In response to Esther Valdes' comments about gay marriage and lawyers advancing moral laws. As a product of an interracial marriage, I am particularly sensitive to people trying to legislate away human rights between consenting adults. Though gays may not have the same experiences as minorities, comparisons can be drawn in certain circumstances and I am not offended by the comparison in the least. Merely a few years before they met, my mother and father, would have been prevented, by law, from marrying. The same arguments against interracial marriages are being used today against gay marriage rights. Looking back today, those laws were clearly immoral and the arguments were clearly wrong and based purely on prejudice. Ms. Valdes' argument seems to stem from the adoption of a religious definition of marriage by many people and by our government. Although it is an incomplete definition as even the bible recognizes polygamy (which I don't think Ms. Valdes is advocating) and history has recognized that societies had gay unions in the past. The problem with using a religious definition of marriage to define a legal right is that it intrudes on the constitutional separation of church and state. What really should happen is that all state and local governments should stop issuing "marriage" licenses to anyone. They should issue a civil union contract to all couples and churches can issue marriage certificates. Laws change as society evolves. Those that don't evolve with the times are destined to be marginalized.
Justin G. Randolph
Carpenter & Capt, Chtd., Chicago, IL
Share this page
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM