Are you folks interested in reading something about "gay marriage" written by a Harvard Law Professor?

Question

What do you think? Or, do you think?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735

Answer 1

The facts will not sway anyone on this subject.
It is emotions and self serving special interests that drive it.
No matter what harm it will bring to the nation those that are pushing for it will have selective hearing (like Tegar) and will continue to push for it.
No matter how many times the people of America vote no, they will try the courts and any other loophole they can.
It is up to the voters to stay vigilant and lobby on our side if the democratic process cannot stop the special interests agenda maybe the people have other avenues to protect our nation.

Answer 2

If the reason those benefits are bestowed on straight people is because they raise children, then they shouldn't BE bestowed upon marriage, they should be bestowed upon the arrival of a child. And by the way, gay people have families too. The fact that some, or even most don't have children doesn't give you the right to trample on those families that DO have children. The group that's getting "special treatment" in this country is heterosexuals. You get ALL these rights whether you have children or not. If a gay couple DOES have children, these rights still aren't available to them. When making calls about people's RIGHTS, especially those of a minority, you first of all can't look at "most". If there was ONE gay couple in all of America (and trust me, there's more than that) who fit your description of whatever it took to warrant the granting of these marriage rights (having children, upstanding citizens, etc), it would be morally appalling to deny that couple these rights for any reason.

If you were raised in a two parent household, I'm sorry but you don't get to make criticisms about single parents. Newsflash: children DONT need both a mother and a father (we could talk about roles, but the traditional system is far from the only system that "works" for raising good kids). "Alternative family forms" can be just as good as a husband and wife raising their kids together. More importantly, studies have found that gay and lesbian families have a LOT more in common with the type of family they are (child of divorce, adopted child, etc) than with other gay and lesbian families of different types. This isn't surprising.
As for learning about homosexual sex in sex-ed classes: I've never been taught the mechanics of heterosexual sex. I would find that equally offensive and unnecessary. Children will probably be taught that gay people exist. For some reason, this frightens the hell out of people.

No specific examples of religious freedoms being limited were offered, so I'm not even dignifying that "argument" with anything close to a response. When I see a fully formed argument, I'll respond to it.

Here's the deal about our government. We're talking about the rights of an oppressed minority. Sorry, but "the people" don't get to be trusted to make those decisions. The good white voting people in the South don't get to just take a vote on slavery. They don't GET to vote on integration, because they can not be trusted to be fair. I'll admit it's a flawed system, because we are still trusting a bunch of white men to make these minority-rights decisions, but there is still a logic that has been used in our history that says that that is EXACTLY what they're there for.

I don't care where you're educated, these arguments are flimsy. The logical flaws are simple to see. Honestly, I would expect more from a harvard professor. Guess it proves the name doesn't mean everything.

Answer 3

I don't believe a persons rights should be up to "popular opinion". If that were the case, my wife and I would have never been married. The anti-miscegination laws were removed from the books, in my state, a year prior to our marriage. Had the Supreme court not ruled them unconstitutional, they would have been enforced for many years after that.

My reasons for supporting Gay Marriage Rights:
1) the only cogent reasons produced against it have been religious in nature - given we live in a society which values freedom of religion, the idea of one group pushing their religious values thru force of law is repugnant.

2) Basic fairness:
o Gay and Lesbian couples don't have the same freedoms and financial privileges given married hetero couples
- Inheritance
- taxes
o They find it more difficult to adopt because they aren't married.
o One member of the couple may have helped raise a child with their partner for 15 years, only to find they have no rights if the biological parent dies.
o They find it more difficult or sometimes impossible just to visit one another in the ICU - can you imagine being with someone for 25 years and not being able to visit them when they are dying of lung cancer in the ICU?

3) As one who anticipates being ordained soon, I don't see the government is remotely in the position of judging that some of the marriages I perform are legal and others not to be recognized.

Even more basic than that, I see the government's role as something besides a big mommy and daddy. It's here to judge us only when we've hurt others through force or fraud, to provide infrastructure, and to protect us from threats from without - not push one group's religious views on us through force of law.

Answer 4

Good article that shows when the gvmt determines social policy we then have a vested interest in what others do, and thus we have a say in other peoples lives.

Get the federal gvmt out of health care, social security, and marriage. Let us as individuals determine what is best for ourselves.

Marriage is a specific association we have with another person. The First Amendment protects us from gvmt interference on whom we choose to associate with. Since all associations are free and equal, the gvmt should treat all as equal regardless if the persons are straight, gay, married or living together.

Clearly defining what marriage is is not the function of the federal gvmt.

Answer 5

convinced. i do not provide a hump what Roberto Unger says, and that i locate it humorous that conservatives latch on to each and every left wing loon who criticizes Obama for kissing too a lot republican keister. "The professor concludes his video through saying: 'only a political reversal can enable the voice of democratic prophecy to communicate once again in American life.' If he thinks putting the Republicans lower back interior the white domicile is the reply he's off his nut. <<<"The professor concludes his video through saying: 'only a political reversal can enable the voice of democratic prophecy to communicate once again in American life.'>>> What a load. The professor needs to augment the liberal time table through status on the sidelines whining.

Answer 6

Ken and Will, what is the point of YOU, if all you do is go around looking for questions that you have problems with?

Answer 7

Read it.
It's an OLD article, and it contain false and misleading information:

The article asserts that gays are more affluent -- in fact they are not. And gays spend more of their income to attain equal rights, which hetero couples take for granted.

The article says that gays don't pay to educate children but in fact, all property owners are taxed to support schools, whetther they are straight or gay.

Just to mention a few.

Answer 8

I might have read it 3 years ago when it was written, not sure.

Like most most opinion letters, this one is full of half truths and conjecture. It's purpose is to scare people into thinking something that is not substantiated by her statements, nor does she provide proof sources.

Not worth the read, unless you are really bored.

Answer 9

Lots of noise, little if any actual fact.

Answer 10

sometimes smart people say stupid things