[mcg1969]

Violette, in this argument I am personally making a very clear distinction between prohibition and promotion. If a society is considering whether or not to prohibit something by law, then it must make a much stronger case than if it is trying to decide whether to promote something by law. The primary reason for the difference is that enforcement of a prohibition takes significantly more governmental resources, the presumption of innocence is given the offending party, and the government must make its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

But we're not discussing whether or not to throw two gays in jail just because of their desire to be "married". Rather, we are deciding whether or not the government should extend certain legal benefits to them for doing so---whether it should promote the practice. When it comes to promotion, the government has signficantly more latitude, constitutionally speaking.

I liken the legal benefits of marriage to be akin to the ability to take tax deductions for donations to qualifying charitable groups. Obviously the incentives are much larger for marriage, but the promotion concept is the same. Many of us choose to make donations (or make them larger) precisely because of this practice. And yet why should the government bother with this? Some libertarians would certainly argue it shouldn't. But I say that the government does have an interest in fostering and encouraging certain social activities or institutions that benefit society, and I consider heterosexual marriage specifically to be one such institution. Unfortunately we as a society have done many other things to cheapen that institution (no-fault divorce for example), but that is no excuse to visit wrongs with wrongs.

So back to your example. You ask me whether I would prohibit drug addicts or alcoholics from getting married. Well, no, because that would be a prohibition, and to enforce it I would have to prove that this person or that is an alcoholic or drug addict. But when two men walk into a courtroom and ask to be married, there's really nothing to prove, is there? It's simply impossible for them to fill out the paperwork because they can't complete the line that says, "Wife's name."

And again, I have never denied that some homosexual couples can do as well as some heterosexual couples at raising children. In fact I have specifically said so many times. But this is not about allowing marriage only for people who would be good parents. That's simply an impossible standard to enforce. This is simply about the government using its powers of promotion in a targeted fashion so that it promotes the ideal family structure. The government is making the simple acknowledgement that the best heterosexual parents will always be better than the best homosexual parents (at parenting), because the provide certain developmental needs that homosexual couples simply can never provide.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Excellent post re prohibition vs. promotion. And for the following:

This is simply about the government using its powers of promotion in a targeted fashion so that it promotes the ideal family structure. -mcg1969

[HardStarboard]

Your prohibition vs promotion argument is worthy of being used to defend hetrosexual marriage in the Supreme Court vs the forces that defend homosexual marriage.

[BamaFan]

Hey, someone else sort of thinks like I do about this. Extending benefits to people who are "married" involves a transfer of wealth and is similar to other subsidies - thus the reason to shift the burden of proof to the folks currently excluded from the subsidy (gays) as to why society should subsidize their lifestyle.

[Violette]

This is a very well said and concise posting and I sincerely appreciate the thought that you have put into stating your position. Your clarification between promotion and prohibition have helped me see your point of view much clearer.

I want to take some time to read it and determine where we differ because from here, it seems to be becoming much more abstract and incredibly more interesting.

[Violette]

I think to start with, when two people approach the court and state that they wish to be married, what is it exactly they are asking the court to do?

Let's start by addressing what the couples are requesting. To begin with, the couple is expressing a desire to make a life-time committment to one another based on their love for one another. Why do the courts need to be involved at all? Because over time, feelings change and perhaps one wishes to stray from the other; the "contract" is broken. Perhaps there is a death. Each party has made an investment in the union. All life choices are made by each party for the sake of the union. Job opportunities in another city are declined, perhaps one places their career ambitions on hold while the other pursues and wins most of the income. These committments and investments need to be protected and by protecting them, the government is actually helping the union work. If a civil union covers this issue just as a marriage, then no, a marriage is not necessary.

Now, we go to the emotional bond between these two. In spite of what one may think of homosexuality, I don't think that anyone can deny that as humans they are fully capable of love. If one is severely injured and in a hospital, and the courts don't recognize the marriage, then the guardian of the injured may change to the begrudging brother or sister of the injured. The "spouse" has no way of being sure that their loved one is being taken care properly and could not argue or intervene on their behalf. They would have no legal right to speak on behalf of this other person. If a civil union covers this, then a "marriage" is not necessary.

How does a union between two people benefit society? The government would prefer that we not be a ward of the state in our older years. We have social security and medicare, but the government's position is that it be a supplement, not the main course. So, if this union can contribute to the welfare of both in future years this helps the government. Tax breaks are there because this encourages the union to continue and now there are two people taking care of each other. Additionally, homosexuals who are faithful to one another, are most likely to be healthy and less expensive. To the government, this is a good thing. If the government recognizes this concept in a civil union, then no, "marriage" is not necessary, a civil union suffices.

And now, finally, children. Traditionally, the primary reason people married was for a family. I think that the biggest reason you see men with mistresses in other countries is because they only "marry" for the sake of having children and a family; sexual pleasure is sought elsewhere. But that isn't the case here in the U.S. Divorces over infidelity are commonplace, so, people here do not marry strictly for children. But as a court, we understand that this couple (traditionally heterosexual) may produce children. That being the case, we establish more laws that protect "the family"; laws that would not be the same if a couple were merely living together with children. As a court, we expect them to make a public record of their commitment together.

Now we get to this point with homosexual couples. Obviously, they cannot reproduce. But the court has another issue at stake. Science has progressed and made it possible for people who cannot reproduce with one another in conventional ways to bring children onto this planet. As well, adoption laws have relaxed a little. Now single people can adopt. Women can go to a sperm bank and be sired. Men can hire a surrogate mother. So, it is quite feasible that this couple (heterosexual or homosexual) seeking a union with one another may very well include children in their union. As a matter of fact the chances are probably very high if they have made such a serious committment to one another. Most people (not all) marry for the purpose of having a family. Can a civil union address this? Will the courts recognize issues such as 'Homestead laws' or Tax laws for families (regardless of sexual preferences)?

The courts are faced with a number of considerations when two people declare their committment to one another.

Why not call a union between two heterosexuals a civil union. What specifically is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? And perhaps that is the fundamental question. In the courts' eyes, not the church's, what is the difference between marriage and civil union.

[panther33]

Nice argument!

I'm going to have to use that one...

It's simply impossible for them to fill out the paperwork because they can't complete the line that says, "Wife's name."

LOL! So true!

And again, I have never denied that some homosexual couples can do as well as some heterosexual couples at raising children. In fact I have specifically said so many times. But this is not about allowing marriage only for people who would be good parents. That's simply an impossible standard to enforce.

(Nodding head) FR is awesome! lol