Shocker: supporter of Prop 8 thinks it "highly improbable" that standing will be rejected and "likely" Kennedy will uphold the law. I'm not totally free from doubt, though leaning toward a standing solution, but you know, not really surprising. Ditto that he puts forth rank stereotyping of positions:
And, we need not believe sexual identity is "inconsequential" (a strange thing to purport here anyhow, since it is part of why being allowed to marry your own sex is deemed so important) or mothers/fathers "entirely interchangeable." In California, however, it is not the basis otherwise of disfavoring same sex families, particularly in ways that harm the children in question. Benefits are not denied to single mothers regarding child care needs because it is better to have two parents in varous cases either.
But, bad argument is prevalent in the promotion of invidious discrimination. See, for instance, another supporter suggesting somehow of the "grave damage to religious freedom which same-sex marriage portends." What? Notre Dame Law School should know a bit about this. Divorce laws, e.g, clash with Catholic doctrine, so does that too inflict grave damage to religious freedom? How does denying marriage to people whose religious beliefs support it do that? SSM repeatedly are performed in religious ceremonies. Catholics should respect religious diversity more given the history they suffered int hat respect, not less. Morality on such questions should be decided by people themselves, individually.
Can't promise anything, but that's probably enough on this subject for now. More with further developments or in June.
The view of some is that marriage is only about satisfying the emotional fulfillment of adults, and has little or nothing to do with encouraging a legal attachment between children and their natural parents. Others believe that sexual identity is inconsequential, rendering mothers and fathers entirely interchangeable. Some communities disagree with both views.Strangely, we are not reminded of Kennedy's question about the tens of thousands of children harmed by Prop 8 is same sex families, where "emotional fulfillment of adults" is not the "only" thing cited.
And, we need not believe sexual identity is "inconsequential" (a strange thing to purport here anyhow, since it is part of why being allowed to marry your own sex is deemed so important) or mothers/fathers "entirely interchangeable." In California, however, it is not the basis otherwise of disfavoring same sex families, particularly in ways that harm the children in question. Benefits are not denied to single mothers regarding child care needs because it is better to have two parents in varous cases either.
But, bad argument is prevalent in the promotion of invidious discrimination. See, for instance, another supporter suggesting somehow of the "grave damage to religious freedom which same-sex marriage portends." What? Notre Dame Law School should know a bit about this. Divorce laws, e.g, clash with Catholic doctrine, so does that too inflict grave damage to religious freedom? How does denying marriage to people whose religious beliefs support it do that? SSM repeatedly are performed in religious ceremonies. Catholics should respect religious diversity more given the history they suffered int hat respect, not less. Morality on such questions should be decided by people themselves, individually.
Can't promise anything, but that's probably enough on this subject for now. More with further developments or in June.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!