GOODRIDGE AND GALLAGHER: Mark Miller replies to Mark Tardiff and to Maggie

Mark Tardiff's argument against SSM is based on the graphic (and philosophical?) definition of heterosexual sex--the literal joining of man and women. But that is not and can never be a winnable legal argument. Why ? Because marriage is not "legally" linked to procreation. Never has been. Never should be. There are examples of legal marriages where that "physical joining" cannot occur. Are those marriages invalid? Yet if is your argument, then the next step is that "marriage" should be redefined further to exclude relationships where "procreation" does/can NOT occur. Not that I agree that should be done but your support of that would give extra weight to your argument because it is then really about linking "marriage and procreation."

Replying to Maggie Gallagher in the Weekly Standard:
I think what gays and lesbians are saying is that those good things you describe can also happen when same-sex people are joined. The basis for this debate is that you feel the joining of a same-sex relationship is totally
different from the joining of an opposite sex relationship. And I respectfully disagree.
posted by Eve at 8:54 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home