Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The legal arguments offered on the marriage amendment - lame and lamer

I read today's bogus column in the Roanoke paper about the hypothetical effects of the same-sex marriage amendment on opposite-sex unmarried couples.

I don't believe a word of it. In fact, I think it is dishonest propaganda. What exactly are the benefits of marriage that unmarried people get now and are afraid of losing? There are none. What defines the benefits of marriage is that unmarried people don't get them.

I don't see why the people arguing for and against this amendment have to resort to unspeakably lame legal arguments, as if voters have any way of sorting them out. Quoting Professor A.E. Dick Howard is not the answer.

In my view, the amendment is most likely of no legal consequence. It will not decrease the likelihood that some judge somewhere will find protection for same-sex marriage in the federal constitution. It does not alter the public policy of the Commonwealth. It does not threaten the established rights of unmarried people.

No comments: