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

[Michael Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Lee Haslup wrote:

> A subset of the infinite ways to hook up -- the union of one man and 
> one woman  -- is recognized by the government (and society as a whole) 
> as "marriage" and given special status and a certain degree of 
> encouragement.  This special status can be justified by the tendency 
> of married couples to impose less cost on the government and to make 
> the least trouble for society. Experience has shown that they 
> generally take care of themselves and one another and they raise up 
> their kids to be passable citizens with less help from the government 
> than people selecting other lifestyles.

If married couples "impose less cost on the government", then shouldn't 
you be encouraging same-sex couples to marry?

> When people living a lifestyle outside of the idea of marriage demand 
> to be free to marry they are demanding that everyone else in society 
> change their idea of marriage to accommodate them.  If your overriding 
> value is equality then this is a compelling argument.  If you seek to 
> maximize liberty above all it is absurd.

I don't know what you mean by "liberty" in this case. If liberty 
doesn't include the right to enter into a permanent relationship with 
another human being, what could it mean?   If you are arguing that 
people who are offended by the idea of same-sex marriage have a right 
not to be offended, I don't remember freedom from being offended by 
others as a constitutional right.  Since when does the majority get a 
vote on the inalienable rights of an individual?

The basic problem here is people are confusing their religion's right 
to define marriage with the state's role in sanctioning it.  The 
consensus solution that I've seen (i.e. people who agree with me)  
believe that the state should hand out marriage certificates without 
regard to religion, and if religions want to pile on additional 
restrictions to have that marriage recognized, then its up to them. The 
government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing judeo-christian 
religious doctrine.

___________________________________________________________________
michael at czeiszperger dot org  |  "Kindness knows no shame"
Chapel Hill, NC USA              |      -- S. Wonder