🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4i5gn8$hol@natasha.rmii.com>, dand@rainbow.rmii.com (Dan Duncan) says:

<...>
>I must have been blindly under the mistaken impression that people
>get married because they love each other and wish to spend their
>lives together in a close commitment.
>
>Anyone?  Why did YOU get married?
>
>-DanD

Undoubtably, people get married for these reasons.  They could just as 
well sign a binding contract other than the marriage contract.  Some
rich folk have taken to including weakening contracts in their marriage
committments as well.  There is nothing right now to prevent a same-sex
couple from going through a marriage ceremony and signing a marriage 
contract anytime they wish as a symbolic act (which would also have
legal implications, depending on the wording of the contract they sign).

In general, I don't think that the government should intervene in the
right to make contracts, or to require special contracts unless there is
some demonstratable need to do so.  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?  These are 
certainly possible reasons.  If you can convince enough people, then there
will be no trouble getting the law extended via the legislature or
citizen initiative.

The argument that a law should be changed for symbolic purposes is not
compelling for me.  I think that laws should be defendable on the basis
of actual benefit to society.

Bob Cormack