Thursday, February 19, 2004

san francisco has filed suit against california, demanding that portions of state law that prevent same-sex marriages should be declared unconstitutional. as a result, i found a cnn article that mentions the rights currently denied to homosexuals.

Supporters of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses denies them basic rights.

"We're talking about state inheritance, we're talking about state property issues, we're talking about children's issues, we're talking about power of attorney," Ralph Neas, president of the group People for the American Way, said.

"It's an equal protection issue. It's a fundamental civil rights issue," he added.

Critics of same-sex unions say those rights can be afforded through other means, and homosexual couples don't need a marriage certificate to validate them.

Genevieve Wood, vice president of the Communications Family Research Council, said that redefining marriage might be a slippery slope.

"If we're going to get into redefining marriage, why would we stop at just allowing homosexual marriage?" she asked.

"There are people out there ... who want to engage in polygamy, they think that's a good family structure. There are others who think that group marriages are a family structure," Wood added.

three paragraphs about rights, three paragraphs about definitions. & would the world really end if group marriages were legalized? she could have at least mentioned bestiality.

speaking of ludicrous arguments, the fbi is going to start placing "fbi warnings" on cds, software, cereal boxes, prophylactics, pretty much anything they can slap that seal on.

do they really think anyone pays attention to the warnings on videos? i just fast-forward through them.

No comments: