New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | March 15, 2005

Julian Sanchez shows how yesterday's court ruling on same-sex marriage opens surprising new legal ground.

Comments

|3.15.05 @ 4:41PM|#

I guess we wore this one out yesterday. Almost three hours, and no posts.

|3.15.05 @ 5:09PM|#

Everyone's knuckles are sore; from pounding on BillyRay.

|3.15.05 @ 5:26PM|#

Aw hell, if BillyRay won't come here I'll just have to fill in for him.

Gay marriage is disgusting! DESPICABLE! Next thing you know it will be legal for gays to rape children! Christianity forbids it! There's no tradition! Think of the children! Marriage is not a right! And gay people are icky!

|3.15.05 @ 5:41PM|#

Jennifer

Not good enough. :)

Try again. You just haven't got the right level of...oh....I don't know.

|3.15.05 @ 5:46PM|#

Isaac-

If gays are allowed to marry then the churches will be forced to abandon their religious beliefs! Grunnels is a Frenchy asshole! Christianity is the sole source of freedom! What's top stop people from outlawing interspecies marriages, huh? Most molested children are victimized by gays! That's why God hates fags.

|3.15.05 @ 5:52PM|#

Bartram, you sure didn't do any pounding. The RandRoid Reasonanics did nothing but call names. They have no argument or case. Just emotional garbage.

|3.15.05 @ 6:01PM|#

BillyRay

Your reaction to being questioned on this issue is the same as joe's on Social Security.

Essentially it is "How dare you question the One True God's Revelation."

I don't believe in God and I don't bother arguing with true believers.

|3.15.05 @ 6:08PM|#

Oh BillyRay, you wild man you... please tell me more! I didn't get enough of your trolling in an hour of reading that other thread. Please, this thread -- nay, the *world* -- needs more of your scintillating insights.

Also, I'm trying to learn how to win arguments without ever actually addressing any of the things said by my opponents, and I'm taking notes from your performance. Please, continue!

|3.15.05 @ 6:10PM|#

Baltram, what reaction. All I've seen is cheap jargoneering.

|3.15.05 @ 6:15PM|#

Also, I'm trying to learn how to win arguments without ever actually addressing any of the things said by my opponent

I reply or try to reply to everything asked. Sometimes when 7 or 8 people in rapid fire are asking, I might overlook some.

No argument, No history, No case!

Just cheap emotion.

|3.15.05 @ 6:20PM|#

Good for you, BillyRay. You're almost a grown-up poster now.

Hold on a sec, writing this down...

('selectively choose which posts to address and then claim there were too many to address, conveniently overlooking that the ones I skipped were the hard-to-refute ones.')

Ok, go ahead.

|3.15.05 @ 6:22PM|#

Maybe BillyRay would be OK with "separate but equal" marriage for gays.

|3.15.05 @ 6:26PM|#

Okay Islador, lol, find me one good reply that I missed and I'll be happy to answer it kid.

|3.15.05 @ 6:33PM|#

Here's one you overlooked, Billy--you claimed that gay marriage is wrong in part because it has no tradition in our society, yet you seem to have no problem with our breaking the tradition of oppressing women. So, how do you decide which traditions must be codified in law, and which ones can be broken?

I'd also like to know how gay marriage will hurt you. We've already discussed that you will NOT be forced to hang out with gays, and churches will NOT be forced to marry gays, and child molestation will NOT be made legal. So where's the harm?

|3.15.05 @ 6:34PM|#

Well, you never did answer why the Tradition of not allowing women to vote was OK to overturn, when the Tradition of het marriage wasn't. Also, you never answered why the Biblical Traditions of polygamy and incest were bad, but the Biblical Tradition of het marriage was good. As starting points.

('ask others to do the basic argumentation work for you, and then challenge them when they do.')

Go ahead.

|3.15.05 @ 6:35PM|#

Can somebody here sing "Achy, Breaky Heart" for me? Anyone? Anyone? Oh wait, BillyRay can do it! He seems like the perfect man for the job.

|3.15.05 @ 6:42PM|#

(Also, while I'm thinking about it: What is it with trolls and the spelling of my name? Every single troll I've ever argued with has spelled it differently, all of them incorrectly. Come on guys, it's not that hard; the damn thing is right there on your screen while you post. You can just cut and paste if typing it out is too hard for you.)

|3.15.05 @ 6:42PM|#

I really don't give a rats ass whether gays marry or not! Can't see how it will affect me and mine one way or the other. But, I am still in the process of examining the judge's logic. Seems that the right to marry whoever one wants could also be extended to whatever one wants. But, then again, whatever paddles the old canoe.

|3.15.05 @ 6:58PM|#

Okay Jenny, I did overlook your post. Not on puropose though.

First, I don't think Western Civ has a long tradition of oppressing women. For sure, women didn't have the same rights as men, and it took many centuries for them to get to where they are today. But that has more to do with the way the economy and society evolved. In the past, most labor required great physical strength to even put food on the table. Men by nature tend to be larger, stronger, and have more endurance than women. Bottom line, women are the weaker sex. So by nature, men were supposed to protect them. Laws and culture evolved from that.

The evidence is overwhelming even today. Current events for example. Rapist escapes from jail because he overpowers the lone woman guarding him. Now what on earth were the jailers in Atlanta thinking when they let a lone woman guard a 6'1 225 lb man while he was uncuffed? It's called PC running out of control. Militant feminists have tried their hardest to say that there's no difference between the sexes. That's nonsense.

As for gay marriage hurting me. That's not the point. It will hurt society. And it will open up the door to legalized polygamy and group marriage. Can't have one without the other two. I made that very clear on the other thread. Then the whole definition of marriage is destroyed. Selfish Selfish people, not really interested in marriage, only government acceptence of their lifestyle.

|3.15.05 @ 7:04PM|#

What does voting have to do with genetics? How long of a Tradition of denial of suffrage is 'not long'? Because that's one that's been around since voting got popular back in, uh, Ancient Greece.

Nobody's talking about feminism here; the topic is: 'Traditionally, women could not vote. Why is that an OK tradition to overturn?'

('shift the topic of discussion to something else for which you have a canned answer, even if the shift is illogical and bizarre')

Ok, go ahead.

|3.15.05 @ 7:06PM|#

(Sorry, forgot this one:)

('Beg the question. Assume that something is bad and undesirable -- like polygamy -- when its undesirability is actually the point in question. Do this unapologetically even in the face of being called out on it.')

|3.15.05 @ 7:12PM|#

Non property owners couldn't vote either. In fact, in many states if you weren't the right Christian denomination, you couldn't run for office.

What's that have to do with husband, wife and society. Those laws were overturned, rightfully so.

But still, there's no historical prcedent in any culture in the history of the world that allowed 2 men to marry. No argument, no history, no case.

|3.15.05 @ 7:21PM|#

"rightfully so"? Ah, now we get to the crux of it. Why is it 'rightfully' in that instance? What's 'right' about overturning that Tradition? That's what I think everyone wants to know.

How do you, BillyRay, decide which Traditions are 'right' and which are 'wrong'? You clearly believe the Tradition of women-can't-vote is 'wrong' and should 'rightfully' be overturned. You also clearly believe the Tradition of men-can't-marry is 'right' and should be defended. What's the difference between the two?

Up until women got the vote, there was no historical precedent in any culture in the world that allowed a woman to vote.

('be willfully obtuse; pretend like you just don't understand the questions being asked, and answer different questions instead. Also, forget the argument's history every so often, so you can come back to defenses that have already been refuted and force your increasingly-weary opponents to refute them *again*.')

Go ahead.

|3.15.05 @ 7:30PM|#

Kid, I think thousands of years of history points the way. Or as the great Tom Sowell writes:Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the asymmetries of marriage have built up a large body of laws and practices geared to that particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality.

|3.15.05 @ 7:38PM|#

Huh. You didn't actually address my point.

There *are* thousands of years of history of women not being able to vote. Why doesn't that count?

('Ignore questions when convenient. Use dimunitives like 'kid' and 'boyo' and 'child' even when you have no idea if they're appropriate, to subtly denigrate your opponents as lesser than you are. Argue from authority; cite thinkers whose ideas are not in any way agreed-upon, as an intimidation tactic, to convince your opponents that arguing with you is like arguing with these other thinkers. This works best if the citation is not actually apropos to the question being evaded, since the non sequitur leaves your opponent confused.')

Go ahead. This stuff is great. Glad I'm getting it all written down.

|3.15.05 @ 7:40PM|#

Finally! The moment we've all been waiting for! The introduction of Sowell!

|3.15.05 @ 7:45PM|#

REASON #776412311-A why i love the internet:

"First, I don't think Western Civ has a long tradition of oppressing women."

+

"For sure, women didn't have the same rights as men, and it took many centuries for them to get to where they are today..."

=

bitchin'

|3.15.05 @ 7:52PM|#

good catch, dhex!

|3.15.05 @ 7:56PM|#

And there's millions of women that still can't vote today. Totalitarian regimes. What's that have to do with homosexual agitators trying to highjack an institution that was created outside the confines of government, which happens to be the bedrock of civilization.

|3.15.05 @ 7:57PM|#

Hey dhex, if you didn't get that, you really are a dumbass.

|3.15.05 @ 8:04PM|#

BillyRay:

While I think your arguments are completely nonsensical, I admire your stamina. So: two more questions.

BillyRay: "As for gay marriage hurting me. That's not the point. It will hurt society."

How so?

BillyRay: "And it will open up the door to legalized polygamy and group marriage."

Why is this such a bad thing?

Note that I am looking for *specific harms* here; I am not convinced that something is inherantly bad because it simply breaks with "tradition."

Thank you for your attention.

|3.15.05 @ 8:06PM|#

"What's that have to do with blah blah blah blah fags blah blah"

Ok, slowly, one more time, because you seem to be *so* close to actually answering this question:

What It Has To Do With That: It's a Tradition. It's Traditional for women to not be able to vote.

You argue that gay marriage is bad, BECAUSE there's a Tradition that says it is bad.

You argue that women voting is good, DESPITE the Tradition that says it is bad.

Why is one Tradition Right, and one Tradition Wrong?

How do you, personally, decide which Traditions are Right?

('When you realize you're about to lose, start using 'hot-button' words like 'agitators' and 'highjack' to steer the conversation back to ground that's more secure for your preconceptions.')

Go ahead.

|3.15.05 @ 8:08PM|#

BillyRay!! BillyRay!! One more question!!!


BillyRay: "What's that have to do with homosexual agitators trying to highjack an institution that was created outside the confines of government, which happens to be the bedrock of civilization."

If, as you assert, marriage was created outside the confines of government, then why do you support government regulation of this institution (i.e., mandating who is and isn't allowed to marry each other)?

Okay, I'm done now, I swear.

|3.15.05 @ 8:16PM|#

"created outside the confines of government"
Exactly. So why should the government step in to decide who can and can't marry?

And I don't see how gay marriage inevitably leads to polygamy and group marriage. I don't see any connection at all between them, in fact. I can think of cultural groups where polygamy is or was acceptable (mormons and muslims) and guess what? Neither of those groups are exactly pro-gay.

Don't you think shows like "Who wants to marry a millionaire?" do far more damage to society than a couple of men or women committing to each other? If so, should we ban such TV shows?
(my sample answers: who cares, and no)

|3.15.05 @ 8:18PM|#

Well Dan, I think the evidence is very clear on this. In Euorope, specifically Scandinavian countries which have liberalized their marriage laws to include homosexuals, marriage as an institution has collapsed. The out of wedlock birthrate in those countries is now over 60 percent. Recent studies have shown while this began before gay marriage, it went off the deepend after liberalization. I don't think there's any question that children brought up in 2 parent homes do better in society. Witness our own problems in this country where 70 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock.

|3.15.05 @ 8:21PM|#

So in other words, the government should govern, Eion?

|3.15.05 @ 8:25PM|#

You know, it's so obvious to me that BillyRay is just having fun here.

OK, the rest of us are too, or else we wouldn't be here, but I think BillyRay is choosing his arguments to provoke a specific response, rather than arguing in favor of whatever he happens to truly believe.

I'm pretty sure there's a name for such a poster. I believe the name was inspired by Norse mythology. What was it, again?

|3.15.05 @ 8:42PM|#

The government is best which governs least.

You failed to address my other points.

Doesn't allowing *all* couples who love each other to make a lasting commitment strengthen the institution of marriage?

|3.15.05 @ 8:45PM|#

Oh, BillyRay, I don't mean to be such a stick in the mud, but... you haven't answered my post yet (@8:06).

('Allow yourself to be sidetracked away from difficult-to-refute arguments.')

|3.15.05 @ 8:47PM|#

Thoreau-
If you're right, I must say BillyRay's a lot more skillful than Juanita was. "Women were oppressed by men because laws and culture evolved to protect them from getting raped by men." Fucking BRILLIANT!

|3.15.05 @ 8:51PM|#

Ah, but Juanita admitted to being satire, at one point, which made her posts far more entertaining. If BillyRay admitted the same, this would be funnier.

Possibly if we all just pretend he has, we can enjoy them for the works of art they are.

|3.15.05 @ 8:52PM|#

So Eion, if Bob, Carol, Ted, Alice, Grunnels, isildur, and Andrew Sullivan all profess to love each other and want to get married, then that should be allowed too?

You can't junk the historic meaning of marriage and then exclude all sorts of other arrangements. What about the Mormans in Utah, Arizona and New Mexico?

Once you start down this path, there's no turning back. All historic norms are out the window. If 2 women love each other, there are dozens of options for them to pursure in the real world right now.

Changing the rules and then transfering them all to another set of people is just anarchy.

|3.15.05 @ 9:00PM|#

BillyRay-
For God's sake, won't you at least TRY to answer Isuldur's 8:06 post?

|3.15.05 @ 9:02PM|#

(see post at 7:06)

BillyRay, you're covering old ground again. I've already got notes on how to continue to revisit the same issue over and over again, pretending nobody's addressed it. I need new material, here.

I mean, how many times do you want people to say they don't have a problem with group marriages before you'll concede that, in fact, they don't have a problem with it?

Also, you never addressed why the Biblical Tradition of polygamy is a Wrong Tradition (see post at 6:34).

|3.15.05 @ 9:19PM|#

If I could pipe in with my two cents worth of electronic drivel. Ahem.

The reason that group marriage is wrong is because my wife would kill me if I said, "that woman over there is really good looking. Do you mind if I try to get her to marry us?" (Chokes to death on spoon)

Nothing biblical about this argument against group marriage.

Gay marriage is one area that the 10th Amendment would let each state decide if they want it, but the contracts clause would require each state to recognize a gay marriage as a legal contract. Just as legal as a will or trust. However, since no one but myself and about 40 dead former US Supreme Court judges believe in the 10th Amendment, idiots in Congress can continue to trot out the Defense of Marriage Act. That is my 2 cents on that. However, I saw nothing during my whole time in law school or in the practice of law indicating that the Bible was to be incorporated into the Constitution and our laws. Did anyone else?

|3.15.05 @ 9:19PM|#

Isuldur-
I'll answer that last one on BillyRay's behalf--polygamy is a Bad Tradition because western civilization hasn't done it in thousands of years, unlike Good Traditions like opposing gay marriage and oppressing women. No, wait, that last one is a Bad Tradition. Shit.

|3.15.05 @ 9:28PM|#

"Most molested children are victimized by gays! That's why God hates fags."

You know, IF gay people had a predelication for molesting children...

just bear with me here...

if gay people were inclined to molest children...

then the most appropriate response, obviously, would be to discourage gay people from entering into adult marriages.

I mean, it just stands to reason, right?

|3.15.05 @ 9:31PM|#

Richard,

"but the contracts clause would require each state to recognize a gay marriage as a legal contract."

I don't think that's true. There is a "public policy" exception that allows states to refuse to recognize contracts from other states that violate their public policies. In fact, this doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court the last time it came up, when southern states didn't have to recognize interracial marriages.

While miscengenation laws have, obviously, been declared unconstitutional, the application of the public policy doctrine to marriages never has been.

|3.15.05 @ 9:32PM|#

Joe-
Uh, are you arguing for or against BillyRay's position here? On the other thread, he actually used child molestation as an argument against gay marriage; that's why I brought it up.

And i STILL wish he's answer Isuldur's 8:06 post. Who'll chant with me--EIGHT-OH-SIX! EIGHT-OH-SIX! EIGHT-OH-SIX! Seriously, I want to know how to determine which time-honored traditions must be kept, and which must be discarded.

|3.15.05 @ 9:33PM|#

Obviously, people are already living together in arrangements that meet disapproval. We have homosexual pairs that have been together for decades. We have heterosexual pairs that have been together for decades. We have multiple partner arrangements that have been stable for decades. We have arrangements that involve siblings or parent/child. All of these arrangements are raising minor children.

All of these "alternative" relationships are tolerated. No one goes to jail for be being in any of these arrangements. No one gets fined. That is, UNTIL someone tries to claim some of the special rights government has conferred on a very particular living arrangement. Then, and only then, you are menace to society that must be dealt with post haste. The deviance shall not be allowed to stand if a government benefit is sought. But if you are willing to forego the benefit, nobody gives a shit.

Yup, government policy toward marriage is based on reason and concern for the children. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it?

I would have more respect for BillyRay's position if I heard that side saying divorce needs to be made rare. I would be have more respect if it became mandatory to carry your marriage license at all times, presentable to the authorities when ever they suspect two people behaving like a family without government sanction. I would have more respect if they proposed fines for having children out of wedlock, or co-habitating without a license.

But the anti-gay marriage side supports none of these "pro-family" measures. No, they are willing to let a gay couple raise a child, let 6 people form a commune and raise children in the Hillary manner, let Kurt & Goldie shack up for 2 decades. It's anything goes, until a one of the government subsidies is asked for. Then the sky falls.

What a fucking bunch of hypocrites. Have the courage of your convictions, you bastards. Ban non-married co-habitation. Ban divorce. Throw unwed parents in the slammer. Make adulterers wear the scarlet letter. It's for the children, you know.

|3.15.05 @ 9:37PM|#

joe,

You are right, there is a "public policy" exception to the contracts clause. Its a shame the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Baker v. GM 522 US 222 (1998).

|3.15.05 @ 10:25PM|#

Jenny, I explained that on the other thread. Izzzy isn't interested in honest debate. I'll try it another way. We've always had newcomers come to America and have a hard time adjusting to our cultural norms. In some cases these people wanted to uphold old traditions like arranged marriages for their daughters.. A perfect example is legendary Mafia Boss, Joe Profaci who arranged for his daughter to marry the son of Joseph Bonanno, another legendary mafia boss. . Very old tradition in Western civilization. In many many cases, daughers were more or less forced into marriage. Get my drift.

|3.15.05 @ 10:34PM|#

I would have more respect for BillyRay's position if I heard that side saying divorce needs to be made rare.

No fault divorce. I don't support it. Rest of your nonsense is just that, nonsense.

|3.15.05 @ 10:55PM|#

"Jenny, I explained that on the other thread."

No, you didn't, which is explicitly why I brought it up here. In fact, in your post at 6:58, you admit you had 'overlooked' it. So you're pretty much caught by your own evasions.

The rest of your nonsense is just that, nonsense.

|3.15.05 @ 11:48PM|#

I've always considered the "equality" argument for gay marriage to be rather disingenuous. The most primary defining characteristic of marriage, even in polygamous and polyandrous societies, has been "a union of the sexes", not "a pair of anything". Since a same-sex union is by definition not a union of the sexes, it follows that likewise it is cannot be construed to be a "marriage", either. Likewise, given that by it's very nature marriage has all but universally been construed to be a union of the sexes, it cannot be reasonably said that gays are being "discriminated" against by the failure of the state to sanction same-sex relationships, any more than a public restroom can be said to be discriminating against motorists by failing to provide oil changes, and for the same reason: public restrooms are by their nature not designed to accommodate automobiles, and marriage by it's nature is not designed to accommodate same-sex unions.

There may be some very compelling arguments for the state to sanction same-sex unions, but the words "equality" and "discrimination" have no place in them.

|3.16.05 @ 12:51AM|#

BillyRay,

Izzzy isn't interested in honest debate.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I might overlook some.

I asked you specifically to fully address my arguments in an earlier thread; you chose not to. It was not a case of overlooking some; it was clearly a case of you being a yellow-bellied coward unwilling to admit to the fisking I put you to.

|3.16.05 @ 12:53AM|#

Pig Mannix,

Yours is just a more cleverly stated argument from tradition. It brings nothing new to the debate.

|3.16.05 @ 12:54AM|#

BillyRay:
Why nonsense? The arguments opposing gay marriage are of two stripes: "it's for the children" and "tradition".

The "for the children" excuse fails because of the points I made above. There are already homosexual couples with children. There are already polygamous families with children. There are incestual couplings with children. In short, every possible "perversion" already exists, and there are children involved. Yet barring charges of abuse (and those charges do not care how the adults are configured, only if children are harmed) nothing is done "to save the children" until someone applies for a state-subsidized benefit.

If one wants to argue that only certain household arrangements are suitable for raising children, then one must not stop at mere denial of marriage. One must actively seek out the children in the unsuitable arrangements, remove the children, and punish the offenders. Anything else is simple hypocracy. The first task of the "it's for the children" crowd is *prove* that undesired arrangements are *always* harmful to children. Not just sometimes, but *always*. Even libertarians agree that behavior that *always* is harmful to another party should be punished. If you can prove that sort of harm, libertarians will side with you. If you can't, you've got a hard road ahead.


The second point made by the opponents to gay marriage is "tradition". The reason marriage is failing in America is NOT because gays may marry, but because ALL THE OTHER traditions that feed into marriage are in decline. Adultery used to be a crime. Bastardy used to carry shame. Divorce was impossible. Shot-gun marriages were common. Parents used to arrange marriages.

If the supporters of tradition are truly serious, they should be seeking to deliberalize divorce, recriminalize adultery, and be ready to perform more shotgun marriages. Permission should be sought from the parents. Doweries should be paid.

Restoring these good and wise traditions that we have so thoughtlessly (maliciously?) abandonded will go a long way to returning marriage to the state when everything was right and good. Yet I see few calls for these measures. Oh a few people are talking about adding the option of the "covenant marriage", but that's hardly traditional. Since when do marriages come with options? That's just crazy talk! Marriage isn't about choice or options, it's about "'til death do us part".


So I ask again. Where are the calls to punish inappropriate families for the crimes of raising children in such a reckless manner? Where are the calls to re-establish the long traditions associated with marriage? Until I hear them, I have to assume the opposition to gay marriage is more about gay-bashing than about children or tradition.

Or maybe, just maybe, the gay marriage opponents DO want all these measures. But they know they are terribly unpopular, and therefore keep their yaps shut. Because standing up for what's right is easy when the majority is with you, but who wnats to rock the boat when the majority is against you? In other words, they are moral pansies, who wilt under popular disapproval. They know they have to oppose gay marriage now, because in another generation, that battle will be lost.

Ayn_Randian|3.16.05 @ 1:13AM|#

The best argument against gay marriage is one that attacks all marriage. Marriage, as defined by the United States government (de facto), is a contractual arrangement that gets special status. Therefore, marriage, as treated by the government, is nothing more than favoritism to a certain arrangement (two people) that penalizes those that choose other arrangements (i.e., staying single). Fact is, marriage is single-discrimination, plain and simple, and opposing gay marriage means that you oppose the continued enslavement of singles to their married brothers and sisters.

So oppose gay marriage, and oppose straight marriage, and all other government-favored arrangements, to free people everywhere. Gays should stop wanting to be added to a protected class and instead tear down the institution that oppresses singles.

|3.16.05 @ 7:18AM|#

I think everyone is overlooking here that part of the judges ruling had nothing to do with any class rights sought by homosexuals but with the rights of any particular citizen, regardless of gender, to marry any individual so long as that same right is offered to any other citizen, regardless of gender. This is a simple matter of equality before the law.

Claiming that homosexuals are asking for "special rights" is like me claiming others are asking for "special rights" to own guns or shoot up heroin, since I have no desire to personally engage in such behavior.

All that being said, I don't think marriage should be a government issue. If it is going to be, however, it damn well better be offered on an equal basis to all citizens.

|3.16.05 @ 7:51AM|#

Gary Gunnels,

I'm a traditionalist in the sense that I insist words maintain their relationships to discrete concepts and objects, thereby facilitating meaningful communication. Shape-shifting commonly understood meanings of words in an attempt to obscure the fundamental essence of the concepts they refer to is intellectually dishonest. Referring to giving the dog a bath as a "car wash" does not make a dog a car, despite the obvious similarities of the processes such as soaking them both in water, scrubbing them with soap, and drying them with a towel.

My point here is very simple: every advanced culture has evolved institutions to formally sanction relationships between men and women for what I think are rather obvious biological reasons. Those sanctions have been deemed necessary not only for the comfort and convenience of the parties immediately involved, but because those relationships also produce results which impact the community at large. No culture that I'm aware of has ever seen the necessity for evolving a parallel institution to accommodate same-sex unions, for what I think are equally obvious reasons. "Marriage" has always been, by definition, an institution which has facilitated relationships between the sexes. Unless someone can show me an example of a culture where the concept of "marriage" ever has ever had any other meaning, I'm forced to conclude that advocates of legally sanctioned same-sex unions are merely performing a verbal sleight-of-hand in support of their agenda.

The fact that the state does not provide sanction to same-sex unions cannot honestly be construed as "discrimination", unless you're using the word in it's original sense: to differentiate between things that are, in fact, different.

|3.16.05 @ 9:01AM|#

Libertarians and Gay Marriage

|3.16.05 @ 11:04AM|#

"All that being said, I don't think marriage should be a government issue."

Well, if marriage really is a religious institution, mandated and protected by one's "God" just as the bible-beaters say, then it shouldn't be a government issue, period. That's part of the first amendement--indeed, the very FIRST part of the first amendement. (Ahem... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...") However, since homosexuality has become the new "communism" (next to Islam) of the '00s, that dried up, old piece of paper will not stop the paranoid theocons from trying to write their defininition of marriage (i.e. one man, one woman, and till death do they part no matter how much he beats her) even if the more progressive churches decide to sanction the ceremony for gays and lesbians.

So much for freedom of religion, huh?

|3.16.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Edit: ...defininition of marriage (i.e. one man, one woman, and till death do they part no matter how much he beats her)into law,

|3.17.05 @ 12:59AM|#

I'm a little late here but was GUYK's comment so stupid that nobody bothered to reply to it? I hope so. In answer to the eternal question "What is to stop people from marrying whatever or whoever they want?" (Children, dogs, toaster ovens...) It's called consent, stupid. As in "consentual behavior". The real (libertarian) solution here is to do away with any government interference or preferential treatment concerning marriage altogether. Since that will not happen in any of our lifetimes: let gays marry legally. Let marriage define itself. Tradition, religion and majority rule are bullshit excuses for governmentally exculsionary behavior in a democracy.