Tuesday, March 15, 2005


California may begin recognizing same sex marriages after a San Francisco judge decided he didn't like marriage as defined by society for millenia:
“The state’s protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,” Kramer wrote. “Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before.”

But if we can throw out one man/one woman for one man/one man or one woman/one woman, why can't we throw out the "one", too. Aren't polygamists discriminated against just as much by the traditional definition of marriage? A family is just a bunch of people who love each other, after all.

So if marriage can't be defined by who is in it, how long it lasts (divorce on demand, you know) or how many people can be in it, does it have any definition at all? Is there such a thing as "marriage"? In this scenario there's not, other than as a means to gain financial benefits from businesses and the government.

No comments: