I've largely been following the same-sex marriage debate at One Hand Clapping. Rev. Sensing has collected a decent number of links and has written about it in a substantial manner. While I agree with his solution - get the gov't out of the marriage business completely - I keep finding myself arguing with the anti-SSM folks to try and see their point of view. So far, two themes seem dominant: SSM will negatively impact society's ability to produce and raise children by rendering marriage moot, and SSM was wrongly legalized via judicial activism on the part of the MA Supreme Court. I find the first theme preposterous while gays are singled out for constitutional amendments but Britney Spears would be continued to be allowed to wed in Vegas, but I am more sympathetic to the second "activist judges" theme. I snuck a look at the MA state constitution, and it appears that the issue is murky indeed. I could see a court ruling on the interpretation of that clause either way and being able to reasonably defend their decision.
Trackbacks
Comments
I'd argue that while Britney and Jason dealt another blow to marriage, they don't eliminate the value and benefit of marriage. While B&J will never produce any offspring, at least there would have been a chance for it. Fred and Bill, even though they're together for 30 years, will never produce any progeny.
Also, the short-lived Spears-Alexander relationship never received any governmental or societal benefits, so I'd say that isn't a very good example of heterosexual marriage.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not (yet) a supporter of a Constitutional amendment for hetero marriage. Maybe we can discuss this over the next little while.
Note that by posting a comment on this site using this form or any other software tool, you have agreed to the advertising terms of this site and you agree to submit payment for any advertising in the comment above as outlined in the advertising terms. This applies to ads posted in the URL or Comment fields above.
![XHTML](../../xhtml.png")