GraniteGrok

Neither the institution of marriage, nor myself, should be seen as antagonistic towards homosexuality. Speaking words of wisdom, let marriage be marriage and let gays be gay.

Do you support a government program that explicitly targets ...

1. the need to preserve the family links right where they are created?
2. recognizing the rights children have to know and be cherished by the two people who combined to create them?
3. establishing the model of equality as the quality of each gender's participation and support in these obligations to the children they create? (in other words integration and mutual respect rather than segregation)

The fact that a man and a woman create children is not a choice. So what is wrong with a program suited to help out that one fact of life?

If marriage is not allowed to do that, then what program can?

Angel, thanks. Finally a question to sink my teeth into...

The constitution works as a document which defines government bodies, and then spends 20+ amendments defining what it means to be an individual with personal sovereignty or self-governance. We set these definitions as a way to promote our freedom, ultimately.

That freedom and ability to govern ourselves successfully are dependant on three things as I see it. Proper education, proper access and control to property (be it capital or just stuff), and the right amount of access to practice for one's self the principles of governance to determine for themselves what proper governance is. In that way we provide the most effective check for our government.

How does marriage fit into that? It is a strange sort of paradox that to fulfill our most important individual capacity, the one that will have more impact on future societies than almost anything else we can do, we need to love honor and cherish someone of the other gender to do that. In other words, in order to procreate which is an individual capacity we should have a right to, we need someone else. But not just anyone else. That is dictated by nature.

The right to practice governance comes in how we then integrate with the other gender, we don't get full rule to ourselves we have an equal representation set up in the family governance. But this governance is not just a frivolous thing, not only is there a second party you need to govern with there is a third party due all the responsibility and recognition of rights that we are from our government. This third party is completely helpless and innocent.

Marriage, defining marriage, promotes that individual right as well as the practice of good equal integrated governance. It doesn't enforce, it just expects.

Wonketeria:> I think, but OL's reply is so esoteric that I have a hard time understanding it.

I just explained what the right to marry really is, and how it is based on our recognition of individual liberty, what it means to be humans and how humans procreate.

I don't find that any more or less esoteric then the proposition of government oversight and handouts as its own end. Perhaps you can explain a bit more on this. For instance in reading your post I noted the following issues.

Legally recognizing the inherent rights of people of the same gender to marry does not help me or harm me.

I think you'll find that gays tell each other they can't get married far more than I or the law does. In fact, I believe it is the implicit "[a homosexual] cannot fully love someone of the other gender" that is behind Putney's self assertions in light of this topic, his own definition of homosexuality that prevents him, and not the definition of marriage.

All the law says is that marriage is a right expressed that requires the other gender. Procreation is not an esoteric concept.

From the civil rights movement we recognize integration as the pathway to equality. So what is wrong with expecting one man and one woman in each marriage?

Is one man and one woman in each marriage going to harm you? Is that going to harm someone you know? Is that going to harm people you don't know? I'd like to see this argument. I remember the segregationists of the 50's arguing that having blacks and whites in each classroom was a violation of their identity. I'd be interested if your arguments mimic theirs at all.

The answer, by the way, is "No" it won't harm anyone to expect one man and one woman in marriage. And it will help anyone who wishes to find out what marriage really is to find equality, and at the same time help children have the protection and recognition of their rights to their parentage and support from before their very inception.

Now, you tell me why that is so wrong.

It [neutering marriage] helps those people get access to the same laws that are currently granted to people of opposite gender who marry. Laws regarding[;] Community property[,] Health care decisions[,] Health insurance[.] It's a pretty short list, but the implications of [...]

When I read that sentence do I see "homosexuals only" because that is what the legislation says. I see a much broader category in "same gender" than just homosexuals. Are homosexuals the only same-gender pair that wants or can be benefited by inheritance rights, et all? What about two sisters who ran away from abusive husbands who want to band together to raise their children together. What about an elderly couple who takes in a teenage mother from the street to help her with her children.

They are just as deserving of anything anyone else in the "same gender" category, but you seem to only see homosexuals and only care about homosexuals? I'd like to know. Are you just bigoted or hypocritical, neither or both?

How does allowing the two sisters who have no sexual interest whatsoever to marry to gain access to community property, etc... in the interest of their commitment and trust of each other harm your marriage?

I mean, look I'll be honest. I think Putney and anyone should have a way of declaring someone they trust as a reciprocal beneficiary of these very items you suggest. Thats far more fair than what the senate voted to do with marriage.

Let marriage be marriage. Let gays be gay. We can co-exist with programs that meet the specific needs of both ... and more.

because that is what the legislation says To clarify, the legislation extends marriage to a targeted group (homosexuals) and not any other group of people. Even though we throw around the term "same gender" or "same-sex" as synonymous with homosexuals it is not the case.

How does allowing the two sisters who have no sexual interest whatsoever to marry to gain access to community property, etc... in the interest of their commitment and trust of each other harm your marriage?

I mean, look I'll be honest. I think Putney and anyone should have a way of declaring someone they trust as a reciprocal beneficiary of these very items you suggest.

Ideally, government would get out of "marriage" all-together, and everyone who wanted to declare reciprocal beneficiaries would have to rely on explicit legal contracts. That would help avoid many of the confusions that now arise, and serve as an excellent indicator of the other person's level of commitment, because if you are ready and willing to sign a stack of POA's and related documents and the other is not, then you know where they truly stand.

I think that is where the divergence in our thinking stems from. To me, "marriage" is a contract wherein two (or more) people declare publicly that they henceforth agree to share certain material benefits and obligations, including (but not limited to) perhaps bearing children and raising children. You seem to think there must be some "spritual" component necessarily attached to marriage and that is reliant on having two people of different gender.

As I'm typing, I'm forming an idea that the best solution where most people could get what they want (except those who just plain hate the idea of gays, lesbians and multi-gender people being allowed to live their lives in peace) would really be to explicitly separate the material/contractual component of marriage, calling that part "civil unions," and specifially defined as a collection of certain legal rights shared between the signatories, and leave the term "marriage" to be defined as a "spritual" union under terms consistent with the participants' beliefs.

The government, in this scenario, has the role of defining the terms of civil unions and requiring any and all who want legal protection for those unions to perform the same actions that are required for all the other kinds of legal contracts, and the term "marriage" gets sent back into the private sphere, where it belongs.

[Singapore (where I got married) has a system nearly like this. There is the state-sanctioned marriage, which creates the contract in the material world, and then those who desire it have their religious/cultural ceremonies some time after they have complied with the legal requirements, which includes a 30-day "cooling off" period after they register their intent to marry - which I suppose is inherited from a custom like the idea of "publishing the banns."]

Having this discussion has modified my thinking, see?

In my scenario, anyone who wants to form a reciprocal beneficiary relationship with anyone else (same gender, different gender, two folks, four folks, 99 folks) who has legal capacity, would be required to set up a "civil union" contract, including terms of what to do in case of dissolution of the contract, if they want their "civil union" protected by the government. Once this contract is in place, it must be granted full faith and credit in every State and territory of the Union, exactly the same way your cell phone contract that you signed up for in Arizona is still in force when you move to NH.

"Marriage" on the other hand, is left entirely to the private realm - any person can describe their relationship as a "marriage" but no one else is required to call it that, any more than Christians are required to comply with the terms of Hindu prayers or Jews are required to follow the tenets of Scientology.

...honors the point of the original.

I think I can see what you are getting at, but parts are still confusing me, and rather than continue without knowing exactly what you mean, I prefer to have it in your own words.

Gladly:

If you are so inclined, please expand your comments that you have been making that define marriage throughout your posts. Something along the lines of:

1. "Marriage is X."

2. "The citizens, using the agency of government, are best served having laws that limit marriage to Y."

3. "The successful operation of our democratic republic requires that rights of these people over here (categorized as A) be limited in this regard because the rights of those people over there (categorized as B) take precedence in this case, because of Z."

I'll respond in kind.