structure, but if you boil it all away, marriage - as far as the state
is concerned (which is the point of this ruling) - is absolutely nothing
more than a contract. You see stories on occasion of people in their
80's getting married. There's no chance they'll start a family or raise
children in any way, but they're still legally married to each other.
If the state recognized marriage as solely an institution for creating
and upholding a family structure, then they immediately invalidate
marriages of not only older couples, but infertile couples, sterilized
couples, willfully childfree couples - and they have an even worse
obligation to define what a "family" is - which would be a disaster.
Single parents, either through divorce or death of a spouse or
non-marriage or adoption, would then also be immediately "illegal" or at
least unrecognized and unable to benefit from state recognition.
I'm married - my wife and I are completely irreligious, and we have two
daughters. We'd be just as happy living together and unmarried, but
there are too many benefits to "official" marriage to pass up, and our
lives together (and children) won't be viewed as somehow "illegitimate"
by both of our more religious families. We chose to get married because
we loved each other and wanted to spend our lives together. A nearly
50% heterosexual marriage divorce rate doesn't invalidate our vows to
each other or undermine them in any way. By that logic, gay marriages
won't have any effect on us, either; nor will it have a weakening effect
on anyone else's marriage, unless they're so shallow to think that the
outside actions of the state they live in somehow have a bearing on the
commitment they make to their spouse.
- Jim
Matthew Small wrote:
>I don't think I agree with you - the basic precept of marriage is to create a family structure, and swinging violates that precept since it introduces an outsider into the structure. The family structure is central to ours and most societies, which is why there is a push for same sex marriages by homosexual couples. Why get married if you want to include others? Only for the licensing, as Jim Campbell tells me. I guess the next logical step for the court to take is to allow marriages of three or more people - and it will happen.
>
>- Matt Small
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Heald, Tim
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:02 AM
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
>
> Realistically adultery is a religious construct. You look at the various
> polyamory movements and swingers and so forth and see groups that don't
> believe in monogamy, and they are perfectly happy with their choice. Now
> obviously you need to look at it kind of like contract law too I guess. If
> you agree to monogamy during your vows you should be somehow bound, but
> altering the vows to allow extra marital relations should certainly be
> allowed. The military has some very out dated laws regarding sexuality
> still. Sodomy of any kind, even when consent is given, is prohibited.
> That's just silly in this day and age.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:58 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> I was just thinking the same thing...
>
> Obviously, adultery has no consistent meaning in a legal sense and all
> definitions of it should be thrown out until something that works can be
> discovered. This should apply to religious institutions as well.
>
> Should mean Erika is released from any monogomous obligations she
> previously felt bound by, Gel.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:51 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> So let me get this right...
>
> In Massachusetts, same-sex marriages are ok
>
> But in New Hampshire, if you are married and have an affair with someone
> of
> the same sex, it is not adultery.
>
> _____
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
