The following fro mthat article says basically what I’ve just been saying- Gay people are trying to get homosexuality delisted as immoral, and this is the whole crux of their attack on marriage-
“Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
The liberals o nthe court are arguing, apparently the following
[[sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,”]]
IF that is their argument, then you MUST allow ALL DEVIANT forms of sexual gratification legal status
The liberals o nthe court go on to declare
[[Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. ]]
This is a bogus disingenuous argument which they should know better- Sterile heterosexuals are engaging in a MORAL union, NOT an IMMORAL union when they get married- moral unions ARE allowed- IMMORRAL Unions are NOT allowed- which is why sons can not marry mothers or fathers or sisters, people can not marry corpses, people can not marry animals
The article you cited clearly is trying to get homosexuality off the list of immoral acts, and they are using absolutely asinine arguments to do so- and they should be ASHAMED of themselves for trying to be judicial legislators instead of objective upholders of the law!
I so agree.
Morality means nothing...except when its THEIR morals.
Then yours do not count.