Re: POLITICS -- Disturbing article/

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@ 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! Now that the core of the

matter has been laid bare so lucidly, perhaps might offer an

apology for introducing such an abominable and thoroughly

unproductive distraction in the first place... and making Christie

repeat the points that were evidently missed the first time she made

them about governmental recognition of gay marriage being a lot more

than just some philosophical nicety for cultural sheeple. 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 further quote

Christie as of 2/14/2004:

--------------------------------

A woman and a man have the right to marry legally. That right brings

with its exercise the protection of over 1000 federal laws and

hundreds of state laws. It brings with it the right to visit your

spouse in the hospital or prison, to make medical decisions for your

spouse, to file joint tax returns and claim money-saving exemptions,

to inherit from intestate spouses. If a US citizen marries a person

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

this country. Pensions, social security, health insurance, and death

benefits all automatically kick in when legal marriage takes place.

Married couples enjoy the benefits of marital life estate trusts,

estate tax marital deductions, family partnership tax income, damages

from injuries to a spouse, bereavement leave and benefits,

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

new job, burial determination, property rights, child custody, crime

victim recovery benefits, domestic violence intervention, divorce

protection, exemption from property tax when a spouse dies,

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

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

class citizenship for lesbians and gay men.

-----------------------------

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 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

will let you infer the appropriate variants of my all-time favorite

quotation, a priceless gift to the world from the venerable pen of

Putnam: " Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs

in one. "

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@ Chris:

> Mike,

>

> I think you're missing a big point here.

>

> First, a smaller point: everything Christie said is remedied by

civil unions.

> She still claimed that not calling this " marriage " is opressive

to

> homosexuals and iirc she claimed it was a civil rights issue,

when, in fact, the desire

> for " marriage " rather than a " civil union " is absolutely, purely,

a desire

> for government-stamped cultural approval.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I'm not missing that point, and that's an irrelevant point. I'm

ignoring the distinction between " marriage " and " civil union " . It

doesn't matter what name you use, only that whatever practically

meaningful category assigned by the government doesn't discriminate

between gender combinations. As Christie points out, she wants

whatever hetero couples are getting, and it doesn't matter what it's

called. The only remark worth making about the " civil union "

vs " marriage " distinction is the one Christie has already made

several times, that it's a symbolic form of discrimination. Beyond

that, it's not even an issue anyone would dwell on if the core

injustice regarding civil unions is fixed. While fixing it,

however, it certainy bears notice that a symbolic discrimination

exists, and it should be fixed at the same time. If it isn't, then

oh well, there are plenty of other problems with our government and

it'll never be perfect.

@@@@@@@

> Second, the more important point: You are presupposing that there

is a

> distinct relationship called " marriage " with a binary set of

possible arrangements:

> heterosexual, and homosexual. I find this entirely arbitrary.

Heidi made the

> point that anyone should be able to gain a " civil union, " such as,

for

> example, two sisters.

@@@@@@@@@@@

Nope, not presupposing that at all. I personally advocate precisely

what Heidi suggested, civil unions (I think " household union " is a

better term) with no presuppositions as to the nature of the

relationship. I further advocate Christie and your's point that

marriage as a specific cultural concept should left to be realized

by private institutions in their various versions. This is an

incredibly simple solution that would probably be most satisfactory

to all parties.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> The idea that in order for someone to have a legal contract that

allows

> everything a marriage allows to a spouse, one must be in a

*sexual* relationship,

> is arbitrary and absurd. The marriage laws are unjust and

oppressive, in the

> sense that they restrict the right to form contracts and have them

recognized,

> but this isn't a specific oppression of a group or class of

people, but rather

> an oppression of *anyone* who wants to create a contract that is

similar in

> legality to marriage but is fundamentally different in terms of

the substance

> of the personal relationship.

>

> Chris

@@@@@@@@@@@

Well, I certainly agree with that and it falls under the previous

point about treating the general case, not just homosexual household

unions. Of course, homosexual household unions are the most

pressing and salient special case, and require treatment whether or

not the general case is addressed.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania