Quantum Spin

Well, due to some spammer having found this obscure blog, I have been forced to refuse Anonymous posts. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause for legitimate posters, but since I am unable to send feedback to the offending servers causing them to explode and burst into flames - well, I do what I can. Thank you to all my sincere commentators and may the spammers rot in digital agony.

Friday, February 14, 2014

Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

I'm wondering; where does it say that heterosexual marriages are a constitutional right?

My version of the Constitution lists no such federally-protected or guaranteed right.

This judge fails to demonstrate how marriage - any marriage - is a right.

Marriages are a consensual agreement between two people. In order to be married, one must have a partner willing to marry. If marriage is a RIGHT, then how is it satisfied if one is unable to find a partner willing to join in marriage?

In order to guarantee that "right" to marry, a partner must be found and forced to consent.

How is that a "right?"

Answer, it is not.

There is no right to marriage, same or mixed-sex.

What there is, is a PRIVILEGE to marry. That being the case, the authority granting the PRIVILEGE is entitled to have any rules it likes governing the act.

The precedent of marriage is that it is mixed-sex. There is no more resounding substantiation of this fact than the term, "same-sex," or "homosexual" marriage. There is no term, "mixed-sex" marriage, unless it is being used specifically in the company of homosexual topics. The default, societally understood definition of "marriage" is that of a mixed-sex couple. It requires no modification.

So, the term "marriage" is preempted. Find something else.

If a same-sex couple wants to share in the state-sanctioned benefits automatically obtained by marriage, then let them be joined in a civil union that confers equal privileges. However, the term "marriage" is taken.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

<< Home