Skip to main content

View Diary: Feds Mess with Wikipedia Entry, Again (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here it is: (0+ / 0-)

    The article contains this:

    The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court[22] that legalized gay marriage in that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change. Asserting the a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of Precautionary principle.

    I'm not sure that this paragraph could not have been written more clearly, but there it is.

    •  The choice of removal is yours (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Granny Doc

      Those who desire acceptance of same sex marriage may feel control of the discussion, removal of all arguments opposed to this, is the best way to achieve their goal.

      I disagree. Such restriction of dialog has and will lead to a backlash.  Most people are fair, and when they feel they are being denied a full discussion, then they percieve that their values, their opinions, are being surpressed.

      I chose to bring up my contribution to Wikipedia's article, and its not being removed for over a year, as a compliment to the fairness of those who ardently desire full acceptance of their right to marry their same sex partner.

      Sosman dissent to the Massachusett's ruling lost.  But she articulated an opinion that should be refuted on its merits, as she was in the majority opinion.  The content of her argument should not be expunged.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site