Re: The gay thing
From: VHOne (vhone_at_aol.comnotrash)
Date: 10/22/04
- Next message: Im1whalen: "Re: The gay thing"
- Previous message: JMorngstar: "Re: The gay thing"
- In reply to: SANDITYPES: "Re: The gay thing"
- Next in thread: Im1whalen: "Re: The gay thing"
- Reply: Im1whalen: "Re: The gay thing"
- Reply: Gdubson: "Re: The gay thing"
- Reply: SANDITYPES: "Re: The gay thing"
- Reply: KMitch429: "Re: The gay thing - interesting column"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Oct 2004 04:25:47 GMT
I agree with what you say completely, but my question was what people's
feelings were on those who truly were not and who were just trying to find
themselves (which I think the majority of the supposedly gay folks are doing)
and how you feel basically about this as it will be made and is made a
political issue and undoubtedly will cost money and time in the future
regarding the marriage issue. I guess I just have problems with time spent if
someone really isn't and the issue is for gay folks' rights that should be
equal to those of heterosexuals.
I guess it really does not matter as someone pointed out, the divorce rate
would probably be no higher than it is for heterosexuals, but I was just
thinking about the bottom line issue of marriage for those who were truly gay.
Anyway, I am tired and it does not seem so important an issue right now. lol
Vickie
>
>Here's my 2 cents on "the gay thing," which coincidentally was debated in my
>Con Law class today via the "two sodomy cases," wherein the Supreme Court
>first
>upheld a state's sodomy laws and later reversed itself and held them to be
>unconstitutional. My professor theorized, and I agree, that homosexual
>people
>will be the next "suspect class," that is, the next group of people held to
>be
>deserving of strict scrutiny of any law that might discriminate against them
>under the Equal Protection clause; this is oversimplified, of course, so as
>not
>to induce snoring. Previous suspect classes have included black people (for
>whom it was originally written), aliens (not the little green type), and
>others.
>
>But this is my personal opinion, not any legal argument I would make:
>
>Basically, what two (or three or four) consenting adults do is none of the
>government's business. Period. If they want to hang a trapeze from the
>ceiling and throw water balloons at one another, who cares? Who's being hurt
>here?
>
>Likewise, if they want to commit to spend their lives and their money
>together,
>more power to them! Just doubles my client pool when I do family law in a
>few
>years. ;) Seriously, how can I say that two women are less committed to one
>another than my first (or second, for that matter) husbands and I were? Does
>it really matter? If hetero couples can marry and divorce at will, so what
>if
>homosexual couples might do the same thing? Again I ask, who is being hurt
>here? Am I less married to my husband if my friend and her girlfriend
>contract
>to act as one unit?
>
>Finally, as far as I'm concerned, being against homosexuality is like being
>against blue eyes....you can be against it all you want, but if someone has
>blue eyes, they have blue eyes.
>
>Sandi
>
>
>
>
>
>
- Next message: Im1whalen: "Re: The gay thing"
- Previous message: JMorngstar: "Re: The gay thing"
- In reply to: SANDITYPES: "Re: The gay thing"
- Next in thread: Im1whalen: "Re: The gay thing"
- Reply: Im1whalen: "Re: The gay thing"
- Reply: Gdubson: "Re: The gay thing"
- Reply: SANDITYPES: "Re: The gay thing"
- Reply: KMitch429: "Re: The gay thing - interesting column"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|