US District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6735XI20100804)
The arguments about this issue will continue, and it's likely the US Supreme Court will eventually hear a case to decide which side will "win". This is an excellent case for tracking different types of arguments, and especially for noting when an individual or group argument is internally contradictory. For instance, BBJJ commented on the Reuter's article: "Anyone can marry anyone they wish who is of the opposite sex. It is the same for everyone. Absolutely no one is being discriminated against." However, the claim that "anyone can marry anyone they wish" is contradicted by the very next phrase: "who is of the opposite sex."
Inherent in that contradiction is the assumption that no same sex couple would desire to be married, which is obviously not the case. In addition, singling out one segment of society to live under special rules is antithetical to the Constitution's "equal protection under the law" position.
This is an issue embroiled in debate about civil liberty versus majority rule. When, if ever, does the majority have the right to impose its will on the minority in social situations? Very muddy waters, indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment