Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
number one...you're stating that making laws regarding marriage strengthens the institution. it can be argued (pretty solidly) that making laws regarding marriage (most of which are fiscal in nature) actually detracts from the institution. you're arguing that laws are made to strengthen marriage and therefore strengthen families. by throwing money into the scheme of marriage, it complicates things greatly. look at the extreme marriage and divorce rate of our country. one must wonder why it's as high as it is. the obvious response would be that people are rushing into getting married, without thinking of all that it implies. now we must wonder what makes people rush into getting married? it is VERY obvious that by making fiscal law regarding marriage that money becomes a big factor in getting married; i think we can all agree to that. so if it's a very big factor in the decision, it can be assumed that a good percentage of marriages decisions are pushed into action through monetary persuasion. so in the end, fiscal rewards for marriage actually detract from the institution, and at least help raise the number of divorces in this country.
number TWO, you're saying that raising a kid with two moms or two dads is different, well OBVIOUSLY it is. but is it necessarily different for the worse? being raised by one mom or one dad probably has a MUCH more adverse affect on the child than being raised by two of the same. so then with that logic, shouldn't divorce be illegal too? since it completely undermines the institution of marriage, not to mention the family unit and the lives of the children that are oh so important?
and in the first part of your post you said that lawmakers care about families being strong, so the kids can grow up and become good kids etc. who are you to say that two homosexuals cannot raise a child and have the SAME broad effect on society? if that was what lawmakers TRULY cared about, they wouldn't make it unlawful for gays to marry. why? because they are JUST as capable of contributing to society in that sense as heterosexuals.
sooooooo then we must wonder what actually drives lawmakers to disallow gay marriages? religion quite blatantly plays a huge role in this debate. according to christianity, the dominant religion in america, homosexuality alone (not even marriage) is BAD. and if the majority of the nation feels that something is bad, it isn't about to become legal in the traditional way. i'll therefore only justify judicial activism because everybody knows that the legislature is corrupt beyond belief with ties to special interests, etc. judges become judges independent of special interests, so i trust them a little more than i do legislators. while it is probably a bad precedent to set, there are plenty of other precedents we're setting that you guys aren't complaining about. for instance...reneging out of foreign treaties simply because we don't care anymore, INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE UN. think about that last one. any other country can now use our precedent as an excuse for invading a country. russia could go invade whoever they wanted, using our precedent as a crutch. and if we try to stop them, how hypocrticial do we look? and hypocrites don't have too many friends. i think THAT precedent is far more grave than judicial activism.
Comment