To make something completely free of faults or defects. People want to be perfect, but what is perfect really? How does one achieve this dream of being fault-free? No one is perfect and never will be.
Whatsapp There is a bill before the Australian Parliament to change the current definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The debate over same-sex marriage is about the function and purpose of the law in relation to marriage and not a discussion that goes to personal motivation and attitudes. We ought to deal fairly with every member of the human family and their needs, including people of homosexual orientation.
In the same spirit, ad hominem attacks on defenders of traditional marriage spiced by the use of pejoratives such a "homophobic" and "bigot" do not add to understanding of the issue. It is significant that everywhere the issue has been debated it begins on the issue of fairness and justice and with majority support but that soon changes when people realise that there are deeper issues involved.
After their legislature experimented with same-sex marriage, the people of California voted against the revisionist concept of marriage.
The main claim in favour of changing the law in this way is that the current law unfairly singles out people who experience same-sex attraction not allowing them to have the same status as people who are married. It is important to note that the federal law in Australia has already been changed to give same-sex partners the same legal rights as those who are married and in an increasing number of states to register their unions.
The remaining issue therefore is the definition of marriage. Changing the law so that marriage includes same-sex unions would be a change to what marriage means.
Currently marriage involves a comprehensive union between a man and a woman, and norms of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage has a place in the law because a relationship between a man and a woman is the kind of relationship that may produce children. Marriage is linked to children, for the sake of children, protecting their identity and their nurture by a mother and a father.
The State would have no interest in the permanence and exclusivity of marriage if it were not the fact that marriage may produce children. Marriage protects the rights of children There are many variations of households that nurture children, including those that can only have occurred through the use of technology.
In all circumstances in which children are nurtured, the State has a parens patriae interest in the welfare of children. It is for that reason that the State is involved with legislating to ensure the identity and status of children. The law determines who are a child's parents in circumstances in which reproductive technology has created ambiguity by separating reproduction from the biological relationship between a man and a woman.
In the same way the State has an interest in marriage because the relationship between a man and a woman is capable of generating children.
The State supports marriage because children may result from it. The State lacks a reason to legislate to promote relationships that do not produce children. The State has an interest in the exclusiveness and permanency of marriage because they are needed to protect the identity and status of any children who result from marriage, in the first instance, and to preserve their rights to know, to have access to and to be cared for by both a mother and father.
Altering the definition of marriage to include relationships that are not the kind of relationship to generate children removes the primary basis and justification for the State's interest in marriage.
If children happen to be in a same-sex household they will always have come from outside that relationship, either through an earlier relationship or through the use of some other biological parent and technology. In the case of a same-sex male household, that would be through someone else being the child's birth mother.
The law already operates to secure the relationship of that child to social parents.On June 26, , the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that granted same-sex couples a constitutional right to marry. The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage nationwide, including in the 14 states that did not previously allow gays and lesbians to wed.
(Is Same Sex Marriage a Good Thing?) Accepting same-sex marriage could possibly lead to a better world with less judgment and harm. People won’t have to worry about their differences and nearly everyone could be accepted if we just stop this.
Same-sex marriage (SSM) and civil unions Personal opinion does NOT justify stripping law-abiding citizens of their Fourteenth Amendment constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to Equal Protection of the Laws.
those who are members of religious organizations who embrace the GLBT members of their congregation or the non-religious should have. A Personal Non-Intelligent Opinion on Same Sex Marriages ( words, 2 pages) A battle has been in progress for years over whether equal rights and equal protection against discrimination should be extended to homosexuals.
Jun 26, · In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled today that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, handing gay rights advocates their biggest victory yet. Read the court's opinion below. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage.
Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something.