Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Bad news everyone:
Both the senate and house of Utah passed the amendment.
Now we just wait for a gov signature...Which were sure to get

However on a (dim) upside, protestors to this turned out in record numbers in SLC, suprrising even the organizers. SLC is becoming the most un-Utah city in Utah!

vicious, bigoted backlash, here we come

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


1. Are there any benefits that society derives from keeping marriage as one man and one woman?

2. Should these benefits be compensated for by society?

1. No.

2. Irrelevant if the answer to #1 is no.

[Ned]

FYI, here is a link to California's domestic partner law. It provides full equality under California law to domestic partners simply by registering.

Note that it does not affect federal law. Federal law still requires marriage between a man and a woman to obtain federal benefits. So long as the defense of marriage act exists, California can do nothing to affect this difference between state and federal law.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1320

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I would make this a states issue for now.

I wouldn't.
There was a period in American history where another class of citizens was opressed, or hated, by the American people....If it had been a states rights issue then, they would still be opressed

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I wouldn't.
There was a period in American history where another class of citizens was opressed, or hated, by the American people....If it had been a states rights issue then, they would still be opressed

What? In the land of the free? Preposterous!

[Nubclear]

Your right.
All American citizens are treated equally! Those who say otherwise are gay!

[MrFun]

IMO, in the history of United States, state's rights was never an ideal principle -- it was always a means to an end -- whether that end was justifiable or not though, is another question.

[Ned]

I personally think that Kalifornia's domestic partner law will be the model for the whole nation. We simply register domestic partners and they have full rights. We at the same time abolish marriage licenses and civil ceremonies.

There is nothing in the DoMA that excludes domestic partner rights.

[Boris Godunov]

It's a bit amusing, in a sad way, to note that one of the principal authors of the Defense of Marriage Act, former Rep. Bob Barr (ah, how nice to say "former"), was himself married 3 times. The joke around Capitol Hill was, "Which marriage are you defending, Bob?"

[MrFun]

Boris -- the "sanctity of marriage" ideology is based on idealization rather than reality. Just as 19th century "separate spheres" for gender relations was an idealization that was out of touch with reality.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, I'm quite aware of that, thank you. You'll note the purpose of my above post was to relate a humorous quip...

[Imran Siddiqui]

former Rep. Bob Barr (ah, how nice to say "former")

He still has influence in Washington, but mostly from being a lawyer for the ACLU.

[Elok]

Sudden, stupid thought: does the ACLU have ACLU what's going on?


Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Society "encourages" marriage, if it still does at all, for the reasons I mentioned to Ned: to encourage loyalty within a family unit.

Sidesteps the question.

What constitutes a family unit? Does society have an interest in children?

Like it or not, gays are now forming family structures of their own.

But why should the state provide any benefits and encouragement of this structure?

It's not a matter of allowing homosexuality itself (good luck trying to stop them from doing that), but of allowing people who want to live more closely to do so, regardless of what body part they like to penetrate.

I don't disagree. Where I disagree is that the state has a responsibility to recognise these relationships. The state will not prevent two men from living with each other, should that be their desire.

U.S. traditionally errs on the side of liberty: if there is no apparent harm done, let it go.

They have erred on the side of liberty by allowing these relationships. Liberty has not relevance to the issue of whether the government should recognise these relationships.

It's not the government's duty to tell people right and wrong.

Yes it is. The government does this all the time, with laws governing society? Should we be able to punish someone for assault, for murder? The government has a responsibility to protect citizens, and thus, they prevent citizens from harming each other.

They also have an interest in the perpetuation of society. That is where this question come in. Family structures are one of the most enduring institutions, which is why tinkering with them will have effects and repercussions to the state and the perpetuation of society.

[Ben Kenobi]

Che & Kontiki?

Then how do you explain society's interest in the preservation of marriage?