Interesting points. But, we’re not allowed to have any such discussions. The liberal homosexual activists have decided that it has to be marriage for.their relationships legal status. Liberal judges agree, such as when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that that state’s civil union law amounted to discrimination.
If homosexual activists weren’t trying to shove this down our throats through the courts, it would be possible to discuss some of these issues. But they have poisoned the well, labeled all who oppose homosexual marriage as haters, etc. The media does the same. Would be nice to have a civilized discussion of how marriage ought to be defined.
Why does the author put the quotes around “same-sex” instead of “marriage?”
“...In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?...”
Impossible to refute this logic ~ stellar quote!
I have a somewhat different suggestion. I would like to see government stay completely out of the marriage business.
My personal view is that marriage is a social issue. For those who believe in God, as I do, marriage is also, and even more significantly, a religious issue.
If two people want to have some sort of personal contract which gives each other various financial and legal rights, that is fine and they can do that with or without marriage.
If two people want to be married in the religious sense, that should be a matter for the couple and their God.
If two people want to be married in the eyes of society, that should be a matter for the couple and their family and friends.
Aside from any legal contracts, the government should butt out.
I have often said that people should be allowed to define their own households. Traditionally people have always done this, grandparents raise grandkids, take in family members or close friends who then become a part of the family. You used to hear of families taking in orphans without a lot of fanfare and raising them as their own. Problems can arise though in the modern era when you are dealing with school issues, medical issues, and the so-forth. I’d be happy to see a legal space for people to define for themselves their own household.
But only marriage is marriage.
Call it “Queeriage”.
Problem solved.
Unfortunately this version if A Modest Proposal might play right into a power-loving governments hands: Ultimately if all relationships were considered special then all would be given special treatment (government favor, leading to being beholden to the gov) which is what the ultimate purpose (as in pandering to the Sodomites) has been all along, so as to get as many citizens dependant on gov as possible = job security for gov employees. (Meanwhile the gov goes broke but that has become less and less of a concern as time wears on, isnt it?) Thus, I am afraid the gov just might like his Modest Proposal and take it up as the next increment in (wrecklessly) empowering themselves!
The author is clueless.
This is just the left wing line.
This is government establishing what is or is not marriage via legislation. Marriage is a common law institution.
society rewards the institution not the individual.
All the contract stuff discussed is law now.
This article is a waste of time.
No one gets “the legal privileges and recognition” that a married man and woman get.
And while we are at it - no abortions, no drugs and no affirmative action.
No doubt many Freepers abide these rules.
I find it curious that “civil union” rules explicitly forbid siblings from forming such unions, even though there may be sound reasons for siblings to join together in a household (e.g. if a brother and sister are widowed, and both have children, it may be better for the children to be raised by a parent and an aunt or uncle, than by a parent alone). If civil unions really weren’t about sex, why should their proponents exclude siblings?
Guys, there is a cost to being married.
Maybe women don’t think so but men sure do.
In order to compensate for the cost, we used to provide exclusive benefits for traditional marriage. Legal and prestige benefits, mostly. That’s all now blown away, from brutal divorce proceedings, to others wanting in on the benefits.
Now there is almost no incentive to getting married. So why do the gays want in?
Such response would be light years ahead of the muddle currently in the heads of the legislators, intimidated by homo thugs. However, there is one aspect missing.
True, two or more people should be able to grant one another any rights that they are in possession of. For example, they are automatic inheritance rights, hospital visits, medical care decisions, etc.
It is reasonable that they ask legal equality between various spacific instances of such union. For example, there is no reason to allow a gay couple to mutually granted rights and disallow two widowed sisters the same.
They cannot however demand that the state grants them privileges that the state chooses to grant properly married couples. Examples of such privileges are citizenship, taxation, adoption rights. That is because the heterosexual nature of the marital union is of a special value to the state, since in the event of children being produced or adopted by a married couple, the state has an interest in the children to be raised in a harmonious family, thus relieving the pressure on schools, juvenal law enforcement, etc. The state has no similar interest in non-sexual or homosexual or polygamous unions in the same way.
The demand of non-discrimination is valid between non-marital unions. It is not valid if a non-marital union is compared in privileges to marriage.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
It should be what your Religion says it is. The government should be no part of it.
I married a woman and will spend the rest of my life with her. This was our choice by our Religious tenets.
We would have done this regardless of government. As it should be.