Legislators see gay marriage debate on horizon…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
test
2 Comments
Why don't you debate unequal treatment of marrieds with children and single people? Remove the sexual overtones from the debate and I bet you'll get vastly different results.
Net bottom line: Marrieds with children want to preserve their state sponsored and sanctioned "benefits" at the expense of singles, gay or straight. And they resort to contorted, circular logic in an attempt to make their case. This is going to provide hours and hours of entertainment.
The gist of this article is that 2 extremely junior, backbench, members of the minority party, who have no control over the House calendar, and who almost nobody has heard of (other than their constituents) say that a same-sex marriage bill likely will come to a vote? OK, I guess that makes it so.
You can agree or disagree with the merits of housing/employment discrimination based on sexual orientation (HB 300), but that is a different issue. I don't know Rep. Tallman at all, he might be very smart, but in this matter, his reasoning doesn't make sense. He argues the Pennsylvania cannot pass HB 300 because unidentified courts in other unidentified states have used that language to determine that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. OK, what courts in what states? Or is that statement similar to the statement that "people are saying…" while failing to cite one person?
As a legal principle, a change in statutory language on one issue (discrimination with respect to housing/employment) does not change the language in a Constitution (federal or state) on another issue (marriage). State constitutions trump state laws every day of the week.
What he seems to be alluding to, and mixing messages within, is that courts in other states (California, Massachusetts, Iowa, etc.) have determined that the language WITHIN THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONS prohibit banning same-sex marriage. Again, people should feel free to oppose HB 300, but it is just plain idiotic to think that passage of legislation that does not amend the Constitution would change the Constitution (even if you agree with the result of the argument).