I love it... whenever somebody suggests that same sex couples should be treated equally to opposite sex couples, there is always at least one person in the crowd who argues the slippery slope of either polygamy or bestiality.
Marriage is no longer simply a matter between two individuals and their religion. For the past couple of centuries, marriage has evolved into a legal contract of explicit and implicit rights and responsibilities that is enforced and recognized by the state.
One simply needs to look to Las Vegas to see how marriage has evolved from what it once was. "Sanctity", as a battle cry, lost legitimacy the day that you could be married to somebody you met two hours earlier by a guy dressed up to look like Elvis while sitting in your car at a drive up window.
If marriage is a matter of religion (like a baptism or confirmation) then the government has no place getting involved. In fact, the Second Amendment of the Constitution specifically bans any law respecting an establishment of religion. You'll never find the government passing a law making a baptism illegitimate.
If marriage is a contract, then the government has no right to only recognize the contracts between opposite sex couples. The purpose of the government should be enforcing and arbitrating the contract. The only time the government should have a role in invalidating a marriage is when it involves a minor or somebody of clearly limited mental capacity. Basically anybody who is unable to understand the decision of entering into a contract. Any other argument is fascism dressed up in the disguise of "Family Values".
By the way, to be clear: I love capitalism. I believe that in a free market, it is up to the individual company to decide whether or not they want to offer health coverage at all, let alone to the spouse of an employee. Companies should be allowed to discriminate on any basis including gender, sexual orientation, race, eye color, city of birth, how many fingers you have on your right hand, your middle name... take your pick of random characteristics.
Here is the "but"... but, when we are using taxpayer money by hiring contractors, arbitrary discrimination must not be allowed. The government must choose to do business only with companies that do not practice discrimination. Taxes are taken by force. As a citizen I don't have a choice to withhold paying taxes. (And gay citizens pay more than a pro rata share of taxes since they are denied the tax benefits that come from marriage). It is abhorrent to have a government that turns around and spends that money on companies that discriminate against gays and gay couples.
.thumbnail.JPG "Artist Justin Harris, Portland")
re: The City should extend its equal benefits law
I love it... whenever somebody suggests that same sex couples should be treated equally to opposite sex couples, there is always at least one person in the crowd who argues the slippery slope of either polygamy or bestiality.
Marriage is no longer simply a matter between two individuals and their religion. For the past couple of centuries, marriage has evolved into a legal contract of explicit and implicit rights and responsibilities that is enforced and recognized by the state.
One simply needs to look to Las Vegas to see how marriage has evolved from what it once was. "Sanctity", as a battle cry, lost legitimacy the day that you could be married to somebody you met two hours earlier by a guy dressed up to look like Elvis while sitting in your car at a drive up window.
If marriage is a matter of religion (like a baptism or confirmation) then the government has no place getting involved. In fact, the Second Amendment of the Constitution specifically bans any law respecting an establishment of religion. You'll never find the government passing a law making a baptism illegitimate.
If marriage is a contract, then the government has no right to only recognize the contracts between opposite sex couples. The purpose of the government should be enforcing and arbitrating the contract. The only time the government should have a role in invalidating a marriage is when it involves a minor or somebody of clearly limited mental capacity. Basically anybody who is unable to understand the decision of entering into a contract. Any other argument is fascism dressed up in the disguise of "Family Values".
By the way, to be clear: I love capitalism. I believe that in a free market, it is up to the individual company to decide whether or not they want to offer health coverage at all, let alone to the spouse of an employee. Companies should be allowed to discriminate on any basis including gender, sexual orientation, race, eye color, city of birth, how many fingers you have on your right hand, your middle name... take your pick of random characteristics.
Here is the "but"... but, when we are using taxpayer money by hiring contractors, arbitrary discrimination must not be allowed. The government must choose to do business only with companies that do not practice discrimination. Taxes are taken by force. As a citizen I don't have a choice to withhold paying taxes. (And gay citizens pay more than a pro rata share of taxes since they are denied the tax benefits that come from marriage). It is abhorrent to have a government that turns around and spends that money on companies that discriminate against gays and gay couples.