Zappykins said:
I realize Habeas corpus is very complex thing to understand. Doesn't invalidate the point, that someone's attempt to make something simpler in the way they think it should, will often in effect, make things more complex. As long as things are equal, I don't really care, but they chose the most simple and obvious solution. You idea isn’t the first time anyone has suggested that. It just seems to be coming from a non practical ideal that require significantly more work than a simple act of removing a bias that is not substantiated even in the most basic analysis required by civil law. Rhode Island has made a simple and positive effect in it’s state’s civil code to remove gender bias regarding civil marriage rights by enacting Marriage Equality. Problem solved, marriages are to begin in August.
|
I understand Habeas corpus very well, nowhere in the 800 year old tradition of habeas corpus; however, with the exception of special circumstances have certain groups been given special priveleges inherent to one's positive right to habeas corpus. The special priveleges are excess to habeaus corpus. Furthermore, inequality still exists. Married couples still have individual priveleges that unmarried couples do not have, and further, single people do not enjoy these priveleges either. It's not egalitarian, albeit I do commend the push for "more" fairness and equality, but ultimately a separation of marriage and government would give more to more people, including but not solely exclusive to gays. If you are to argue that single or unmarried people can get married to have these special priveleges then the same can be said about gays being married to women to gain special priveleges. All people should be treated equally under the law, regardless of their status in society. Hence, my position is more than a gay rights position, but a individual rights one which includes gay marriage individual rights as a subset.
