> The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of
> marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in
> the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent
> commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of
> children, that is the sine qua non of marriage." As a man who is happily
> married without children, I agree with this aspect of their decision,
> and resent the assertions of the religious right that the primary
> purpose of marriage is procreation. The primary purpose of marriage is
> the mutual commitment to someone whom you love and with whom you wish to
> spend the rest of your life.
IIRC marriage was, historically, used more for things like political
alignment than for procreation or love. Rulers would create peace by
marrying their children to each other. Marriage in a lot of cultures is
also restricted by status in the society (think Caste system of India as
one example).
But some of the things the various courts have used for their decisions
I think over step their bounds. Such as the Supreme Court citing laws
from other countries to base their decisions on the constitutionality of
laws of the US.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098559/
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)