From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 13:13:03 PST

In <1993Jan4.125617.21266@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>:

>In article <1993Jan1.004804.21349@novell.com> Brendan B. Boerner,
>bboerner@novell.com writes:
>> In article <1992Dec31.135710.867@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
>> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>> >I have heard an suggestion that might, in principle, satisfy both camps.
>> >Since marriage (at least the definition of marriage that excludes gays)
>is a
>> >religious institution, perhaps the solution is to say that one may not
>grant
>> >benefits, rights, or privledges based on marital (i.e. religious) status.
>> >This would open us up to the creation of a form of "contractual" (i.e.
>> >legal) spousal relationship that would make one eligible for such things
>as
>> >employment benefits.  This way, one may be "married" in a religious
>sense, a
>> >legal sense, or both, at the individual's option.  After all, the whole
>> >issue of samesex marriages arose because we made the mistake of using a
>> >religious ceremony in a nonreligious context.
>>
>> Nope, it wouldn't satisfy the camp opposed to leaving the gay community
>> alone  we ALREADY have the ability to distinguish between a
>> "religious" and a "legal" marriage.  For instance, you can get married
>> by a JP which is legally binding and never get married in a religious
>> ceremony.  On the flip side, I imagine you can have a religious
>> ceremony but never be legally married (at the weddings I've been too,
>> the couple signs something in front of the minister and a witness
>> before the ceremony is over, presumably this is to create a legal
>> marriage at the same time as the religious one).  However, even if a
>> couple does get religiously married and not legally, then the common
>> law of some states might kick in and they would be considered legally
>> married.
>
>The best argument for gay marriages is that such life partners are not
>eligible for benefits that marriage partners get.  The best argument against
>is that, since marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, to allow
>marriages contrary to religious morality would be blasphemy.

Let's play Devil's advocate here.  Well, let's say that government entities
should be required to recognize same-sex marriages.  I refuse to tow the line
that private sector entities must also give benefits to gays if they aren't
so inclined.  For them, it's a business decision:  pay for the benefits for
gays or face the boycotts if they don't.  Depending on the size if the boy-
cotts, they may or may not capitulate to public opinion.

Having said that, let's assume that no government entity should be allowed to
discriminate based on orientation.  But now we still have two classes here:
"married" (in some sense) and single.  Now, since married people get special
tax breaks and other government goodies not available to singles, isn't the
government discriminating against singles?  Not everyone has a choice to marry
(I know people who desparately want to marry but can't find a suitable mate
or no mate will have them).  Why not end all privileges and be fair to every-
one?

>> In any case, I would think that those opposed to granting "special"
>> rights to gays would still insist that legal marriage for gays is a
>> "special" right.

>You're right, of course.  The real root of this problem is that so many
>people see equal treatment for gays as some kind of "special right" to which
>they are not entitled.

That's the debate about Colorado's Amendment 2.  Gay rights advocates insist
that it denies basic rights to gays.  Supporters of the amendment say that it
merely disallows "special victim" status to them.  Like most things, I'll bet
that the truth is in between somewhere.


Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh