Within my lifetime, it was illegal for men and women of different races to marry. The red states on this map until 1967, yellow '48->'67.
I see this issue as being little different.
Within my lifetime, it was illegal for men and women of different races to marry. The red states on this map until 1967, yellow '48->'67.
I see this issue as being little different.
That's a poor bit of sophistry, Alan, and you know it. Shame.Originally Posted by Alan
Alan, I am absolutely intrigued. We share the same rights to marry, you say?
OK then. Let us say we are both single, and you want to marry Lucy (a random name I picked out). I want to marry Sven (I've always liked that name). So we all live in Phoenix - or let's make it Cleveland, as you are from Ohio. The four of us - you and I and Lucy and Sven - go down to City Hall and try to get marriage licenses. You and Lucy have no problem - Sven and I don't get the license. How do we share the same rights to marry, Alan? Once again, you have me absolutely intrigued.....Rob
Last edited by gimmethesimplelife; 12-8-12 at 1:00am.
I see it as being quite similar, in the sense that what seems to be a basic human right to the people involved is denied through the law. Rob (and yet taxes are still collected and due anyway, which has issues of taxation without representation to me but that's a whole other can of worms.)Within my lifetime, it was illegal for men and women of different races to marry. The red states on this map until 1967, yellow '48->'67.
I see this issue as being little different.
Just wanted to add - I didn't know what sophistry meant &googled it- thanks for using this word so I could learn a new word.....Rob
I disagree. Be you gay or straight, we all are bound by the same rules of engagement.
The problem is that governments, local and national, have gotten involved in something that was not their concern. We allowed it to proffer benefits and entitlements to heterosexual couples only then complain about certain exclusions. What we should be complaining about is the intrusion of government into the most basic human condition.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Or, Rob, both you and Alan decide to get married (to Sven and Lucy) here in Washington State, at my vineyard. You all fly in, get your licenses, show up, and I marry you. Life is good. Both couples are married here, legally, in the state of Washington.
Until you file your Federal income taxes, and find out that the Federal government has decided to ignore the sovereign people of the State of Washington's wishes. Or until you, Rob, die, and try to leave your estate to your husband. And find that the Federal government doesn't want the estate transfer between spouses to occur as specified by the laws of the Great State of Washington, and taxes it so your partner has to move.
Or until you move to some state that doesn't honor gay marriage, and decide to press your rights, and find out that the Federal government will not line up on your side to enforce Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires simply that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
I agree with you on this point, that government should not be involved in marriage at all, except as a recorder and arbiter of contracts.
We don't live in that world though.
I'm making an honest faith effort to follow you Alan, I really am. So let's say the government does not intrude as you say into the institution of marriage - what makes your marriage to Lucy legal? Were it not for this intrusion, how would you have the right to inherit Lucy's property upon her death? (or be responsible for her debts.) What would make my marriage to Sven any bit legal at all were it not for government intrusion as you put it? Rob
Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.
The problem comes into play when the narrow definitions of marriage, as defined by governments, are the basis of recognition and entitlement.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
These points of yours I completely agree with and understand.....If I ever meet a Sven, may it be on Capitol Hill with him having no wishes to leave Washington State! LOL. Rob
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote