01-13-2010, 10:00 AM
source
an excerpt;
In her second day of testimony, Nancy Cott, a U.S. history professor and the author of a book on marriage as a public institution, disputed a statement by a defense lawyer that states have a compelling interest to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation.
i think what cott says holds a lot of truth,
we said in another thread the marriage cert was just a piece of paper, a contract of sorts. so why can't gays have that same sort of contract. why can't they marry. if the final decision is in favour of gay marriage then n vote for or against proposition 8 will matter. and if it goes against them they can keep trying to change the law.
your views. (keep it on topic)
an excerpt;
In her second day of testimony, Nancy Cott, a U.S. history professor and the author of a book on marriage as a public institution, disputed a statement by a defense lawyer that states have a compelling interest to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation.
i think what cott says holds a lot of truth,
we said in another thread the marriage cert was just a piece of paper, a contract of sorts. so why can't gays have that same sort of contract. why can't they marry. if the final decision is in favour of gay marriage then n vote for or against proposition 8 will matter. and if it goes against them they can keep trying to change the law.
your views. (keep it on topic)