Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by TigerEducated, Feb 21, 2004.
It simplifies the choice of anniversary gifts. Just give 'em a supply of Boudreaux's Butt Paste.
i think this article sums up the issue pretty well:
The issue in San Fran appears to be as much about upholding the rule of law as gay marriage. The mayor appears to be ignoring it.
I have mixed feelings.
On the one hand, gays are tax-paying citizens and are due a citizen's rights. Long-term gay couples ought to have some property rights, inheritance rights, and other legal protections that long-term straight couples do. A civil union document by a Justice of the Peace seems appropriate for that.
But, on the other hand, marriage is a institution that is many milillenia old and has long been recognized as affirming the union between a man and a woman and legitimizing the children that result thereof. Marriage is very much a religious institution, not just a legal status. Gays have no right, in my opinion, to usurp the term marriage and apply it to the civil unions they are no doubt constitutionally entitled to. Religious groups who hold marriage sacred should not be forced by a government to accept conditions that violate their beliefs.
I say, of course give the gays equal rights under the law. Legal arrangements can be made for community property, alimony, and similar issues for gay couples. It makes divorces orderly in a legal sense and doesn't hurt anybody that I can see.
But it ain't marriage. Marriage is a clearly understood institution that not only enjoys these legal rights, but is also a major component of religious faiths, procreation of children, and the essential family structure as modern human beings know it.
I know the issue is more complex than these simple statements, but I think this thing must go down two paths. One -- Traditional marriage for heterosexual couples remains as it has always been. Two -- some kind of legal arrangements for gay couples that preserves their constitutional rights but does not resemble marriage in a religious, moral, or anthropological sense.
I don't care if they call it civil union, homospousal rights, contractual roomates, or Maggies drawers. Just don't call it gay marriage.
here is the solution. the government starts calling marriages "civil unions". and lets anyone do it.
churches of course continue to only respect traditional marriage. since the government has no business respecting a religious union, the problem is solved.
the institution of marriage is safe in the eyes of the church, as they are not forced to allow gays to do anything. churches continue to believe any superstition they want. governments allow people to be married by any church they please, even ones who allow gays to marry. renegade unitarian churches can marry homos to each other if they want, because the government only should respect the civil/legall aspects of the union.
why not? maybe their particular church has different dogma than yours? is your set of superstitions to be respected more than theirs? maybe, but not by the government.
besides, what does it matter what terms we use? they could start calling marriages potatoes and it wouldnt make the relationships any different. i dont care who uses the term marriage.
since from the government's perspective, marriage is a civil and not religious issue, there are no moral or religious decisions to be made by lawmakers or courts.
seems pointless to care about what words people use to describe their relationship.
I do not believe that these marriages should be recognized. Among other reasons; one would be that these are being done without blood test wich I thought was required by law.
The funniest thing about all this is when they say that Gay Marriage will ruin the institution of marriage. The pure fact of the matter is that divorce amongst heterosexuals is what is ruining the institution.
I think martin has the best solution.
“Natural law” in Black’s Law Dictionary is defined in pertinent part as “a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution.” For example, wanting our children who wish to marry to aspire to marry a member of the opposite sex seems to be consistent with our nature.
Based in large part on natural law, the Louisiana Civil Code provides that (1) “Marriage is a legal relationship between a man and a woman that is created by civil contract” and (2) “Persons of the same sex may not contract marriage with each other.” Such similar laws in other states are currently under attack primarily because activist courts are willing to read into state constitutions the right of persons of the same sex to marry. In short, such activist courts are now willing to ignore the connection between natural law and traditional marriage.
Saw this in the Daily Advertiser in letter to the ed. So I borrowed his comment's
Here is a simple solution, marriage is defined as one adult male and one adult female.
Therefore you won't have any confusion over what to call whatever other combinations one chooses.
As far as the divorce issue, it would make more sense to concentrate on solutions to that problem rather than create a bigger problem by expanding the pool of participants.
As far as the gay issue, I think its sad that the psychiatric community sold out to the gay lobby.
We shouldn't turn our collective backs on people with psychological problems, whether its drugs, schizophrenia, or sexual perversion.
We shouldn't say people with a drug addiction or sexual perversion can function in society at times and therefore they are *normal* by an expanded definition of the word.
We should, as a society, work to help people with such psychological problems instead of telling ourselves and them that they are somehow *normal* just because they have moments of calm.