LDS Church issues statement about Prop. 8 result ....

[_Sethbag]

Do you think there is any reason why my MIL and my step-FIL should have the same rights and privileges under the law as a young, fertile couple, under your reasoning?

Don't follow. What benefits (rights and privileges) does your MIL & FIL have due to legal marriage status that they wouldn't have without.

Well, for starters, they got married. And all that that entails. And all without the justification of need to take care of and protect children, which you said was the justification for marriage.

If that's the justification, then why could my MIL and step-FIL be able to get married?

And what's the difference, in terms of justification, between my 60something year old MIL and step-FIL getting married, and a couple of lesbians?

[_Roger Morrison]

From Sethbag:

I like the way it is in some other countries, where all legal marriages must be performed by a government official at a government office somewhere, and then the parties are free to go off and be "married" by whatever shaman or priest they choose. In such a system, the joining in marriage before the government official, and the signing of the certificate, is the only legally recognized event, and the couple are free to imagine whatever sanction by whatever deity they believe in, separately, and the government could not care less.

That's really the way it ought to be. Let the legality of marriage be the government's business, and let the "sanctity" of marriage be the business of each individual who imagines their God's approval of their relationship in whatever way they choose. (UL added by RM)

BRILLIANT Seth!! Why not? I see NO disadvantages to such pragmatism; assuming property rights are assured both parties. Maybe a more enlightened Government will be less arrogant, and regard other-countries policies and practices to be worth unbiased consideration.

YE GADS!! Socialistic solutions!!?? ;-))))

Roger :-)

[_marg]

Well, for starters, they got married. And all that that entails. And all without the justification of need to take care of and protect children, which you said was the justification for marriage.

Well I'm not sure exactly what benefits there are to being legally married other than preferential tax treatment where the working spouse can claim dependent kids and dependent spouse if spouse is earning below a particular level. That's how the tax used to be in Canada and I believe still is. And then there are situations in which a spouse dies but legally can not cut other spouse out of the estate in the will. In the vast majority of marriages, women get pregnant. And in those marriages often compromises are made, where the caregiver spouse is not able to devote themselves fully to developing a career or work and in addition raising kids is costly. Having kids is also a benefit for society. Of course not all marriages involve having kids but I think in the vast majority they do and due to their excess burden they deserve preferential treatment which will help to support financially and legally protect a dependent vulnerable spouse.

If that's the justification, then why could my MIL and step-FIL be able to get married?

Frankly I don't see that your MIL and FIL need to get married. I'm not sure what their motivation is.

And what's the difference, in terms of justification, between my 60something year old MIL and step-FIL getting married, and a couple of lesbians?

Well I asked you what benefits they had due to marriage that they wouldn't have and I'll add couldn't have without. I think marriages recognized by law are meant to protect the vast majority of typical marriages but in some cases specific contracts might be better suited (if needed) for atypical marriages.

[Anonymous]

The real reason they got married is so that they could have sex, being Mormons. And, of course, this is only necessitated by imagining that a government certificate recognizing certain legal obligations and rights towards each other somehow unlocks their bodies in the eyes of some deity.

They could have signed some contracts with each other instead, and then just lived together, but no, Mormon God is horribly displeased by people who do such. Mormon God requires that the County of Maricopa, in the State of Arizona, in the United States of America, on Earth, in the Solar System, somewhere in the Milky Way galaxy, over in the Alpha quadrant, have signed off on their chosen communal lifestyle, before they touch each others' genitals. Touching them without this stamp of approval by Maricopa County sets off alarm bells on Kolob - the angels weep, and their names are blotted out from the Book of Life.

It's this implication that legal marriage granted by the state implies "legality of sex" in the eyes of the Sky God named Elohim, that really keeps Mormons afraid of gay marriage. You see, if legal marriage implies legality of sex, then legal marriage of gays would imply legality of gay sex, and this is an impossibility in the eyes of Mormons. Utterly impossible in the eyes of Elohim.

Hence gay marriage simply has to go. Mormon sexual logic and justification before Elohim, based on government recognition of a legal marital status, is simply incompatible with the implications of gay marriage.

This is why we need to completely decouple the legal concept of civil union, from the religious concept of "marriage". The only problem that would remain, if this occurred, would be a redefinition that might be needed in determining who was "legal" to have sex in the eyes of Elohim. If a given couple only enjoyed a civil union, but no "marriage" had been performed, would that count?

[_antishock8]

BRILLIANT Seth!! Why not? I see NO disadvantages to such pragmatism; assuming property rights are assured both parties. Maybe a more enlightened Government will be less arrogant, and regard other-countries policies and practices to be worth unbiased consideration.

YE GADS!! Socialistic solutions!!?? ;-))))

Roger :-)

Why is that a Socialist solution? It actually seems more Conservative to me, which is appropriate. Get government OUT of marriage, as it were, and let individuals decide what it means to be married. If they want a legally binding union, then let the government sanction it so they can settle property issues later when they divorce.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The right to marry is a basic consitutional right, and gay couples had that right in CA until Prop. 8 took it away.

The federal constitution provides no such right. If it did gay marriage would be legal federally. Where is such a right in the constitution?

In the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that marriage was a "fundamental freedom" under the Due Process Clause and that a citizen had the constitutional right to marry one of his/her choosing under the Equal Protection Clause. In that particular case, the court overturned a state law that banned interracial marriage. At the time, just 41 years ago, nearly one-third (16 of 50) of all states banned interracial marriage, and as late as 1978 the Church was still "discouraging" interracial marriage. And now we have an African-American president. We are progressing. I don't expect gay marriage bans and amendments (like Prop. 8) to survive U.S. Supreme Court scrutiny. Once the proper case makes it that far, gay marriage bans are toast. At least that's my hope ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So, in my opinion, what's wrong, legally, is not that gays can't get married - it's that gays can't get married while heteros can.

This is fundamentally a question of equality, and of gays' rights to the same protections and whatnot under the law as those who aren't gay.

You're spot on. It's all about equal protection under the law. The gov't simply can't discriminate between two groups without a damn good reason, and none exists on this issue. This is why I have advocated that if the gov't can't bring itself to treat everyone the same on this issue, it ought to get out of the marriage business altogether (including giving rights and benefits based on marital status, etc.) and leave it a religious sacrament (and, under the constitution, religions can discriminate all they want in the name of God). But if gov't wants to stay in the marriage business, then it cannot discriminate but must show and give equal protection, including to gay couples who wish to marry.

[_Roger Morrison]

BRILLIANT Seth!! Why not? I see NO disadvantages to such pragmatism; assuming property rights are assured both parties. Maybe a more enlightened Government will be less arrogant, and regard other-countries policies and practices to be worth unbiased consideration.

YE GADS!! Socialistic solutions!!?? ;-))))

Roger :-)

Why is that a Socialist solution? It actually seems more Conservative to me, which is appropriate. Get government OUT of marriage, as it were, and let individuals decide what it means to be married. If they want a legally binding union, then let the government sanction it so they can settle property issues later when they divorce.

I guess my dots are too wide spread to be connected??? My fault, not yours. What I intended/meant was: IF other countries'...practices are considered, that could include considering "Socialistic solutions." Which all Americans at this point are not open to. As your tag-line seems to indicate ;-)

I think Seth is suggesting the opposite to your interpretation?? Marriage is strictly a Government thing guaranteeing rights universally. Weddings OTOH can be of any style or mode of fantasia the 'couple'--hetero or homo--chooses. Pragmatic, just & "appropriate" as you say.

Roger