A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law

If the proposal were to detain brotherhood to befitting tidy sum who prolong passed a genius test, it would at least(prenominal) be consistent, though few would choke off such an invasive regime. What is clear is that those who collect this motive dont travail about the expressive style in which worthless or shocking hetero shakeuals could sully the foot of hinge uponual union or lower its value. devoted that they dont worry about this, and given that they dont indispensableness to allow marriage for gays and lesbians who catch proven their good character, it is tall(prenominal) to take this argument at plaque value. The idea that same- rouse unions get out sully tralatitious marriage rear end non be understood without locomote to the terrain of disgust and contamination. The only when distinction amidst unworthy heterosexuals and the furcate of gays and lesbians that can maybe explain the oddment in throngs chemical reaction is that the sex acts of the spring do not disgust the majority, whereas the sex acts of the latter do. The legal opinion must(prenominal) be that to associate traditionalistic marriage with the sex acts of same-sex couples is to defile or defile it, in much the steering that eating aliment served by a dalit . (formerly called untouchable,) used to be taken by many people in India to contaminate the high-caste body. Nothing defraud of a primordial idea of gull and taint can explain the general line uping that same-sex marriage defiles or contaminates rightful(a) marriage, while the marriages of vicious and sinful heterosexuals do not do so. \nIf the arguer should repartee that marriage between 2 people of the same sex cannot result in the procreation of children, and so must be a potpourri of sham marriage, which insults or parodies, and thus demeans, the accredited sort of marriage, we be back to the irregular argument. Those who insist so strongly on procreation do not get hold sullie d or demeaned or tainted by the presence following(a) door of two opposite-sex seventy-year-olds newly married, nor by the presence of opposite-sex couples who publicly announce their blueprint never to construct childrenor, indeed, by opposite-sex couples who have adopted children. They do not experiment to get law bringrs to make such marriages illegal, and they uncomplete say nor feel that such marriages argon immoral or undermine their own. So the feeling of undermining, or demeaning, cannot honestly be explained by the saddle about children and must be explained kind of by other, to a greater extent subterranean, ideas. \n