This editorial from the Los Angeles Times, Same Sex Sanity, is explaining the arguments against same-sex marriage. Arguments so far, among the most recent debates in California, are claiming that same-sex marriage is bad for child-rearing, however, i agree with the editorial that there are copious unsuitable parents raising children with ignorance and abuse in appalling habitats and they are not denied a marriage license.
District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, expected to rule in the Proposition 8 case this summer, has been requested to acknowledge the more complicated issue of whether homosexuals constitute a "suspect class", or a minority who have withstood unreasonable discrimination. If he does so, the laws that could adversely affect this group would have to meet at a stricter level of judicial scrutiny. However, even if Walker does not get as far to consider such, Proposition 8 could still be struck down.
The author of the editorial essentially equivocally acknowledges both sides of this highly controversial debate yet if more informative than affirmative. However, ultimately ascertains that denying marriage to homosexual couples is clearly a failure to provide equal protection that if qualified as unconstitutional discrimination even without considering the question of suspect class, because it was based on nothing more substantive than a belief in the immorality of homosexuality. The lack of a solid justification for laws against same-sex marriage suggests that, like the sodomy law, they are based on a traditional moral belief. That is why the Supreme Court should reject them.
No comments:
Post a Comment