Ok, I think I have what I need here. Lemme see how this works for a start.
Most of the criticism for same sex marriage stems from religion. However, religion isn't a reason to institute a law. In fact, the establishment clause of the constitution, and further upheld by Lemon v. Kurtzman, you need a secular purpose for a law.
Some people claim that same sex marriage cheapens or weakens or threatens traditional marriage, but none of them can really explain how it cheapens or weakens or threatens traditional marriage. If anyone can explain their thinking here, I'd appreciate it, but if not, I'm just going to have to say that they're the ones that can't back up their claims.
Some people claim that the benefits for marriage are intended for couples who are raising children. This is flawed in that nobody is preventing infertile couples from getting married, nor are people being denies the right to marry because they don't intend to have children. Also, gay couples can have kids via adoption, previous relationships, artificial insemination or with a surrogate.
I think that would be the first part which addresses their concerns about gay marriage. The next part addresses the reasons for gay marriage, which are quite numerous. There's a whole list of rights that come with marriage that gay people deserve, many of which they can't get with 'civil unions;' this is especially true with marriage rights that come from the federal government in that DOMA specifically interferes with them.
Does this sound like solid speech?
Most of the criticism for same sex marriage stems from religion. However, religion isn't a reason to institute a law. In fact, the establishment clause of the constitution, and further upheld by Lemon v. Kurtzman, you need a secular purpose for a law.
Some people claim that same sex marriage cheapens or weakens or threatens traditional marriage, but none of them can really explain how it cheapens or weakens or threatens traditional marriage. If anyone can explain their thinking here, I'd appreciate it, but if not, I'm just going to have to say that they're the ones that can't back up their claims.
Some people claim that the benefits for marriage are intended for couples who are raising children. This is flawed in that nobody is preventing infertile couples from getting married, nor are people being denies the right to marry because they don't intend to have children. Also, gay couples can have kids via adoption, previous relationships, artificial insemination or with a surrogate.
I think that would be the first part which addresses their concerns about gay marriage. The next part addresses the reasons for gay marriage, which are quite numerous. There's a whole list of rights that come with marriage that gay people deserve, many of which they can't get with 'civil unions;' this is especially true with marriage rights that come from the federal government in that DOMA specifically interferes with them.
Does this sound like solid speech?
I live on facebook. Come see me there. http://www.facebook.com/tara.rizzatto
"If you cling to something as the absolute truth and you are caught in it, when the truth comes in person to knock on your door you will refuse to let it in." ~ Siddhartha Gautama
"If you cling to something as the absolute truth and you are caught in it, when the truth comes in person to knock on your door you will refuse to let it in." ~ Siddhartha Gautama
