In suburban Philadelphia, Willis D. Bruce Hanes has issued more than 150 same-sex marriage licenses, and Republican Governor Tom Corbett's administration has filed a lawsuit on the matter to invalidate those very marriages. Corbett's attorney's went on to say that the marriage licenses can't be defended in court due to a 1996 law saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, before making this strange and ridiculous comparison:
"Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to 12-year-olds in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each 12-year-old ... is entitled to a hearing on the validity of his 'license'?"
Before the case comes to a close, I have a feeling Corbett's attorneys will also make the following comparisons to same-sex marriages:
- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to mannequins in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each mannequin is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"
- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to elephants in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each elephant is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"
- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to dead people in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each dead person is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"
Had the attorneys thought before they spoke, they wouldn't have come across like complete idiots in comparing a group of people (homosexuals) whose marriage rights are growing by the week it seems, to a group (kids) that will never have any marriage rights. That would be like me saying prior to 1920, "It's against state law for women to vote. If we issued voting rights to fetuses in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each fetus is entitled to vote?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/gay-marriage-children_n_3833749.html
"Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to 12-year-olds in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each 12-year-old ... is entitled to a hearing on the validity of his 'license'?"
Before the case comes to a close, I have a feeling Corbett's attorneys will also make the following comparisons to same-sex marriages:
- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to mannequins in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each mannequin is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"
- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to elephants in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each elephant is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"
- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to dead people in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each dead person is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"
Had the attorneys thought before they spoke, they wouldn't have come across like complete idiots in comparing a group of people (homosexuals) whose marriage rights are growing by the week it seems, to a group (kids) that will never have any marriage rights. That would be like me saying prior to 1920, "It's against state law for women to vote. If we issued voting rights to fetuses in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each fetus is entitled to vote?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/gay-marriage-children_n_3833749.html
Comments
Post a Comment