The government should get out of the marriage business, its true. Marriage should be returned to the religious rite or sacrament it was meant to be (apart from a financial transaction which it became). Domestic Partnership Contracts between two consenting adults should be available from the state to any one or all domestic union contracts discontinued and alternative waivers and releases built to accomodate health decisions and inheritence.
As for the turncoat line, that was pretty lame. Ted Olson made a good and solid argument which you reduced to more knee jerk dismissal. I liked Olson when he represented President Bush in 2000. I like him more for standing up for his convictions, representing people who need fair and honest representation and for speaking the truth as he sees it. In the end, Olson will be remembered as perhaps one of the strongest attorneys this nation has ever produced. He ought to get a statue one day for the work he has done (or at least a law school somewhere, named after him).
Ever hear the story The Camel's Nose? There are already Power of Attorney, Wills etc to handle this. Giving them the perks of marriage without the name is caving in to the idea of "rights" for a perverted behavior
Not quite. Olson was dismissing the traditional marriage argument and its proponents as knee-jerk. I was simply pointing out that Olson seems to have abandoned the conservative side on this particular case which makes him, in my opinion, a turncoat. The content or length of his argument is irrelevant to that description.
You are trying to make a case that because someone thought their religious views justified thinking blacks are lesser humans by birth, (the Bible says all men are of one blood and does not mention the word race), that the norming of homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage is justified.
If you want to redefine marriage as not between a man and a woman, but between 'two individuals', then I would like to know why you would not approve of the marriage between 4 individuals or between a baker's dozen of enlightened individuals?
Even you would draw the line somewhere I assume?
Please don't be shallow in your explanation, and don't be a hypocrite who is wanting to create the perception that fifteen people who want to get married as one cluster and demand moral justification are a 'less legitimate social class'.
We have what's needed already. Wills, power of attorney, power of appointment. Those cover what is needed. When it gets further pushed, then government starts sanctioning civil unions and partnerships, essentially endorsing gay marriage and that's where I start having a problem.
Government should get out of marriage. I agree. The rest should be private contracts between consenting adults without anything forced on others. No more. No less.