Gary:

I understand that opponents of gay marriage are turning the
battle for a proposed Constitutional Amendment into a referendum
on sexual practices. This is precisely why I think the initiative
will fail and probably fail convincingly.  The problem is that
long ago statutes prohibiting various sexual acts were repealed.
In many states, same sex couples have been allowed to adopt
children and, of course, by way of artificial insemination or
with the aid of a willing male SSA women have been able to bear
natural children.  Both examples seem to adequately address your
"procreation" standard -- that is, they suggest that family
rearing may well be the purpose of a SSA union.  I think a recent
poll suggested that only about 20 percent of SSA couples were
interested in raising families.

Then there are economic issues to be considered.  For instance:
suppose two good friends, both widowed mothers of minor children
decided their chances for remarriage were nil.  Yet, in the
interest of keeping their families out the poorhouse, to
eliminate the need to leave children unsupervised for long
periods of time, etc., etc., etc. concluded that the solution was
to form legal domestic partnership that provided all the health
insurance and tax benefits that accrue to married couples. Money,
a more stable family set-up, not sex, are the drivers.  Would we
argue that such women are not entitled to form such a union?
And, if so, what would be the basis for our objections?  Might
precisely this kind of arrangement be one way society could help
get single-parent families on more stable ground.  I see some
risks (as I do with conventional marriage as well) but I also see
plenty of benefits.

Seems to me that if the government provides special benefits to
conventionally married couples with children that, consistency
and fairness demand that similar benefits must, under law, be
provided to all couples with children.

Seems to me that if the government, in the interest of providing
equal protections under law, endorses such unions it need not
endorse "sexual acts" between the partners.  It merely suggests
that if a couple's union looks like "this," then it is entitled
to various protections and benefits. Whether the "union"
qualifies as a marriage, where sexual acts and natural
procreation are implied, should be a matter left up to the
churches.

RBS



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:04 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>A key difference, though, is that homosexuality is a
>sexual issue;
>whereas marriages between man and woman (or even polygamy) has
>additional natural issues: such as children born into
>the relationship.
>Extra mothers to raise the child is different than two
>women taking up
>together to have sex. Procreation is not involved in
>any way, which is
>the ideal society has long maintained.
>
>Gary
>
>
>
>Ron Scott wrote:
>>
>> Toward the laudable goal of establishing family
>traditions that
>> work, shall I presume that "society" and "government"
>will soon
>> insist on repealing what are essentially "divorce on demand"
>> statutes?  I agree that the ideal model is family
>with a father
>> and a mother, but it certainly is not the only model
>that works.
>> Nor are "alternative workable models" recent
>phenomena. They have
>> been with us as long as I can remember.  For
>instance, most, if
>> not all, polygamous family models were quite non-traditional.
>> Children in such families often only had passing relationships
>> with their fathers.  Often two or more mothers
>occupied the same
>> home.  Often children from different mothers were raised with
>> deep loyalties to their biological mothers as well as other
>> "moms" in the household. As I practical matter, would
>we not be
>> better off finding ways to support all families, no
>matter their
>> configurations?
>>
>> Ron Scott
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:34 AM
>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>> >
>> >
>> >Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for
>> >society's strength and
>> >longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a
>> >keen interest in
>> >ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a
>> >strong and safe
>> >society; normally built upon traditions that work.
>> >
>> >Gary
>> >
>> >Ron Scott wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gary:
>> >>
>> >> Some of us  regard marriage as a religious blessing,
>> >a religious
>> >> covenant.  Some us, therefore, think the government has no
>> >> business getting itself involved in a religious
>matter -- like
>> >> determining what constitutes a "marriage."
>> >>
>> >> The government ought to stick to defining what kinds
>> >of "unions"
>> >> and "partnerships" it allow (I assume there are many
>> >worthwhile
>> >> variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined
>> >as permitted
>> >> by law).  Had it done that -- had it taken a
>one-size fits all
>> >> approach and done it actively, rather than
>> >reactively, one could
>> >> argue that the pressure we've witness over the
>past few months
>> >> would not have been necessary.  Instead, the government, in
>> >> essence, refused to confront the matter until forced.
>> >>
>> >> Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have
>> >> gotten legislation on the books that would be
>> >satisfying to most,
>> >> if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the
>> >concerns of
>> >> the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a
>lawsuit which
>> >> reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court.
>> >>
>> >> Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on
>> >you that the
>> >> proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage
>as a union
>> >> between one man and one woman.  I trust it's also not
>> >lost on you
>> >> that, should the amendment pass, it will, in
>essence,  confirm
>> >> the illegality of the marriages of several of my
>> >ancestors.  It
>> >> will render people like me descendants of illegitimate
>> >> relationships, the offspring of bastard children.
>> >Where will the
>> >> Church be should, at some point down the road, the
>Lord order
>> >> that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is
>> >unlikely...but
>> >> there is a darned important principle in play here,
>> >one that too
>> >> many of us are ignoring.
>> >>
>> >> RBS
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM
>> >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >Subject: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay
>> >> >marriage movement
>> >> >is wrong.
>> >> >Gary
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040
>> >309.shtml
>> >> >
>> >> >'Gay marriage' confusions
>> >> >Thomas Sowell (archive)
>> >> >
>> >> >March 9, 2004
>> >> >
>> >> >Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as
>> >> >the "gay marriage"
>> >> >issue.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is, for example, the argument that the government
>> >> >has no business
>> >> >getting involved with marriage in the first place. That
>> >> >is a personal
>> >> >relation, the argument goes.
>> >> >
>> >> >Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a
>> >> >legal relation. To
>> >> >say that government should not get involved in legal
>> >> >relations is to say
>> >> >that government has no business governing.
>> >> >
>> >> >Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they
>> >> >said that what
>> >> >happens between "consenting adults" in private is
>none of the
>> >> >government's business. But now gay activists are taking
>> >> >the opposite
>> >> >view, that it is government's business -- and that
>> >> >government has an
>> >> >obligation to give its approval.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then there are the strained analogies with the civil
>> >> >rights struggles of
>> >> >the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged
>> >> >the racial laws
>> >> >of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong
>> >> >with Massachusetts
>> >> >judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws
>> >> >that they
>> >> >consider unjust today?
>> >> >
>> >> >First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were
>> >> >private citizens
>> >> >and they did not put themselves above the law. On the
>> >> >contrary, they
>> >> >submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support
>> >> >needed to change
>> >> >the laws.
>> >> >
>> >> >As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King
>> >> >wielded the power
>> >> >of government. Their situation was very different from
>> >> >that of public
>> >> >officials who use the power delegated to them through
>> >> >the framework of
>> >> >law to betray that framework itself, which they swore
>> >> >to uphold as a
>> >> >condition of receiving their power.
>> >> >
>> >> >The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace,
>> >> >who defied the law
>> >> >by trying to prevent black students from being
>> >enrolled in the
>> >> >University of Alabama under a court order.
>> >> >
>> >> >After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his
>> >> >rights to argue
>> >> >for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders
>> >> >argued against it.
>> >> >But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy
>> >> >the law was a
>> >> >violation of his oath.
>> >> >
>> >> >If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the
>> >> >mayor of San
>> >> >Francisco want to resign their jobs and start
>> >> >advocating gay marriage,
>> >> >they have every right to do so. But that is wholly
>> >> >different from using
>> >> >the authority delegated to them under the law to
>> >> >subvert the law.
>> >> >
>> >> >Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have
>> >> >overturned unjust
>> >> >laws in the past and that society is better off for it.
>> >> >The argument
>> >> >that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the
>> >> >past is hardly a
>> >> >basis for accepting unlawful acts in general.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts
>> >> >that you agree with,
>> >> >then of course others will have other unlawful acts
>> >> >that they agree
>> >> >with. Considering how many different groups have how
>> >> >many different sets
>> >> >of values, that road leads to anarchy.
>> >> >
>> >> >Have we not seen enough anarchy in Haiti, Rwanda and
>> >> >other places to
>> >> >know not to go there?
>> >> >
>> >> >The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that
>> >> >this is an issue
>> >> >of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual
>> >> >right. Otherwise, why
>> >> >limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three
>> >> >or four or five?
>> >> >Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united
>> >> >with others of
>> >> >various ages, sexes and species?
>> >> >
>> >> >Marriage is a social contract because the issues
>> >> >involved go beyond the
>> >> >particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman
>> >> >produce the future
>> >> >generations on whom the fate of the whole society
>> >> >depends. Society has
>> >> >something to say about that.
>> >> >
>> >> >Even at the individual level, men and women have different
>> >> >circumstances, if only from the fact that women have
>> >> >babies and men do
>> >> >not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of
>> >> >women and men
>> >> >justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society
>> >> >to keep this
>> >> >asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake.
>> >> >
>> >> >Neither of these considerations applies to unions where
>> >> >the people are
>> >> >of the same sex.
>> >> >
>> >> >Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the
>> >> >asymmetries of
>> >> >marriage have built up a large body of laws and
>> >> >practices geared to that
>> >> >particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of
>> >> >that to another
>> >> >relationship that was not contemplated when these laws
>> >> >were passed is to
>> >> >make rhetoric more important than reality.
>> >> >
>> >> >2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
>> >> >
>> >> >Gerald (Gary) Smith
>> >> >geraldsmith@ juno.com
>> >> >http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom
>> >> >
>> >> >////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> >> >//////////////////////
>> >> >///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
>> >> >///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
>> >> >////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> >> >/////////////////////
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Gerald (Gary) Smith
>> >geraldsmith@ juno.com
>> >http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom
>> >
>> >////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> >//////////////////////
>> >///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
>> >///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
>> >////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> >/////////////////////
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Gerald (Gary) Smith
>geraldsmith@ juno.com
>http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom
>
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>//////////////////////
>///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
>///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>/////////////////////
--

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------




Reply via email to