Replies

They're not saying that. They're saying that Joe and Mary who met one hot and noisy night in a sleazy straight pick-up bar are no different than John and Jack who met one hot and noisy night in Stanley Park, and that as long as the government is registering marriages between the former, there's no legitimate reason not to register marriages between the latter. The real question is why any government is registering any of these relationships, or any of the ones between civilized people either.

First, this is a very cynical look at marriage. I am willing to bet that if we could poll all married couples in the US, we would find that very few met in a pick-up bar, especially ones that were sleazy (I'll accept hot and noisy). Homosexuals, however, have all of these wonderful meeting places that heterosexuals don't have, such as bath-houses, highway rest stops, and restroom glory holes. Some might meet in a fairly respectable way (if there is such a thing for homosexuals) but they are notorious for meeting in ways that are not pretty. That was the authors point. To suggest that the average hetero couple is equally as deviant is an inaccurate view to say the least.

Second, state laws exist regarding various things, such as inheritance. If there were no registration of a legal spouse, then all of the pre-assumed legal priveleges of a spouse that we have now would not exist, and thus when someone died it would be a big legal mess every time to determine who gets what afterward, not to mention the messes that would occur if a spouse were in a coma and someone were needed to decide whether a certain surgery were authorized. A legal marriage makes all of that easier (usually). Now, you could still argue that it is unnecessary if you really want to, depending on how hard core you are, but my point is that legal marriages do have a purpose.

Now that legal marriage does exist, there are a number of reasons why its definition should be limited to a union between a man and a woman. The foremost reason is that marriage has existed long before any of the governments that exist today and, if you're Judeo-Christian, it is a sacred covenant. Legal marriage arose out of the recognition of the institution of marriage and not the other way around. There is no basis in hman tradition for a recognition of marriage between homosexuals. Perhaps more importantly, though, is the Santorum question: where do we draw the line? If we say that it is not the government's business to define marriage, then will we allow marriage between siblings? between parents and children? between humans and animals? We must draw the line somewhere, and I think it is fairly obvious that we should draw the line at the point where we begin to legally endorse deviant behaviour.

We should draw the line at the government putting official endorsement stamps on any kind of personal sexual and family-forming choices.

As for state laws, that's a big problem under the current system. Many people who get married have only the vaguest clue about what those laws are, or only know what they are in the state they're living in. Trouble is, the laws re inheritance and property division upon divorce vary tremendously between states, and when people move from one state to another the terms of their "contract" change automatically without their knowledge or approval. Anyone who wants any legal standing for any kind of relationship, marriage, business, or anything else, should get a contract drafted to reflect their agreement and sign it. That can take care of inheritance, property division in the event of dissolution of the partnership (just like any business partnership), powers of attorney, medical decisions, decisions regarding children, etc.

The foremost reason is that marriage has existed long before any of the governments that exist today...

But yet....

If there were no registration of a legal spouse, then all of the pre-assumed legal priveleges of a spouse that we have now would not exist,

How ever did we manage back in the days before computerized registries of every last detail of our personal lives were maintained by the all-powerful, all-knowing government?