"It's unfair to deny me my right to marry the ones I love." loving and long-term committed relationship with another person," as the California supreme court über-branch describes it, is all fine and good when you're sexually attracted to either the opposite or the same sex. But what if you're so attracted to each sex? Are you forced to choose only one sexual orientation when you marry? Isn't that discriminatory?
This court judicialegislativexecutive decision says you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. It also says you have the right to marry someone of the same sex. But it doesn't say you have the right to marry them both. Where's the equal protection?
Is there any excuse for such monogamist bigotry which the court's star chamber's members blatantly displayed throughout their decision? I won't call them polygaphobes. But don't you think they could've at least considered the rights of omnisexuals before "fixing" Proposition 22 the democratic choice of the people of California?
Indeed, did that state's judiciary absolute monarchy really intend to reserve the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex and same-sex couples? What about multi-sex triples, quadruples, etc.? Are its officers crowned heads saying the latter human beings — who love each other just as much as any of those other human beings do — deserve to be denied such equal dignity and respect? (Of course I haven't even touched on the marriage rights of autosexuals!)
Either allow "marriage" to mean whatever anyone wants it to, or don't give judges would-be kleptocrats any power whatsoever to declare what it means.
Labels: clue-challenged liberals (BIRM), elitist despot liberals (BIRM), godless liberals (BIRM), government over beyond and forsaking the people, more liberal intolerance
Comments (registered users)
Post a Comment