| |
|
Saturday, February 28, 2004
|
|
SOME CLARITY (WISH THERE WERE MORE)
After discussing the gay marriage issue a bit with Marty of Vigilance Matters, I've gotten a better grip on my gay marriage stance.
There are 3 positions that the state can take with regard to an activity. They can promote it, allow it, or forbid it.
I agree that the state does
have an interest in actively promoting heterosexual marriages for the
sake of fostering the best possible environment for raising children.
It's an institution with a proven track record of creating societal
stability and growth.
Childless couples are irrelevant to that child-rearing aspect, but trying to exclude the infertile & childless-by-choice from marriage while trying to promote
the institution would be impractically cumbersome and intrusive. For
the sake of convenience, the childless are permitted to free-ride on
the government's marriage-promotion gravy train.
Homosexual marriages don't have the child-producing aspect, and because
of the obvious genital situation, it's a simple matter to exclude them.
So the state has no interest in, or reason for, actively promoting homosexual marriages.
But this does NOT mean that the state should then be required to FORBID
the relationship. Some things actively harm society's members - theft,
rape, murder, etc., and these activities are rightfully forbidden. A
committed, monogamous relationship between 2 homosexuals, however,
doesn't harm anyone. So it should be ALLOWED. This means letting
homosexuals dive into the legal and financial tangle if they so choose.
If states like Vermont want to make it easy for them with a Civil Union law, that's great. But I don't think any state has an obligation to make it easy or convenient, since, as I said before, you can have the legal equivalent of marital bonds through the simple application of contract law.
I'm still trying to work out the specific issues of homosexuals using
the word "marriage", and whether Civil Unions cause conflicts relevant
to the "equal protection" and "full faith & credit" clauses of the
Constitution. Another aspect that gets little discussion is that there
is a Constitutional right to travel (not listed, but see Amendments 9
& 10 - no listing required) between the states. I know that
charging fees to enter or leave a state is unconstitutional, since it
has a chilling effect on the right of free traverse. If Civil Unions
aren't afforded full faith & credit from other states, this might be an issue, but I'm not sure.
I hope Stephen Den Beste weighs in on this soon...
posted by Harvey at 9:01:18 PM permalink HOME
|
|
EQUAL TIME
Now that I've hurt people's feelings with why I'm not fond of the anti-gay-marriage stance, it's time to administer a kick & piddle to the pro-gay-marriage side.
*ahem*
What the HELL do you want?
Why don't you stop complaining about how you can't get married and go get married?
It's pretty straightforward. Let's assume 2 gay men. They rent
themselves a hall, ask someone they respect and admire to officiate the
ceremony, then stand up in front of family & friends on the
appointed day to exchange vows pledging eternal love and monogamy.
Then it's time for the nuts & bolts process of entangling their legal & financial interests.
Put both names on the deed to the house & car. Change the
beneficiaries on the insurance policies & retirement plans. Get
reciprocal Health Care Power of Attorneys and reciprocal wills. If they
want to go a little further, they can even do reciprocal General Power
of Attorneys, and maybe have one guy legally change his last name. I'm
talking about some fairly straightforward contracts here, which any
dimestore shyster can whip up in an afternoon for a reasonable fee.
From then on, they live together and introduce their significant other
as their husband or spouse or partner, and tell people that they were
married last June in a lovely ceremony.
If things go bad and they want to separate, they get all the joyous legal headaches of a divorcing hetero couple.
But while things are going good, there's no significant difference
between what this couple has, and the marriage I currently enjoy with
Beloved Wife.
Why isn't that good enough?
Why do you have to jack around with a legal definition that's served
society well for I-don't-know-how-many hundreds of years? WHY? Because
you're too lazy to do the paperwork?
Sorry, I'm just not convinced that eliminating a couple hours of
inconvenience justifies the attempt to sledgehammer such a
long-standing institution.
In conclusion, I think both sides of this argument suck.
If anybody wants me, I'll be here on the fence.
posted by Harvey at 1:25:12 PM permalink HOME
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Harvey Olson.
Last update: 6/24/2005; 7:49:11 PM.
|
|
|
MAIN ARCHIVES
CATEGORY ARCHIVES
GRAFFITI CURRENCY
200 WORDS OR LESS
FILTHY LIES
LOVE NOTES
PRECISION GUIDED HUMOR
KING OF THE BLOGS
|
|
