(no subject)
Feb. 17th, 2004 03:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walbournFor the record, the more I listen to the 'anti Gay Marriage' pundits, the more I find their perspective deeply disturbing...
Maybe the 'judicial tyranny' problem wouldn't be an issue if the legislative branches of our govts actually addressed tough issues without being forced into it, and were willing to risk their comfortable political positions. If they can't pass a law democratically and fairly, then perhaps they are in fact on the wrong side of the issue.
The whole argument seems to come down to 'the govt should only support marriage for one man and one woman because that is the only form of family that is worthwhile supporting'. If the govt can't offer the same legal protections to all families, then perhaps they shouldn't be in the business of setting such standards.
Maybe the 'judicial tyranny' problem wouldn't be an issue if the legislative branches of our govts actually addressed tough issues without being forced into it, and were willing to risk their comfortable political positions. If they can't pass a law democratically and fairly, then perhaps they are in fact on the wrong side of the issue.
The whole argument seems to come down to 'the govt should only support marriage for one man and one woman because that is the only form of family that is worthwhile supporting'. If the govt can't offer the same legal protections to all families, then perhaps they shouldn't be in the business of setting such standards.
