.
March 25th, 2013
10:55 PM ET

Harris: Marriage a 'fundamental' right

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a high-profile case challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage on Tuesday. Jeffrey Toobin and California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris on landmark same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court.

Post by:
Filed under: Same-Sex Marriage • Supreme Court
soundoff (3 Responses)
  1. Vic

    This may be a simplex approach, but it may be the solution to the gay-marriage debate that satisfies all parties.

    First some background. For the definition of a word we usually go to the dictionary. We have words like “toboggan”, ”bobsled” and “luge” all mean generally the same thing, with noted differences. We also know that new words are being added all the time, like “laser” which never existed 100 years ago. I did go to my dictionary and looked up “marriage”. It did say that it was union between a man and a woman. That is what the meaning of that word was. There was no word for the a union between two men or women. This is a new phenomenon. What I am suggest is when something new comes into our society as “gay-marriage” we invent a new word, like we did with the word “laser”. We should have the word “garriage” for a union of two men, and the word “larriage” for a union of two women.

    I don’t feel anyone should object. For the ultra-right, marriage would remain the same. The gay man or women should not object to a different word, after all there is word that describes their sexuality. “gay” and there is yet another word which describes their sexuality if they are female, “lesbian”.

    March 26, 2013 at 11:48 pm |
  2. jorge fernandez

    Hi,my name is jorge,im 50 year old gay man,living in boston and have a soulmate who live in Costa Rica,we verry much in love,we bieng together for 14 years and the only way we see eachother fisical is when i travel and spend time with hin or when he came and visit.
    we like to be together to spend our lives with happines,but i being in this country for 35 years and is dificul for me to live with him there,and even if we get marrie in mass wich is legal,cant given the amigration paper because the federal gaverment dont alow gay people the same rihts strait couples.
    we drean the day this country give us this right so can live whatever time we have left together.....

    March 26, 2013 at 8:26 pm |
  3. Pam Rockwell

    I do not understand why there is not a first amendment religious argument being made about restricting civil marriage to partners of the opposite sex. I am Jewish and the Temple I belong to has been performing religious same-sex marriage ceremonies for 25 years. Only in the last 10 have these been recognized by my state governement (Masachusetts) and they are still not recognized by the Federal Government. Laws that restrict civil marriage to members of the opposite sex are a way of supporting one religion over another – functionally establishing particular orthodox religious organizations as the cannonical basis for US law. Even though my marriage is not under this scrutiny, restricting marriage to a particular religious definition disrespects my religion, becauses it invalidates the marriages of members of my congregation in the eyes of the law. America has civil marriage laws because family structure is a good thing in our community, and the added value of mutual support and shared childrearing responsibilities are not diminished by the gender of the participants. Real religious freedom requires acceptence of ALL religions definition of marriage.

    March 26, 2013 at 2:38 pm |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.