Replies

Look WOSG, I was going back to some earlier posts and ran across your 272 post. Now I dissagree with a whole lot of it as you may expect by now, but I have to respect your depth of thought in this area.

My primary impression is that you have a particularly traditional moral outlook. And from that perspective and the more something or someone strays from that foundation of beliefs, they more wrong they are. and the more harm they cause to society as a whole. As opposed to just being different.

And that is fair enough from a personal perspective. But my argument is that by and large it is the Gov's job to view both objectively and morally equivelent. Now this leads to some pretty distasteful stuff frommany of our poinst of view. But that is freedom for you. The limitations of such objectivism need to rest almost exclusively on the harm or direct rights infringement to others.

But clearly you are a thougtful person - more so than some parts of my posts asserted.

So let me ask you and others here one question.

If "marriage" was to be defined as a union between man and woman, but all rights and privileges of marraige under civil law were granted to gay couples who commited them selves in a "Civil Union" or some similar term.
(Stopping short of family issues were children are concerned, because that is a whole other can of worms - I realise that that would inevitably be the next battle, but lets deal with each separately on their own merits)

Could you be in favor of it?

"My primary impression is that you have a particularly traditional moral outlook. "

Ah, but throughout this thread I have stated nothing nor expressed anything that would force such a conclusion. Read carefully.

"And that is fair enough from a personal perspective. But my argument is that by and large it is the Gov's job to view both objectively and morally equivelent. "

Since when is MORAL EGALITARIANISM government's job? On the contrary, the last thing you want is a Government that acts to level mores. Rather we should want Government to *support* moral standards.

"If "marriage" was to be defined as a union between man and woman, but all rights and privileges of marraige under civil law were granted to gay couples who commited them selves in a "Civil Union" or some similar term.
(Stopping short of family issues were children are concerned, because that is a whole other can of worms - I realise that that would inevitably be the next battle, but lets deal with each separately on their own merits) Could you be in favor of it?"

You missed the key element: Is this a 'solution' enforced by imperial Judges or enacted by the people?
I have already stated I would have 1/10th the problem if the law is actually done by the legislatures. I believe the ONLY solution that is appropriate is for different states - through their legislatures - to take their own approach on this concept of gay 'unions' piecemeal and to leave marriage itself alone.

Could you favor *that*?

Your 'vermont' solution is one approach, another is simply this: Keep things as they were. A compromise would be something in between. Such details are less an issue for me than whether the people can get control of their culture back from an unelected robed elite.

So let me ask you and others here one question. If "marriage" was to be defined as a union between man and woman, but all rights and privileges of marraige under civil law were granted to gay couples who commited them selves in a "Civil Union" or some similar term. Could you be in favor of it?

WOSG has already said: not if such policy is demanded by judicial fiat. For me, that is not only because of the rule by the unelected rather than law created by elected representatives on behalf of the people. It is also because of the mischiefs which come from misapplying the principle of equal protection.

So, moving on. What if it is a law being proposed? Since your "civil union" is exactly marriage by a different name, a difference of no significance, a mere political correctness, then your question becomes: Could I support a gay marriage law?

The answer is no.