Comment Policy
Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
Ah, and here I was about to post my own entry on this. Well, I guess I will modify it and post it as a comment.
ReplyDeleteHe's no doubt getting bombarded with attacks, most of which probably fail to logically respond to anything he actually wrote.
As I've written numerous times, our laws are allowed to great different kinds of associations differently, and an association of both sexes is demonstrably different from an association consisting of only one sex.
The government has an interest in marriage that it doesn't have when it comes to other voluntary personal associations. The distinction are not arbitrary.
The legal definition of marriage, like any matter of law, is determined by legislation. Or, if a term is not clearly defined, then it would be up to the people who implement the laws, and courts if there is a challenge. Until recently, everyone knew that a marriage was something between a bride and a groom.
Our legal definition of marriage was based on an institution that predated and transcended our nation and Constitution. Our laws did not create marriage – they simply recognized, licensed, and regulated it.
All definitions of words, and all laws, discriminate. They distinguish one thing from another. One could try to make the argument that because marriage is inherently something that unites the sexes, it would be unconstitutional for the government to continue to be involved in marriage, and it should only issue domestic partnerships, civil unions, or some other kind of other contract. Certainly, governments are able to issue various kinds of contracts. However, I also think someone could try to make the argument that the government redefining marriage away from uniting the sexes would be a violation of the separation of church and state in regards to the word "marriage".
I don't think either argument works. I remain in my conviction that the government should issue marriage licenses, and that there is no obligation to change our laws to issues them to anything other than a couple consisting of one unmarried man and one unmarried woman who are consenting and not closely related.