Gay marriage and the law

Thanks for the eye-friendly font (and Percy's bandwidth be damned!).Question: Why not just simply substitute "civil union" for "marriage" and get the government out of the marriage business? Then, if people want to marry each other or their pets, let them do it at any church, farm, commune, or animal shelter they please. Should governments regulate the appointment of stars in the International Star Registry? It's all about the word "marriage," not about legal contracts.”HM

Yes. Isn't that really all that matters? Ah, I don't think so, not specifically, not unless the Constitution also specifically permits sodomy. How else would a gay couple consummate their "marriage"?”HM

I'm pretty sure that in every state a marriage can be legally annulled on the principle of consummation. I know of one marriage in Ohio that was. The law seems to have a consummation clause in it, far as I can tell.”HM

Then the gays are already there. Unless you're looking to invoke an affirmative-action principle on behalf of gays. Then it wouldn't be "absolute equality." We found that out on a racial landscape. I'm not against it. If fact, it has my full approval for heterosexuals. And if homosexuals want to engage in it then I say let 'em. But why do gays insist on getting "married" if the law provides for their "civil union"? I'm for that, even if it does nothing to improve my life. And I don't think we need to make special provisions for them just because they want to come of the closet.To me, it is wrong to argue for "gay marriage" on the principle "absolute equality." If gays want to get married to members of the opposite sex they are absolutely free and equal to do that. Why isn't that enough? Why do we need to enact special laws for them.”HM

Rahvin, all of your points are good enough, I think, and should considered by those like me who oppose "gay marriage" under the law. However, I do not oppose "civil unions" under the law for gays.By doing what you're doing, Rahvin, you leave me no other recourse: Abandon tradition, forsake what many, many heterosexual people hold dear, and get the law and the government out of the of "marriage" business. By doing what you're doing you effectively overthrowing tradition and the long-held meaning of marriage. All I ask is that the word "marriage" no longer has legally binding value. Thus the word "marriage" should be removed from all legal documents and replaced by "civil union." And make sure the gays are not excluded from that.If equality really is what you want, then that should do it. And if people of either or both sexes want to get "married" they should be absolutely free and equal to do that, by any non-legally binding marriage service they choose.”HM

I would hope that he could gain a legally binding civil union with his mate. And he he wants to marry his mate or his pet or his stamp collection let him do it non-legally.”HM

But heterosexuals cannot marry anyone of the opposite sex they might prefer. A heterosexual man cannot legally marry his sister, his mother, his daughter, or even his first cousin. Does the Constitution say anything about that? No. Nor does it say anything about same-sex marriages. Then turn yourself right side up and shake the boggles out. The next thing you'll be asking for is that homosexuals are equally represented in grade-school textbooks. No more just mommie and daddy, now we ought to have mommie and mommie at the dinner table. Or daddy and daddy out in the garage working on the car. It's constitutional, of course, if you say it is.Prediction: This same-sex marriage issue is predicated on the belief that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual, instead nature made them that way without having a choice in the matter. Well, may be so, but that will likely change soon. I'm reasonably confident that either genetic therapy or some other kind of treatment will emerge to reverse homosexuality back to the standard venue. It will be painless and positive for all involved. Because then gays and lesbians will finally have a choice in their own sexuality and they won't be able to blame it on nature anymore....and it naturally follows that if heterosexuals want to turn gay they will be able to do that, too. Then everyone will be equal and free to frolic on a level playing field.”HM

Ostensibly, race does not have a genetic identity”a point that has been argued before on this forum. I couldn't say for sure about switching teams. But I can say that if choice is what freedom is all about then truly free people will want all the choices they can get. Maybe I might choose to be a lesbian for a little while and bed down with a few of them. Some of them are really cute.”HM