Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________
Here is my attempt to summarize what I see as the PRIMARY policy difference between the various sides of the issue, as they have been presented in this forum:
1) For defenders of the "Marriage Amendment" this is about protecting families. They prefer to see families that are lead by two hetrosexual parents of opposites genders. I suppose, that they would suggest that any contractual advantages given to "married" couples serve as an incentive for their preferred idea of what a family is. Marriage, then becomes a means of promoting a particular idea of "family."
2) For opponents of the "Marriage Amendment," the question of family structure has already been largely decided in their favor. Same sex couples have many opportunities to be parents and are doing so, with or without the blessing of marriage. This question appears to be a mute point.
For them, this is about the right of homosexual couples to benefits that are accorded to hetrosexual couples as the result of marriage. Opponents of this ammendment would argue that any expansion of the definition of marriage would strengthen families (a different vision of family) by making certain resources available to an even broader cross-section of families - which would stabilize even more families and benefit children.
But, for opponents - this is primarily a debate about the "rights" that are accorded to individuals on the basis of their martial status - and the sense that those rights should be accessible to any individual willing to commit themselves to a long-term relationship (meeting some criteria - but not one based upon gender exclusively).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To the extend, that I've got the above correct. Then the two sides of this discussion are really talking past each other - each defining the issue in completely different terms.
The policy question that I would pose, would be this. If this "Marriage Ammendment" is really about protecting families - then, does it really accomplish this? Does defining "marriage" as a relationship between a man and a woman, really do anything to promote this hetrosexual model of a family or does it simply undermine alternative families to the detriment of children, while accomplishing none of the intended goals. Is it really the role of government, to decide what a family should look like - and to what extent?
How exactly does defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman promote any particular type of family? Is there really the belief that individuals will move from homosexual families to hetrosexual families, because a better "benefits" package exists for the latter (or vice versa)? Or does this (male/female) definition of family simply put an always increasing number of families at a disadvantage and make the lives of children even more difficult.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Finally, there is the question of whether or not "Marriage" is really some kind of human right - as some claim. Or whether or not, its really a tool for for government to use - to encourage a certain type or model of family? Bringing us back to the previous questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I look forward to any feedback or comments.
Its was helpful for me to write this out, hopefully others will find it helpful as well.
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson Hamline Midway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- ================================================= Tim Erickson http://www.politalk.com St. Paul, MN - USA 651-643-0722 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 105978430 =================================================
_____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
