Re: POLITICS - I was wrong (please read if you've been following this thread)

[Guest guest]

I'm convinced. I was wrong about the importance of legal marriage (or

something like it) for homosexuals. Skip to the bottom (my last big

paragraph) for details. The rest of the post is same ol', same ol', so

feel free to disregard it if you're not interested.

I still stand by the " second-class citizen " thing, though.

Anton wrote:

> @@@@@@@@@@@ Droolmaster:

> You are claiming that

> this is exactly analogous to the class of people (pot-smokers) not

> being allowed to smoke pot. You don't see any elements of disanalogy

> here, apparently. One might be that a law that forbids people from

> smoking pot discriminates against a group of people who are defined

> simply by that activity. This is the definitional aspect that you

> described - that ANY law is discriminatory in this sense. To be

> analogous, there would be no other activity or characteristics

> involved in same-sex marriage other than getting the actual marriage

> contract. However, we don't say that the law discriminates against

> people who want to marry those of the same sex - that is true in the

> definitional, and trivial, sense that you mention. We say that it

> discriminates against homosexuals, since marriage itself should not

> be defined so narrowly as to exclude them, and because they are a lot

> more than just simply those who might get a marriage license for same-

> sex marriage.

> @@@@@@@@@@@@

>

> Nice! Those are the biggest nails yet pounded into the coffin of

> this " equal law application " nonsense!

Thus eliminating all hope of ever actually getting the body into the

coffin?

> Now that the core of the

> matter has been laid bare so lucidly

I see nothing compelling about this argument. All laws, despite being

applied indiscriminately, impose greater burdens or bestow greater

privileges on some than on others due to preferences or circumstances.

Taxes impose a greater burden upon the wealthy than on the poor. Drug

prohibition imposes a greater burden on recreational users than on

non-users, and an even greater burden on addicts. The privileges of

marriage are available to anyone who wants to jump through the hoops

necessary to qualify for them. That some, regardless of cause, are

better suited to this than others does not mean that the our marriage

laws are discriminatory or create second-class citizens.

> perhaps might offer an

> apology for introducing such an abominable and thoroughly

> unproductive distraction in the first place...

Never! But if you want an apology on a point where I actually was wrong,

see below.

> I quote Mr.

> Berg as of the morning of 2/17/2004: " That so many people apparently

> think that they can make their marriages more meaningful through a

> stamp of governmental approval is disturbing to me. "

I stand by that. For many people, this *is* an issue--as evidenced, for

example, by the insistence that a " civil union " legally identical to

marriage is not enough--and it shouldn't be.

This is from Christie's earlier post:

> It brings with it the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or

prison

I know that you can give hospital visitation rights to whomever you

want, and I believe that the same applies to prison.

> to make medical decisions for your spouse

Ditto.

> to file joint tax returns and claim money-saving exemptions

What exemptions? That's a real question, not a rhetorical one. All I've

heard of is the so-called " marriage penalty. "

> to inherit from intestate spouses.

This can be taken care of with a bit of paperwork.

> If a US citizen marries a person

> from another country, the foreign spouse gains the right to reside in

> this country.

This was the one point that I acknowledged in my earlier response.

> Pensions, health insurance

Private employers and insurance companies should be free to make

whatever arrangements they choose to. Many do offer benefits for

same-sex domestic partners.

> social security,

I support anything, fair or not, that reduces the cost of this

monstrosity.

> Married couples enjoy the benefits of marital life estate trusts,

> estate tax marital deductions, family partnership tax income,

Points taken.

> damages from injuries to a spouse

I'm not sure what's meant by this. Shouldn't damages go to the injured

party?

> bereavement leave and benefits,

Private.

> unemployment benefits for quitting a job to move with a spouse to a

> new job

Point taken.

> burial determination

> property rights, child custody, crime victim recovery benefits

Hm?

> domestic violence intervention

You mean that police will actually refuse to intervene while someone is

being assaulted?

> divorce protection

Hm?

> exemption from property tax when a spouse dies

You mean estate tax?

> protection from being forced to testify against your spouse in court.

Point taken.

> This list goes on and on, but it adds up to just one thing: Second

> class citizenship for lesbians and gay men.

Second-class relationships? Absolutely. Second-class citizens?

Absolutely not.

> I can't speak for anyone else, but since Christie has contributed

> several orders of magnitude more substance and logic to this

> discussion than anyone else, I've made a point of not overlooking her

> posts.

I'll be honest--I lost interest when I saw the usual litany of specious

complaints at the beginning, and I was just skimming by the time I got

to the good stuff (taxes and whatnot). You're right. I was wrong. There

were a few compelling arguments of which I was not aware and of which I

would have been had I read more carefully. I am convinced of the

importance of this issue--at least in the context of a society with as

pervasive a government as we have. I thank Christie for enlightening me,

and you for pressing the issue. Furthermore, I apologize for not reading

carefully enough to catch it the first time.

> , I have to admit to being somewhat offended by the

> belligerence of your anti-humanitarian caricatures of a complex and

> pressing social issue in the name of fighting " bogus arguments " .

I can't recall having been belligerent or anti-humanitarian. I plead

guilty to exasperated and impatient, though.

I hate falsehoods, myths, fallacies, and mischaracterizations,

regardless of the ends to which they are being employed. A truly

righteous cause has no need of them.

[Guest guest]

-

>Second-class relationships? Absolutely. Second-class citizens?

>Absolutely not.

I'm a little curious about what, in your view, *would* create second-class

citizens.

-