![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/us/17prop.html
tl;dr
The questions raised against the defence for Prop 8 were good.
- Is marriage about procreation? There are no rules prohibiting marriage between people who cannot have children.
- So apparently the central procreative aspect of marriage was commonly understood in legal writings, unless it “was written by one of their experts or written over the course of the last 30 years.” Whatever does this mean?
- The right to marry is fundamental, not “an indulgence to be dispensed.”
Prop 8 should never have been passed.
tl;dr
The questions raised against the defence for Prop 8 were good.
- Is marriage about procreation? There are no rules prohibiting marriage between people who cannot have children.
- So apparently the central procreative aspect of marriage was commonly understood in legal writings, unless it “was written by one of their experts or written over the course of the last 30 years.” Whatever does this mean?
- The right to marry is fundamental, not “an indulgence to be dispensed.”
Prop 8 should never have been passed.
