The last weeks of April 2015 may go down as among the most important in LGBT history.
On Friday night, Olympic great Bruce Jenner showed Diane Sawyer that it takes a hell of a man to admit he’s a woman. And 17 million people tuned in for what many expected to be yet another tasteless Kardashian circus but turned out to be perhaps the most honest interview about the most difficult subject in TV history.
Yesterday, however, it was a whole other contest of Olympian proportions as the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against gay marriage.
Is it a states rights issue or judicial issue? Do we redefine the definition of marriage? Does a state that bans gay marriage need to honor a marriage performed in another state? Are same-sex couples being denied dignity by
being denied the right to marry in 13 states?
While Justice Anthony Kennedy’s swing vote seemed to be moving in the direction of gay marriage, Michigan Special Assistant Attorney General John Bursch, who is arguing for the states’ right to keep the ban on same-sex marriage, says marriage laws were created primarily to keep together a couple in a position of creating a family.
He even told CNN, “When you look at it that way, there’s really a huge difference between a couple that has the natural ability to create a child and a couple that doesn’t.”
Given your argument therefore, Mr. Bursch, when you look at it that way, the states must also logically ban marriages between couples who have conceived using what used to be called artificial insemination. Do states then negate the millions upon millions of children born to couples through in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, as well as sperm and egg donations? Those couples did not have the natural ability to create a child either.
No comments:
Post a Comment