Homosexual Discussion ForumInterracial marriage, the Supreme Court, and civil unionsBut there is no need for a couple be married in order to "propagate"... and many gay couples do choose to have children. If marriage is "for the children" rather than a right for all adults, shouldn't the needs of our children be recognized as well? I don't buy it, anyhow. The Lovings could have "propagated" with anyone, specifically with anyone of their own races; the court found that they had a right to marry each other, specifically. Because that was their choice. If the Fourteenth Amendment means that the states can't deprive people of the freedom to marry on account of race, I don't see how it lets them discriminate by sex. If anything, our case is <I>stronger.</I> If the Lovings had chosen not to marry, in accordance with local law, they could probably each have found someone "appropriate" to marry, given enough time. A gay person cannot. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame