🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4inq3c$sk9@boulder.earthnet.net>,
Bob Cormack <bob@compopt.com> wrote:
> In article <4ia6tu$h27@boulder.earthnet.net>, bob@compopt.com (Bob
>Cormack) writes:
 
>>[...]

>>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?

 [stuff deleted]                                                           

>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.                                                                   

Bob, I think you're introducing a red herring here.  Government is involved
in marriage.  Full stop.  You seem to be advocating a totally new social
construct that would eliminate marriage altogether, for everyone.  That's
unlikely to happen.

Also, if you can, please avoid the use of the term "special rights" in 
this context.  It seems to me that since heterosexuals can get married
and homosexuals can't, the heterosexuals are the ones with the "special
rights".  

I think everyone should ask themselves this question:  what is Colorado's
compelling reason to ban same sex marriages performed in another state?

Colorado already recognizes marriages performed in other states that are
not legally performed here.  For example, in Mississippi 15 year olds can
get married without parental permission.  Those marriages are recognized
here.  There are states where first cousins can get married.  Those 
marriages are recognized here as well.  According to Colorado law, those
marriages can't be performed here, but since other states allow them the
participants are still legally married if they move here.

Why single out same sex marriages that might be performed in another state?
What is the state's compelling interest in doing so?
                                                                              
>David Ensign seems to have understood my point, as he has supplied several 
>well-reasoned arguments for so extending the marriage law.  

Can you tell me how the law is being extended by this bill?  The law isn't
being changed at all--it's a measure to conteract what *might* happen in
another state.  If Colorado did nothing to change its laws and Hawai'i
allowed same sex marriages, Colorado wouldn't have to do anything for
same sex marriages to become legal here.  They couldn't be performed here
still, but they'd be legal.  Why take action against Hawai'i and not
Mississippi?

[more stuff about AIDS/STDs deleted]

>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.

All this talk about AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases is irrelevant.
If a heterosexual with AIDS/HIV wanted to get married, I doubt if the state
would intervene.  As for privilege and responsibility, gay people have 
been denied basic "privileges" like marriage for a very long time.  We have
no way of knowing how "responsible" they'll be if we start treating them
like everyone else in our society.  I suspect they'll be just as responsible
as heterosexuals are.  (which is not necessarily encouraging if you 
look at current divorce statistics)

>Bob Cormack  


-- 
Terry Bartlett			   bartlett@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM
SunSoft, Inc. 		  	   "These views are my own, and do not
Rocky Mountain Technology Center    reflect the opinions of Sunsoft or 
Colorado Springs, CO                Sun Microsystems in any way." -Me