Kid just loves him some cows (komos) wrote,
Kid just loves him some cows
komos

Aren't liberals supposed to be the irrational ones?

The dissenting opinion of this week's SJC ruling about the civil marriage/civil union debacle argued that since civil unions provided identical benefits and rights as civil marriages, any debate over whether they were appropriate was one solely of semantics. The obvious question in response is, if the argument really is just one of semantics, why is there a need to create new terminology to describe an arrangement that already exists?

The trouble is, there is no answer that doesn't ultimately lead back to the idea that marriage is somehow a special provenance reserved for heterosexual couples, which of course brings us to the ruling and its discussion about how separate is almost invariably not equal. The 'rose by any other name' argument truly does miss the point.

Romney's big push for the Constitutional Ammendment rests on the idea that marriage is for the purpose of having children... I'm assuming that if that gem gets rammed down our throats, it will mean that heterosexual couples either unable or unwilling push out babies will similarly be prohibited from marrying?

And you thought that we weren't viewed as cattle.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 12 comments