Unlike the issue of guns and firearms my main concern here was about the process itself and not the end result. It sounded to me as if some where fighting for their existence not to be lost by fusing it with that of the world through the removal of the borderline between the two. It sounded to me as if the line between forcing that a table should not be used as a chair and forcing recognizing (although there still could be different meanings for the word "recognizing" here) it as a chair was not being seen clearly and to me each of those exists in its own universe. But that had a big part of it based on the common moral and reasoned arguments I hear for the issue and when I started trying to get into the legal part I began to recognize that there seem to be a different argument. I recognized that even courts that ruled for such recognition were not necessarily all fans of it but may not have found a way out of previous rulings on discrimination based on sex and interpretations of the 14th amendment.
So while I am not convinced with the reasoned and moral (the one related to rights) arguments or even those related to the degree of need by same sex couples for such recognition these were not themselves my concern when I wrote about the issue. On the other hand as much as such recognition is based on legal bases,even if through loopholes, as much as the concern I had is not an issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment