privileged. Until then, it’s all religion, justice, and civil rights chatter.
RE: “I believe there are valid studies out on the outcomes for children raised in same-sex households vs. those raised in traditional married households.”
Katherine — it doesn’t matter [as I know you know.] No matter what compelling interest is mentioned, it’s *still* not “compelling interest” to the revisionist activists. There is no “compelling interest” against marriage to the libs who are promoting the currently faddish minority sexual attraction. Nor will there be to the libs who finally recognize their own bigotry and promote the next currently faddish minority sexual attraction. And the next. And the next.
When we wants something, we must have it — and “compelling interest” is then no longer . . . compelling, to the side that wants it. ; > )
The rich irony is that the *argument* [sic] is all about the cruelty of discrimination against one minority sexual attraction.
Well, yes, Sarah. What Brian from T19 means is that he thinks no compelling state interests exist. Others judge differently. What all this fuss comes down to is that 61% of North Carolina voters want a society in which the definition of marriage is not changed.
Katherine, I am relatively certain that a great deal more than 61% of some States would repeal any rights given to blacks, but we live in a country where you can not do that. As for your listing of possible State interests (which I am glad to see that there are people who can list some), the second part of the test in limiting rights is that the State must limit the scope of its prohibitions. So, if we argue that there is some definitive proof that same-sex couples raising children will harm children (a point I do not concede), then the State would only be able to limit adoptions. If divorce is the problem, then the State would only be able to limit divorce. What NC did was vote to place their moral and personal distaste for same-sex marriage into their most important document. Not only are same-sex couples unequal under the law, but they are now unequal according to the very founding document of the State of NC. It is in conflict with the Federal Constitution and will be tried (in my opinion). People simply can not vote on whether or not all people are equal. If it worked that way, we would all be in trouble in some way.
We’ve gone to the second stage and we see anger at the inability to defend her version of the Truth. As you see in #27, I am now a Person of the Lie (implication: I am connected with the Father of Lies; real subtle). Next move is a teary break-down about me being mean. Not falling into the trap.
No, Brian, you think it was merely about personal and moral distaste because you don’t agree with the opinion. Opinions you don’t agree with may be held sincerely.
As to the canard that some states would rescind civil rights for persons of African descent if they could, that’s complete nonsense. That sounds like regional prejudice and is ignorant of current opinion and behavior in former Confederate states.
Katherine, as I said above, the State must (1) have a compelling interest and (2) only impose those limits necessary to address the compelling interest.
You gave as reasons:
children do much better if raised in stable two-parent traditional marriages
which relates to adoption and
The drug abuse and crime rates which we have seen since no-fault casual divorce and easy abortion began severing the relationship between marriage and family life are testimony enough, in my opinion, that the stability of marriage as traditionally viewed is important to the healthy functioning of our society.
Which doesn’t demonstrate a link to same-sex marriage.
So I am not differing with you on your opinion, I am simply stating that there is still no State interest demonstrated.
It’s all a matter of opinion, Brian.
[blockquote] Charles52 wrote:
The unasked question in this thread – strongly suggested by #16 – is what interest the state has in privileging any relationship. Once that question is answered, then you have a basis for determining which relationship patterns should actually be privileged. Until then, it’s all religion, justice, and civil rights chatter. [/blockquote]
As the author of # 16 I will amplify my comments where I wrote [blockquote] For the general good of society polygamous and or polyamorous relationships as also incestuous and nonconsentiual civil unions would be proscribed. There are pragmatic reasons for this.[/blockquote]
My objections to polygamy and polyamorous civil unions is purely pragmatic. It would create a nightmare for inheritance and divorce law and it would also create serious issues about benefits such as SSI and other government programs aimed at public relief. Incest should be proscribed for reasons of public health and non-consensual relationships should not require any serious discussion.
As revolting (and it really is) as the thought of gay sex is, it is also none of my business. I have not yet heard a persuasive argument for proscribing it or gay civil unions. The so called public interest arguments thrown out on this rather long and repetitive thread carry no more weight than the arguments used by social conservatives to try and outlaw booze 90 years ago. It is all smoke and mirrors. Charles52 is right when he said it basically all comes down to religion and civil rights chatter.
No one has the right to legislate their religious beliefs on others. But it is also worth noting that all of this talk about “equal rights” being denied is also a bunch of drivel. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. So I have no idea where talk of rights is coming from. I think N. Carolina passed an idiotic amendment to its constitution. But idiocy is not unconstitutional.
If you don’t like it, then work to repeal it. Using the courts to subvert the constitutional process is not just cheesy, it’s dangerous to the very ideal of a constitutional republic founded on the rule of law.
[blockquote] Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. So I have no idea where talk of rights is coming from. [/blockquote]
It may stem in part from the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in [i]Loving v. Virginia[/i] (1967), which struck down laws against interracial marriage: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
RE: “the inability to defend her version of the Truth. . . . ”
Nope — the only one having to desperately wave an alternate shiny toy to debate over because his prejudice has been pointed out is Brian.
RE: “As you see in #27, I am now a Person of the Lie (implication: I am connected with the Father of Lies; real subtle).”
Er . . . I see you haven’t read the Peck book and so have no clue about what deliberate sophistry does to a person.
RE: “Next move is a teary break-down about me being mean.”
[snort] Another thing that Brian knows would never happen and has never happened — but never stop wishin’ and hopin’ and dreamin’, Brian. ; > )
RE: “My objections to polygamy and polyamorous civil unions is purely pragmatic. It would create a nightmare for inheritance and divorce law and it would also create serious issues about benefits such as SSI and other government programs aimed at public relief. Incest should be proscribed for reasons of public health . . . ”
I disagree that there would be any “nightmare” regarding any of these matters that could not easily be resolved using normal, everyday, contractual tools at our disposal . . . rather like precisely what was once used in regards to power of attorney, inheritance, and visitation rights back before gays claimed they couldn’t get any of those things without having the privilege of civil unions — and besides all that, how dare they have to use those handy tools when what they really really wanted was the convenience of civil unions!
In other words — your “nightmare” amounts to about the same intensity and weight as the “nightmare” of people drinking booze.
US history demonstrates quite adequately that the State can come up with all sorts of bogus [or not bogus] claims to public interest — until a majority deem them to be bogus, and then those “public interest” claims are happily ignored or trivialized.
RE: “The so called public interest arguments thrown out on this rather long and repetitive thread . . . ”
And of course there have been practically *no* “arguments” on this thread about public interest, despite Brian’s attempts to get people to “talk about something else” other than how bigoted gay activists are in seeking special redefinitions of marriage for their particular sexual activity but nobody else’s. This thread has been singularly [i]free[/i] of such “public interest arguments” because both sides recognize how foolish and sophistic such a rhetorical trail is [although for one side it is a hoped-for distraction].
No, if there’s no significant “public” or “compelling interest” to preventing a redefinition of marriage to include the practitioners of gay sex, then there’s no *significant* “public interest” to preventing a redefinition of marriage for any other practitioner of a minority sexual act. All such “public interest” assertions may be comparatively easily overcome. Frankly, there’s more reason to ban drugs — something that as I recall The Libertarian opposes — as a “public interest” issue, then there is to ban polyamorous marriages or consensual adult sibling marriages.
So we return to why . . . why, oh why are the supporters of gay sex so eager and happy to expand the legal definition of marriage to include that particular minority sexual attraction, but nobody else’s? All of us recognize it has nothing to do with “no compelling public interest” memes.
So why might it be?
AO (#39) –
Thank you for the response, but it doesn’t address my main questions:
1.) What is the public interest expressed by privileging certain relationships (and not others)?
2.) How do same-sex relationships fit into the public interest, or rather, do they?
Obviously, if same-sex relationships don’t fit into the public interest, then there is no reason to grant them social approval and benefits. If they do, then it does make sense to place them on the same footing as heterosexual marriage/civil unions.