Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Diana Duncan <dianaduncan AT contentdb.net>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.
  • Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:06:33 -0500

I apologize in advance for leaving all the discussion in, I just don't know where to snip in this case.

On Friday, Feb 20, 2004, at 16:28 US/Eastern, Lee Haslup wrote:

I said...

I'll take a stab at it while we're waiting for Tom to get back to
us. The "Gay Marriage" thing is one more attempt to use the coercive
power of the State to destroy (or at least greatly change) an
institution from which certain people feel excluded.

David replied...
If "marriage" has such a religious/moral implication that the government
should not be able to legislate the definition, then it should not have any
involvement, in my opinion. Why not call any union sanctioned by the
government to be a Civil Union (be it heterosexual or same-sex). Those that
want to be "Married" can have a religious ceremony.

Interesting idea but it fails in a couple of respects. First, if you look at what is going on in Mass. you will see that it is not what the proponents of same-sex marriages want.

I don't mean to answer for David, but I don't think he was stating what these so-called proponents of same-sex marriages want. He was stating what makes sense to him, which is what makes sense to me -- separate the definitions of marriage and legal union. Legal unions are provided by the state, marriages are provided by the church of your choice. Get both if you want, or one or the other.

Mass. had a roughly comparable "civil union" law which was struck down by the courts using "separate but equal is not equal" reasoning. Second, there are good, purely-secular reasons for granting special status to marriage as the union of a man and a woman. From a secular point of view, marriage is a social institution designed to encourage a stable environment for the rearing of children -- a provision for the reproductive potential of the union.

Huh? I don't think that's the case at all. That may be what many people like to believe, but what about all the childless couples out there? Are they not really married? Are they failures? And what about the many, many same-sex couples out there rearing children in a stable environment?

Its trivial benefits may be granted, in some part, to the current generation but the intended beneficiaries are the next. Given that the institution looks to the next generation, in order to claim exclusion, someone would have to claim that his or her parents were not one man and one woman.

I know so many people who can make that "claim", especially those raised in single-parent households. Unless you just mean biologically?


As a libertarian (of a different feather) I unflaggingly support any gay
couple's right to do anything that married couples do -- live together, shop
together, sleep together, love each other, fight, buy furniture -- but I do
not support their efforts to compel an unwilling majority to call them
"Married".

I may be wrong, but I believe that most same-sex couples fighting for the
right to "marry" are looking for the rights that accompany such a union,
rather than attempting to co-opt the "sanctity" of "marriage." I think you
omitted from your list of things married couples can do some that same-sex
couples can not, such as participate in a spouses' health insurance (in most
cases), and have a say in their partners' health care (especially
end-of-life issues). I believe there are tax/inheritance issues involved as
well--very worldly concepts, rather than spiritual ones. I pity the same-sex
couple in the US which one is not an American citizen (check out US
immigration law, and see what additional rights "Married" couples get that
same-sex couples can not).

Yes of course, you are correct that they are seeking equal "rights" in the sense that they seek to compel other people and the community at large to treat them as if they were "married." The special benefits granted to married people are not free; we pay for them with higher taxes, increased insurance premiums, etc.

The "marriage penalty" only applies to couples with widely disparate incomes, as I understand it. This is a holdover of the forties or fifties, when taxes were codified to encourage women to stay home and give up their war jobs to the returning soldiers. Couples with similar incomes actually pay less taxes jointly than they would if filing separately. And insurance premiums...what do you mean by that? Any health insurance plan I've seen is cheaper per capita for family insurance than for single. And if a single male under 25 gets married, his auto insurance rates drop. So I'd be interested where this claim comes from.

The presumption here is that, when the majority of the people decided to put these benefits in place they had a group of recipients in mind (arguably committed man/woman couples and their anticipated offspring.) The gay marriage types are seeking their "fair" share of benefits intended for someone else.

Intentions of people 50 years ago arguably are not applicable today. It's a different world every day, policies, attitudes and laws are expected and should change with the world.


As some anecdotal evidence of this--my wife's grandmother remarried a few
years back (I believe she was 83, and married a younger man of 82). Was the
motivation their strong religious beliefs that men and women in
relationships should get married? No, it was because he suffered a heart
attack (while they were in the UK, so she was allowed to see him in the
hospital), but the realization that if anything happened while in the US,
they would have no legal standing. Would they have settled for a "Legal
Union" if it conveyed all of the rights marriage currently does? As a devout
atheist, I believe she would have.

For the social institution of marriage to be most useful it needs to have fairly simple rules. Most people know what a "man" and a "woman" are and infertile couples, childless couples, elderly couples, etc. can still support the institution by observing its customs.

? - I don't understand this statement at all, not even enough to argue it.

A recent quote I heard was something to the effect of "the worst thing that
happened to marriage is allowing heterosexuals to do it, since half of their
marriages fail." I don't have the stats available, but I have heard this
from many places. I wonder what would happen to the stats if same-sex
marriage was allowed.

Personally, I am hoping my recent religiously performed, heterosexually
oriented, marriage beats those sad statistics (as does my wife, lurking on
this list). It doesn't feel any different now that same-sex couples are
getting "Married." Should it?

Check back with me in ten or fifteen years and we'll talk about your kids' friends, especially the boys who are growing up without an engaged male role-model. It is in the socialization of males that societal problems with the integrity of families shows most strongly.

Well, you can see the effects of that right now, with all the single-parent households. Has traditional marriage helped this at all? I guess this is one of the many reasons why I support the right of any two committed people who wish to make a family to do it. It's certainly better for the children if their parents are recognized as a family unit. In fact, if polygamy works for a family, I'll support that too. Loving, caring relationships are what is important. At least to me...

Diana





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page