🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4iv9vj$7v3@peabody.colorado.edu>, thomassm@ucsub.Colorado.EDU (Elusis) says:
<...>              
>
>Marriage is a legal contract, *not* simply an emotional and spiritual 
>one.  By definition, the government is already involved.
>                                                                    
Obviously.  My question was, why?  Specifically, what is the benefit to
society for government to be involved in marriage?                    
                                                                        
>If the government writes tax laws, affords welfare etc. based on, allows 
>state and federal judges to base rulings on, and governs the terms of 
>divorces under marital status, then what is the government if not 
>involved in marriage?                                                  
>
                                                                    
Obviously, again.  See above.                                                  
                                                                    
                                                                      
> <...>                     It is simply a legal agreement similar to 
>incorporation; the former ties together personal effects and the latter 
>ties together business effects.                                       
>                                                                       
Well, this is your first attempt at an answer to my question.  I don't 
think that many people (myself included) are going to accept that marriage
is *simply* a legal agreement.  If it were, there would be no need for
any special laws about it -- existing contract law would suffice.       
                                                           

>
>Colorado can't refuse to recognize Articles of Incorporation from an 
>out-of-state business simply because the activities or products of the 
>business are seen as detrimental to capitalism, can it?  Not hardly.
>
                                                                    
Colorado also can't refuse to recognize a binding contract between 
homosexuals.  If this is all you want, it already exists.   
This is not the issue, however, as I'm sure you're aware.  I still 
maintain that this issue needs to be discussed in depth -- if the
government should extend marriage laws to same-sex unions, then there
has to be a case made as to why -- what interest does society have in
doing this?  Calling Joan Beck a bigot (like Mike Mills does today in
the Daily Camera) for stating her reservations about homosexual marriage
does not advance your cause.  Such tactics only result in polarization.
Simply assuming that homosexuals deserve marriage, as you do, is somewhat
less polarizing, but still goes nowhere -- you either agree with this or
you don't;  there is nothing to change anyone's mind.

I've spent about all the time I'm going to trying to kick start a rational
discussion -- after all, I have absolutely no personal interest one way
or the other.  If you think that I'm the problem, and by putting me down
you are gaining anything, then you have missed my point big time.

Good luck (you're going to need it)

Bob Cormack