🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gboggs-1903961637270001@192.0.2.1>, gboggs@indra.com (George Boggs) says:
>
>
>> In article <4ia6tu$h27@boulder.earthnet.net>, bob@compopt.com (Bob
>Cormack) writes:
>> 
>[...]
>> 
>> > Child welfare is one reason for
>> > government intervention in the marriage contract.  In the past, protection
>> > of women may have been another.  So what is the societal need for extending
>> > this contractual meddling to same-sex couples?  That they want it?  That
>> > financial sanctions for being unfaithful (divorce settlements) may reduce
>> > promiscuity and hence sexually transmitted diseases?
>
>Surely you must realize that there are many, many more legal ramifications
>of marriage than those you list. Inheritance, medical emergencies, medical
>benefits, etc. etc. Friends of my family have lived in NYC as a gay couple
>for the last 30 years. Why should they be denied the economic and legal
>benefits my wife and I enjoy? They care for each other, support each
>other, have amassed a considerable joint estate, and are generally
>exemplary citizens who contribute much. If they wish to get married, why
>stop them?
>                                                                         
                                                                           
                                                                             
I was not claiming to have an exhaustive list of benefits or justifications for
the special rights conferred by marriage.  (And don't forget the obligations:  in
order to get a license to marry, my wife and I had to prove we had no sexually 
transmitted diseases, for starters, and obligations continue for life.)  Four of
the six sentences you quote are questions -- I am asking for people to supply
justifications.                                                               
                                                                              
Your argument above is, in my opinion, just backwards.  The questions I'm asking 
are:  Why should government be involved in the marriage contract at all?  And  
given that there are some valid reasons for government intervention, do they also
apply to same sex couples?  Your argument seems to be; "If they want to get married,
let them".  This is a valid argument only if there is no government involvement
in the marriage contract.  Government involvement needs to be justified, and
especially, the establishment of special rights and obligations needs to be
justified.                                                                   
                                                                               
David Ensign seems to have understood my point, as he has supplied several well-
reasoned arguments for so extending the marriage law.  I would have to say that
several of his arguments have swayed me considerably. I predict that this question
will not be finally settled by the courts (as the bru-ha-ha in the Colo. legislature
tends to indicate) but rather by laws being modified to represent the general
will of the population.  The argument that anyone who wants to marry should be
allowed to will not change anyone's mind; it is simply an unsupported opinion.
                                                                               
Since, contrary to some people's assumptions that I am a closet bigot, I don't 
feel strongly about this subject one way or the other;  I'm pretty easy to convince
compared to many.  What you really need are arguments that are persuasive to people
who are hostile to homosexuals and homosexuality.  As a friendly gesture (and at
the risk of being called names again by people who think with their brain stems) I
supply the following argument: 

Throughout history, enforcement of marriage laws and sanctions against unmarried
sex have tended to reflect the danger to society of such sex.  From the time
dangerous sexually transmitted diseases became common to when we discovered how
to cure them many legal and societal sanctions existed and were enforced against
unmarried sex.  Given the uncurability of AIDS, the fact that it is spread
mainly through homosexual encounters, and the resistance of many homosexuals to
educational programs stressing individual responsibility, the argument can be 
made that society should act:  Extend the marriage laws to same-sex couples who
can demonstrate freedom from sexually transmitted diseases, and outlaw unmarried 
sex - homosexual and straight - (and enforce it).  This is a time-tested method for 
society to deal with incurable disease (so is quarantine, as a last resort).
Most importantly, this is an agenda which even people who are repulsed by 
homosexuality can support, since it balances privilege with responsibility and
addresses an important public health issue.

Bob Cormack