Also from Right Democrat:
The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment continues to pick up Democratic support. The latest endorsement for Amendment 2 comes from Bob Hagenmaier, Democratic Nominee for State Representative in District 65.
Hagenmaier stated:
"I fully endorse the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which reads as follows: “In as much as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
"My reasoning is a follows. Over the ages, the special needs and obligations of families have led to the development of laws designed to protect families, parents and especially children, all based on the idea that a married couple consists of a man and woman. If, based on some fuzzy thinking about equality, we now change the legal meaning of the word marriage so that these same laws apply to homosexual couples we demolish this legal structure at risk to the welfare of the family, especially the children."
"This fuzzy thinking about equality seems to assume that being equal means being the same. However, certainly that is not the case. Women are equal to men, but most certainly not the same. Other fuzzy thinking leads to the claim that the amendment prevents same-sex partners from making arrangements for private-sector health care and estate planning, which is not the case."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What spurious reasoning. Is he really saying that because laws that protect women and children refer to marriage in one legal sense, if that legal sense is then changed, then all the laws will be invalid? That's stupid. Even if its true, which I doubt, all you need to do is retrospectively amend the child protection etc legislation.
ReplyDeleteIf the guy wants to argue against gay marriage, he should have the courage to say he doesn't like it, rather than put up straw man arguments in opposition.
"Even if its true, which I doubt, all you need to do is retrospectively amend the child protection etc legislation."
ReplyDelete"etc", indeed...
What does that mean? Yes, etc. There's probably a few pieces of legislation that need amending. It's very easy to do. But that's not really your objection, is it? If it were, you'd be campaigning for the need to ensure child protection alongside legal recognition for gay couples. But you're not - you're opposing gauy marriage. Have some guts and say so, and say why. Don't hide behind silly arguments.
ReplyDeleteThere would undoubtedly be vast amounts of legislation and case law that would need to be re-written practically from scratch. And even then, something would be bound to be missed.
ReplyDeleteoh come on David! That surely, surely isn't your argument! You're a Catholic. Admit that you don't like gay marriage. Admit that you don't like homos*xuality, and don't want to see it legitimised. Have some courage! Stop hiding behind silly arguments!
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that marriage can be anything other than one man and one woman, no. And this is why.
ReplyDeleteThe legal tradition in question is as it is precisely because it is classically Christian; indeed the Common Law tradition of the English-speaking world is the nearest remaining legal expression of the Natural Law tradition of Catholic thought, a benefit of having been spared the French Revolution.
"I don't believe that marriage can be anything other than one man and one woman, no. And this is why"
ReplyDeleteReally? That's the only reason? Not because the Pope says its a sin, but because you're worried that it might cause quite an administrative backlog in legislatures around the world as people struggle to amend other bits of legislation that refers to marriage?
Please. I just don't believe you. I don't agree with you either, but I'd at least have some respect for you if you came out and said you think homos*xuality is a sin, rather than dissembling in this ridiculous fashion.
As I said, these things are connected. You are setting up a false dichotomy between the Teaching of the Church in this matter (and many others) and the legal tradition in any historically Christian jurisdiction.
ReplyDelete