Monday, June 22, 2015

Equality For All, Not Just Some

At, an argument by someone identified as Madman of Chu in regards to marriage equality is examined...
Madman’s claim is that marriage equality is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

There's more than one way to get there, but this is one of the popular ways.
Madman further implies a claim of definition to identify how Marriage should be identified; specifically, that Marriage consists of two persons only.

I don't see where the Constitution says that. Oh, that's right, it doesn't. 
Finally, he puts forth a claim of policy, writing, “We should not confuse the time when a law became unconstitutional with the point at which it “became” wrong.”

It is that particular sentence which presents the best argument for legal recognition of all nontraditional forms of marriage (same sex, polygamous and incestuous). If laws against same sex marriage were wrong before courts decided they were unconstitutional, then there is a very real possibility that laws against polygamous and incestuous marriage are equally wrong, though not yet determined to be unconstitutional.
We agree, and it is our position that laws denying consenting adults the freedom to marry are unjust. They are also hurtful and wasteful.
If so, are we truly on the right side of history when advocating marriage equality for traditional and same sex couples while refusing to do the same for polygamous and incestuous couples?
Good question (although I would not have worded it exactly like that.) The answer is no. The right side of history is full marriage equality. Someone may not like the idea of interracial, same-gender, polygamous, or consanguineous marriages, but their disgust or lack of understanding or religious doctrines should not prevent other people from having the marriages to which they mutually consent.
— — —

No comments:

Post a Comment

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.