“It is an affront to the idea of basic human rights that the battle for full marriage equality in this country remains in headlines and courtrooms,” Gansler said.
In an interview, Gansler predicted that controversy in Utah could put the constitutionality of gay marriage to rest. “This might be the issue, then, that answers the question for everybody,” he said.
The above written teaser was published in today’s The Baltimore Sun. It is an interesting article, moreover, it is well-written and enjoyable.
However, where we come in with our thoughts, opinions, and remedies are normally when the State’s Attorney General, Doug Gansler begins to perform far more than what is his job.
Therefore, it is not the writers of the article that we nail via the heart with a wooden stake, it is the poor amount of legislating, politicking, ad nauseum that he does without data, background, or ostensibly knowledge. Gansler therefore finds his way to the self-esteeming “Eric Holder’s Office of Attorney Generals” for nitwitted lawyers with the opportunity and mouth to say anything.
From the onset of the reading Gansler says that it is an open insult or giving offense to somebody – affront –that same-sex marriage somehow collides with basic human rights. So what do we have to say about those individuals who no doubt will claim that their basic human rights are being violated with this excuse that somehow entails basic human rights.
Here is a short and quick example. The practice of sodomy among heterosexual couples has been outlawed in all 50 states. So then what happens to the poor schmuck who does not care for that law and starts a big brouhaha saying that his religious liberties are being violated, it is unconstitutional to make laws regarding what two consenting adults do in the sanctity of their own home.
I am trying to be brief here, although when Gansler makes mention of the two extremes – unconstitutionally v. constitutional – there exists a problem insofar as I do not find anything written about same-sex marriage in our Constitution.
Being as malleable to both sides of the issue it is where Gansler states, “idea of basic human rights that the battle for full marriage equality in this country” that in reality shows the clarity of the issues. One, the “idea of basic human rights” we do not see a basic human right being challenged here and two, “battle for full marriage equality in this country” is critical to this argument.
If in fact, that is what same-sex marriage was all about (and it isn’t!) why then a battle for marriage equality. This debate finds its way into the immigration reform matter as well. It is now demanded by illegal immigrants that they want their parents and all of their relatives be given the right to come and go as they please.
Oh but wait…now same-sex marriage people feel it is also their RIGHT to have their different sexed partner as well as their families and relatives given the same nonsensical right. Why doesn’t any Senator, Representative, or President invite us to their offices for our RIGHTS and arguments?