The path to the destruction of marriage has its origins in Lawrence, a brief stop in a liberal New England State for a majority of 1 oligarch to redefine marriage and straight through to the full faith and credit clause.
You know it, I know it and the proponents of homosexual "marriage" know it. Of course, should they succeed there will be unintended consequences because every adult will be able to exercise there new found "right to marriage".
It can be stopped but I'm not optimistic about it. I say that knowing that we diverge on "homosexual" marriage.
I suspect we both know that the Lawrence citation was but a pretext, amongst other things designed to suggest that this is what it should mean, while recognizing it does not. The Mass SJC granted cert in Goodrich many months before the Lawrence challenge was even argued, much less a ruling handed down. I don't recall anyone at the time expecting anything aside from the eventual ruling, the impending Lawrence decision notwithstanding.
The path to the destruction of marriage has its origins in Lawrence, a brief stop in a liberal New England State for a majority of 1 oligarch to redefine marriage and straight through to the full faith and credit clause.
The path to the destruction of marriage as a meaningful institution has its origins in the women's rights movement, with Lawrence but another brief stop amongst many on the path to its eventual dissolution.
You know it, I know it and the proponents of homosexual "marriage" know it. Of course, should they succeed there will be unintended consequences because every adult will be able to exercise there new found "right to marriage".
I do not doubt that there will be unintended consequences, most likely of the same kind as those in other historical societies which have embraced homosexual relations. To be exact, I would imagine that homosexuality will become far more prevalent amongst the society as a whole, though this will likely take at least three more generations.
It can be stopped but I'm not optimistic about it. I say that knowing that we diverge on "homosexual" marriage.
The fact of the matter is that our modern sociolegal order is not designed to tolerate inequality on the basis of class. So long as the culture deems sexual orientation a dichotomous phenomenon, it is inevitable that in time equal protection under the law will be extended on this basis. Since there appears little indication that this paradigm of orientations will be abandoned anytime soon (since the alternative of a 'polyvalent' continuum is even more contrary to the modern Western culture), I see no reason to expect otherwise.
I'm not sure how much we diverge on the matter beyond my recognizing and accepting long ago the course society would take on the matter.