In San Francisco, longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were married just before noon local time by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor’s spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.
Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing marriage licenses to any gay couples applying for one.
One lesbian couple had already lined up outside City Hall, one of the women wearing a white wedding dress.
Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.
“Why shouldn’t we” be able to marry? Lyon asked.
Well, it looks like the sky is falling. Lesbians and gays can marry. The World is ending. As I remove my tongue from my cheek, I want to say this: Don’t get me wrong. I think gay and lesbian couples should share many of the same benefits heterosexual couples share. They should be able to have hospital visitation rights and other legal rights much like the commonlaw marriages had before many states outlawed them.
But I draw the line at “Marriage”. Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Though it could be considered “discrimination” to not allow homosexual couples to marry, you have to draw the line somewhere. If the line is moved for gay couples, where is the end? Will we allow men to marry multiple wives? Wives to marry multiple husbands? Adults marrying children?
A line has got to be drawn somewhere. As much I as I believe in the Second Amendment, I think a line has to be drawn at flame throwers and missle launchers A literal reading of that amendment can be interpreted as saying that the “Right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Not be infringed means NOT BE INFRINGED!!
Common sense dictates that you have to draw a line. Pure constitutionalist libertarians will say though that any laws are an infringement on rights. That is the same argument gay marriage activists use to push for gay marriage. They say that the Constitution should not discriminate.
But the reason for existing laws limiting marriage to same-sex couples is because of morality. Plain and simple. Agree with it or not, morality is the reason. To move the morality line to include homosexuals but not polygamy or polyandry, or beastiality, or pedophilia you are asking for trouble.
A moral line has to be drawn somewhere. The logical point is a line which rewards behavior which will promote the growth of the human animal. Since children can only come naturally by traditional coupling of men and women, it seems like the logical place to limit the definition of marriage.
For more right-thinking reading, visit The Nap RoomPowered by Sidelines