- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,332
- Reaction score
- 67,396
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?
I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.
I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).
Tuppence for your thoughts?
Gov'ts are very much in the contract definition/enforcement business, in fact, it is necessary. Many laws specifically contain provisions allow for "special" treatment of married people, the biggest "rights" driving point (and somewhat valid) behind SSM. If two people "live together" they may be compelled to testify against each other in court, yet a spouse can not be so ordered. Tax breaks/penalties are based on the marraige contract, as well as taxation of assest transfers. To say that gov't should "ignore" a marrriage contract would defeat its purpose totally.
Last edited: