Did not get around to this article by George Bush’s Solicitor General Ted Olson yesterday.
Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email
Comments
This is the civil rights issue of our generation. Ted Olson is on the right side of history. 40 years from now we will be embarassed by our luddite views on sexual orientation.
I disagree. I have racked my brains on this one. Gay couples should be afforded all the rights as heterosexual couples EXCEPT the use of the word “marriage”. Why is this debate always framed in the context of equal rights. Its purely a semantic debate in my opinion. If Ted is the only conservative in support of this, I must be the only liberal against it. Marriage is just a definition to describe two people in union of different sexes. I propose using the work “Gayrraige” to describe same sex couples.
Do people of a different race agitate to be called caucasian, because the term is somehow discriminatory? It merely describes a race. If you deny them rights based on their race, yes, then its discrimination.
(a) If it is a semantic discussion, why does it upset you so much. Logically it should not matter. Marriage will still remain a legal (and in some cases religious) contract establishing the cohabitative family unit. Its not as if the definition of marriage has remained static over the centuries.
(b) There are legal consequences to creating a separate category of “Gayrraige.” This is not automatically portable in terms of legal protections when you move from state to state. Also, the Federal government does not recognize it and grant the protections of law and benefits afforded to marriage (another hurdle is the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Clinton which will also have to be struck down or repealed). Also, since you bring up race this reeks of the “separate but equal” justification for segregation put forward by the Supreme Court in the 19th century case of Plessey vs. Ferguson. As it turned out, and as the legal effects on the ground today show, the different classifications in practical terms will be “inherently unequal.”
RSS Feed
