Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The State, Marriage, and Contract Law Link: http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/a_thought_on_the_state_and_marriage#27597 Post contents: I am not a proponent of gay marriage. However, Mr. Roach's conclusion doesn't hold water. Although Mr. Roach is correct regarding the importance of marriage in legitimizing the progeny of the marriage and insuring them support from deadbeat dads, that doesn't relate to the propriety of gay marriage, from a legal standpoint. Even if we adopt the more dubious assertions of Mr. Roach, regarding marriage being necessary to rein in rampant male promiscuity, that still has no relationship to the proriety of gay marriage form a leagl standpoint. 1. Gay marriages, by definition, won't reuslt in children. Therefore, there will be no third pary benficiaries of the union. Accordingly there is no need to protect the non-existent children. (Under an adoption scenario, if the state allows gays to adopt, shouldn't those kids be entitlted to the same protection as "regular" kids?) On the rampant promiscuity argument, doesn't that apply equally to gay men? (Perhaps even more so, from an empirical standpoint). Therefore, Mr. Roach's conclusion is a non-sequitur of his premises Although gay marriage may be anathema, it is not a legal one. Sent at: 2009 01 09