RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceCalifornia is set to become the second state to allow same-sex marriages, following a ruling yesterday by the state’s supreme court that struck down California’s marriage laws as unconstitutional.
In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that having ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
If same-sex couples are being granted marriage licenses on account of same-sex relationships, the court has to give an account of what it is about same-sex relationships that gives cause for incenvitizing them. Why can't two men who have no interest in sex or love also get married? What's the difference between that an a 'typical gay couple?' It's not love that makes a marriage...that's only the case with religious marriages. Let's face it, legal, state-sponsored marriage doesn't exist because the government has an interest in promoting love. Oh please. The state incentivizes long-term marriage and the raising of children because those two things are good for the government, economically and socially.
I am sick and tired of hearing so much homophobia on this campus. It is 2008...people wake up! There have been same-sex couples going as far back as early recorded history through today. How my partnership threatens you as a straight person is ludicrous. It is just a flowery way to say I don't like or accept gay people. I am deeply threatened by their sexual openness and I am going to use policy to oppress them and keep them down. Also, I know there are far more then 2 people on this campus who supported the California decision, I received dozens of emails from friends yesterday. This article does not seem balanced.
I know how to spell annoyed, but hit the sent key too quickly…
@ 09: "Why can't two men who have no interest in sex or love also get married?" -- Apparently, they can now in California. Just like a man and a woman who have no interest in sex or love can also get married, in any state in the country. There hasn't been a problem with loveless/sexless marriages in the past in order to gain state-sponsored benefits, I find this argument against same-sex marriage to be the weakest, and least thought through. I am surprised that California took such a radical step as declaring homosexuals a suspect class, but I was glad to see the ruling. yes it was a 4-3 decision, but most of the state supreme court decisions upholding a ban on same sex marriage were similarly decided by a one vote margin.
Well said Crust Alum!
@Crusty Alum, I agree with you that that's not the finest argument. I mentioned it because of all the hooplah of the pro-SSM forces who endlessly blather on about "loving, caring, committed relationships," as if that were the reason for allowing SSM. But as you point out, that is surely not the reason, nor is it the reason that heterosexual marriage is recognized. My point is this: If your claim about there being no problem with loveless/sexless marriages is true, then two things follow. First, that love is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for legal marriage, and Second, that there's nothing especially 'gay' about 'gay marriage,' though it is called that. I fail to see why it is called same-sex marriage or gay marriage...shouldn't it just be called OPEN MARRIAGE?
If I might respond to "Annoyed." Annoyed, you need to realize that being against gay marriage does not equal homophobia. There are rational reasons for being for and against gay marriage, and there are gay and straight people with both views. Neither view is based on irrational prejudice, as you suggest. Also, it is not an argument to say "it's 2008" or "homosexuality has always been around" or things like that. You're simply making descriptions, and you're not giving anyone any reason to believe your point of view. Remember the fact-value distinction!
The word you're looking for is "marriage", because that's what it should be and, from now on, will be called in California.
@previous: Simply redefining the terms of the argument does not advance your point. What do you mean? I can see that in California, legal "marriage" now means something different than it used to. But are you also criticizing people who use the term "gay marriage?"
Nice job California: Leading on the environment, leading on biotech, leading on LGBT rights! I feel like a Californian at heart! As for the first commenter, you write, "The state incentivizes long-term marriage and the raising of children because those two things are good for the government, economically and socially." I couldn't agree more. So if it's good to have *some* couples getting married (that is hetero couples) it should be *even better* for the state to grant marriage to *even more* couples (those would be our LGBT friends). They are perfectly capable of having long-term committed relationships and raising children (especially by adopting which is a huge problem that most hetero couples are not willing to address personally). In conclusion, you fail.