http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2015304260012 Page 1 of 1 Apr 28, 2015 09:18:54PM MDT More revisions would be needed Written by Tim Rohr Apr. 28 guampdn.com The local campaign for same-sex "equality" has consistently produced a parade of curious improbables. The last time around we had one bill which discriminated against the very people whose rights it purported to advance and another which gave same-sex couples a license to unite but no way to do so. This time it features a lawyer who admitted he had no clue about the law he recklessly challenged, but who daily bullies the governor to act just as recklessly as he did. And then there's that gaggle of legislators who swear they won't let their church influence their decisions, but come the next election, will be at the same church to influence ours. Add to this righteous pomp of some lawmakers who are the sudden champions of equality -- now that they have the cover of an impending Supreme Court decision to exonerate them one way or the other (wink) -- and we have the usual political circus. But should the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay-marriage, these sudden champions of equality are going to have to "make the necessary revisions to local law," as Sen. Tommy Morrison said he would do, because making marriage genderless is just the beginning of the necessary revisions. Lawmakers will also have to address the other inequities in Guam's marriage law: blood-relations; current marital status (one spouse at a time); and age. Whatever is left of our sense of propriety will probably keep us from addressing blood-relations any time soon. But since incest laws are predicated on the protection of offspring, there is zero reason to apply the restriction to same-sex marriages. Sooner or later it will be challenged. And it could have nothing to do with sex. Two brothers, one with medical benefits and another with none, opt for marriage as the simplest way to get coverage for both. On what grounds should we deny them? And while many balk at the idea that lifting the band on gender could lead to lifting the ban on number, anti-polygamy statutes were upheld by the Supreme Court on the basis that "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe" (Reynolds v U.S., 1878). Tim Rohr is a resident of Agat.

2015-04-26 More Revisions Would Be Needed

Download PDF Report

Upload
timrohr
View
4
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Citation preview

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2015304260012

Page 1 of 1 Apr 28, 2015 09:18:54PM MDT

More revisions would be neededWritten by Tim RohrApr. 28 guampdn.com

The local campaign for same-sex "equality" has consistently produced a parade of curious improbables.The last time around we had one bill which discriminated against the very people whose rights it purportedto advance and another which gave same-sex couples a license to unite but no way to do so.

This time it features a lawyer who admitted he had no clue about the law he recklessly challenged, but whodaily bullies the governor to act just as recklessly as he did. And then there's that gaggle of legislators whoswear they won't let their church influence their decisions, but come the next election, will be at the samechurch to influence ours.

Add to this righteous pomp of some lawmakers who are the sudden champions of equality -- now that theyhave the cover of an impending Supreme Court decision to exonerate them one way or the other (wink) --and we have the usual political circus.

But should the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay-marriage, these sudden champions of equality are goingto have to "make the necessary revisions to local law," as Sen. Tommy Morrison said he would do,because making marriage genderless is just the beginning of the necessary revisions.

Lawmakers will also have to address the other inequities in Guam's marriage law: blood-relations; currentmarital status (one spouse at a time); and age.

Whatever is left of our sense of propriety will probably keep us from addressing blood-relations any timesoon. But since incest laws are predicated on the protection of offspring, there is zero reason to apply therestriction to same-sex marriages.

Sooner or later it will be challenged. And it could have nothing to do with sex. Two brothers, one withmedical benefits and another with none, opt for marriage as the simplest way to get coverage for both. Onwhat grounds should we deny them?

And while many balk at the idea that lifting the band on gender could lead to lifting the ban on number,anti-polygamy statutes were upheld by the Supreme Court on the basis that "Polygamy has always beenodious among the northern and western nations of Europe" (Reynolds v U.S., 1878).

Tim Rohr is a resident of Agat.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2015304260012