🚀 go-pugleaf

I'm going to be in the back-country skiing for 3 days after posting this...so
won't be able to participate in the meantime.  So, forgive the parting shot...

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

-- snip --
> 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.

But you do agree with the government passing legislation to make sure
contracts recognized in other states aren't recognized here in Colorado?
That's what HB-1291 does, and that was the subject of the thread.  I see
that you don't support same-sex marriage, but I'd like to know whether you're
defending this bill which I interpret as an extremely mean-spirited slap
at the gay community.

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?

Your view of marriage is a lot narrower than most.  Marriage does come
with a lot of legal ramifications other than just "child/wife protection".
It entitles people to a lot of other benefits in both public and private
life.  Personally, I'm no big fan of marriage, but for fairness reasons
would like to have the option just like everyone else.  And remember, many
gay couples are raising children.

One quick non-child example.  A gay man who's partner is dying in the hospital
can be denied visitation rights by his partner's blood relatives.  Unless there
was a specific contract for the situation, there is no legal recourse for being
denied visitation.  This has happened in many occasions to couples where a
partner was dying of AIDS.

I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that marriage serves as an umbrella
contract to prevent many of these types of situations.  And no lawyer needs
to be paid to obtain the contract!  Just think how much legal work it would
take to reproduce these benefits piece-meal.

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.

OK, and that's the goal a lot of us have in mind when we argue in favor
of same-sex marriages.  But there's a much shorter term goal here of staving
off the attacks of the fundamentalists in our state legislature who are
enacting useless and unneeded legislation that prohibits us from even
having a chance at getting started.

> 
> 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.

It seems to me that it's certainly not just symbolic.  The issue also
has fairness/equality components as well as legal justifications.

BTW:  I'd like to ask you to try to understand those who are reacting with
anger right now.  Try to imagine your reaction if you were a white male and the
state passed a law saying white males may not marry in Colorado, nor may
their marriages from other jurisdictions be recognized.  You might
have a tough time staying linear while arguing with those who supported such
an action.

Take care,

Dave

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ensign        dave5@advtech.uswest.com        (303) 541-7034 (voice)
                  U S WEST Advanced Technologies    (303) 541-6773 (fax)
                  4001 Discovery Drive Suite 320
                        Boulder, CO  80303