9 Comments

1. Clark
   Posted June 29, 2010 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

   Maggie, you're the one without a clue. Boies simply debunks your whole "protecting marriage from the evil gays" argument.

2. Mykelb
   Posted June 30, 2010 at 12:42 am | Permalink

   Apparently, Ms. Srivastav, your Catholic guilt is being projected onto society in the worst possible way, that of restricting the civil liberties of fellow Americans. Take your theocratic little black heart and move to Pakistan or some other country where you will be comfortable having no civil liberties as a woman or a mother and see how you prefer theocracy over liberty.

3. Andrea
   Posted June 30, 2010 at 3:16 am | Permalink

   Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
   It's that simple: it's a definition. And, as a married man, if same-sex marriage will be permitted, I will call my marriage "true-marriage", and the same-sex-marriage, "same-sex-unions".
   That's all, folks.

4. Andrea
   Posted June 30, 2010 at 3:25 am | Permalink

   Ah, by the way: same-sex-marriage should not be permitted in the interest of kids: fatherless kids are far more probable to have big problems during their lives.

5. Andrea
   Posted June 30, 2010 at 3:35 am | Permalink

   Once more: in democracy, nobody should be "requested to motivate" its political positions.

   Unless you want to live no more in a democracy, but in a technocracy.

   I'm not interested in it, thanks. I prefere to continue to live in a democracy.

6. Andy
   Posted June 30, 2010 at 10:28 am | Permalink

   Andrea, think about this: "Fatherless kids are far more probable to have problems in their lives." What are the possible reasons for a kid having problems? A: The father died. B. The father left the family. C. The father is in jail. There are so many reasons for kids having problems.

   But a child with 2 mothers is better than a child with no fathers. A child with 2 fathers is better than a child with no mother. A child with 2 parents of any sex is better than an orphan.

   Why can't you let families be happy? Not everything is black and white or absolute in this world.

7. Paul
   Posted June 30, 2010 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

   We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. If you have any doubt, please recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

   The Constitution is there to protect everyone's rights. We can't just start ignoring it when it is inconvenient.

8. Chairm
   Posted July 1, 2010 at 1:58 am | Permalink

   Clark, that's not Maggie's nor NOM's (nor my) argument in favor of affirming the man-woman basis of the social institution of marriage.

   In other words, your rash comment amplified that the SSM side is clueless about "the arguments for marriage as the union of husband and wife".

9. Clark
   Posted July 7, 2010 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

   Chairm, I'm afraid you're dead wrong. That is the basic argument against allowing gays and lesbians to enter into civil marriage.

   Exactly how does excluding gay people from protecting their relationships with marriage licenses do anything to strengthen (or change at all) heterosexual marriage. It doesn't! That's your strawman, right there.