Chambers wrote:
> Personally, I don't think the government should have anything to do with 
> marriage.

No, this wouldn't be right. If I'm hurt and unconscious, someone has to make 
a decision about what to do. If I die without a will, someone has to make a 
decision about who gets the money. There are bunches and bunches of 
situations where your family is the "default" in cases where you can't make 
the choice yourself.

People in my family get to drive my cars without paying different insurance. 
  I pay different taxes because I'm married, and my wife can collect my 
savings and other government benefits when necessary. This sort of thing 
*also* goes on all the time, even though arguably that could be a private 
agreement. And even when it's a private matter, the religious raise hell 
when a private corporation decides to (for example) insure gay couples even 
when they're not required to by law.

As soon as you say "you have all the rights, we just won't *call* it 
marriage", then you're opening up to discrimination, including lawsuits 
where a law says "married couples" and it gets enforced as "but not civil 
unions."  "Separate but equal" has been shown to be a bad idea, and I'm 
really kind of surprised that so many blacks here voted for it less than a 
generation after it was applied to *them*.

> Its an entirely religious matter, and the Civil authorities 
> should keep their hands off it.

I disagree. I think most of the people who aren't allowed to marry would be 
happy to actually have all the rights and privileges of a religious marriage 
without the religion.

> Then, if gay people wanted to get married, all they would have to do 
> would be to find a church that allows them to.

And I would bet that the first thing that would happen is the religious 
types would try to get that religion somehow declared improper.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message