On Tuesday, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida will establish what “marriage” means in their state by voting on amendments to their constitutions. These amendments are hotly contested, imbued with impassioned rhetoric and even angry name-calling. The name-calling is bad enough: using words like “hatemonger,” “bigot,” and “homophobe” is not reasoned debate. What is really wrong, however, is when people opposing marriage amendments claim that amendment supporters mindlessly cling to a “stupid,” intellectually unsupported position. But is that true? Which side actually rests its argument on intellectual quicksand?
The baseline issue is simple: For what purpose does a state recognize marriage and grant benefits to its participants? The supporters and opponents of marriage amendments diverge at this point, which, as we shall see, leads each camp to vastly different conclusions regarding the definition and scope of marital unions.
More here.
No comments:
Post a Comment