'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications

[tater]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

50 years ago, all white people were free to marry other white people, and black people were free to marry black people.

It's not at all the same.

This is interesting, and I think a valid POV (note that as I said I am PRO gay unions, just not through the courts, but by law).

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:
“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

Marriage—the word—means a union of man and woman. That's what the word means, and has virtually forever (and in the long history of marriage, "interracial" marriage has in fact been common—I'd argue that laws limiting it by race occupy a shorter time frame than the rest of the history of marriage. That's why I think a new word makes more sense.

"Indeed. If we're to let white people marry Negroes, what's next? People will be marrying cows, and children, and sheep! It's a slippery slope, I'm telling you!"

My argument was not a slippery slope fallacy. In US Constitutional law, the rationale for the decision matters. If a COURT creates a "right to marry who you LOVE" out of thin air, then the love bit has force of law, which can absolutely lead to a challenge by a brother wishing to marry a sister, etc. Ditto group marriage since having it be just 2 people is similarly arbitrary. That's the trick if it becomes a RIGHT, since arbitrary limits on natural rights make no sense.

In effect the legal system can create slippery slopes where none should exist. To avoid unexpected consequences, AND to protect civil unions from future courts messing with it, it would be better to change the law the right way, through the legislature.