Goose & Gander: Procreation required for marriage

[_asbestosman]

Why should the state recognize gay marriage, but not the relationship (hopefully non-sexual) of a couple of siblings living together? What if they want benefits? What if they care for other children? What if . . .

Anyhow, my converstaion with the lawyers on MA&D has convinced me that there is no legal reason that we must extend the definition of marriages to include same-sex couples. They have me convinced that exceptions (such as childless heterosexual couples) is not sufficient reason to overturn a law. Now in that context, they were talking about the Supreme Court trying to change the law. I am 100% for putting it to the vote of the people. Actually, I would kind of prefer to leave marriage to churches and get the government out of that. Let the government concern itself only with making sure children are well provided for. Let gays make their own organization and call it marriage. Just don't expect others to recognize it as legitimate. One would, however, have to ensure that companies treat a homosexual's spouse the same as a heterosexual's spouse. And then there's always the question of polygamy.

[_harmony]

Just don't expect others to recognize it as legitimate. One would, however, have to ensure that companies treat a homosexual's spouse the same as a heterosexual's spouse.

Doesn't treating a homosexual spouse the same way a company treats a heterosexual spouse make homosexual marriage legitimate?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I've read their posts - can't say I always agree with their analyses of legal issues (in particular there was a lengthy thread a little while back about resignation from a religion and its effect on any pending ecclesiastical proceedings in which Smac relied entirely too much on footnotes in a dissenting opinion to be persuasive to me).

I remember that thread -- I went at it with Smac and C.I., and I too was unimpressed with Smac's heavy reliance on the dissenting opinion.

[_asbestosman]

Just don't expect others to recognize it as legitimate. One would, however, have to ensure that companies treat a homosexual's spouse the same as a heterosexual's spouse.

Doesn't treating a homosexual spouse the same way a company treats a heterosexual spouse make homosexual marriage legitimate?

No, it makes homosexuals legitimate people and keeps businesses from discriminating against them based on their sins (which are not criminal and are nobody's business). The relationship thing is just to emphasize that I would prefer for the government not to be in the marriage business for heterosexuals either. If the government has no distinction for hetero vs homo, then I think that removes the barrier to providing benefits for one couple and not providing them to the other.

Again, this is just my opinion. I am against having the supreme court mandate that homosexual unions must be recognized by the state. I think such a thing needs to go to a vote instead. To see the reasoning, you'll have to look at the thread with Smac, C.I., USU78, Sleeping Willow, and your's truly.

[_harmony]

Just don't expect others to recognize it as legitimate. One would, however, have to ensure that companies treat a homosexual's spouse the same as a heterosexual's spouse.

Doesn't treating a homosexual spouse the same way a company treats a heterosexual spouse make homosexual marriage legitimate?

No, it makes homosexuals legitimate people and keeps businesses from discriminating against them based on their sins (which are not criminal and are nobody's business). The relationship thing is just to emphasize that I would prefer for the government not to be in the marriage business for heterosexuals either. If the government has no distinction for hetero vs homo, then I think that removes the barrier to providing benefits for one couple and not providing them to the other.

Again, this is just my opinion. I am against having the supreme court mandate that homosexual unions must be recognized by the state. I think such a thing needs to go to a vote instead. To see the reasoning, you'll have to look at the thread with Smac, C.I., USU78, Sleeping Willow, and your's truly.

Perhaps it's religion that should get out of the marriage business. After all, marriage is about inheritance and property.

And the tyranny of the majority is the reason we have courts. If it were not so, would non-white children still be barred from white schools? Would women still be dying from back alley abortions? Would any court decision regarding minorities have ever been upheld?