From: mason@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Mason)
Subject: Re: Presidential talk
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:00:52 GMT

lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:

>Can't speak for Leah, but I feel quite a bit superior for having established
>my heterosexual marriage, compared with homosexual marriages. However, it has
>NOTHING to do with whether the government recognizes it or not - our REAL
>marriage was an agreement between the two of us, and secondarily we had it
>also blessed by (her) church, and (again, her) government. And I feel very

The key is that "marriage" as an institution is necessarily within the
domain of the church.  The state seems to have become involved in
marriage to adjudicate on property rights/disposal; however, this
involvement has gone far beyond that in that now it confers SPECIAL
RIGHTS on married hets over either married gays or single people.
IMHO, this is a violation of the equality provision of the U.S.
Constitution.

>lucky to have found such a delightful woman that has not been exposed to the
>constant barrage of liberal propaganda that basically ALL American women have
>been - she has the most refreshing views on sexual roles and child-rearing...
>any of you other guys out there had it with the Women's (excuse me, WoPerson's,
>oops, WoPerChilds') Movement? I found a neat way to go OUTSIDE of the game...

Glad you get the chance to become the patriarch you always wanted to
be.  :-|

>> IMHO, the state has no business in
>> engaging itself in the marriage business anyway; the social contract
>> is between the INDIVIDUAL and the state. 

>What does the "social contract" between individuals and the state (which as
>near as I can tell is about the same as the "contract" between a small 
>business owner and a protection racketteer, or a homeowner and a burglar) have
>to do with the (considerably more real) social contract between a man and a
>woman who wish to establish a family?

As a libertarian, you view the government as a coercive agent.  So how
is it then that you APPROVE of the government's bestowing ADDITIONAL
PRIVILEGES on (or, viewed from another perspective, SPECIAL INTRUSION
into the lives of) married hets?  I would think that under a
libertarian government, marriage as a STATE institution would be
completely abolished.

>> But as long as the state is
>> going to recognize SOME marriages, it's going to have to recognize ALL
>> marriages.

>Say, between an Albanian herdsman and his favorite sheep? One involving an 8
>year old child? Anyone really think there should be NO line drawn ANYWHERE,
>other than this gentleman?

Sheep aren't people, and you know that; they cannot give consent.  To
offer this as an example of where gay marriages lead is nothing but
fear mongering.  If you think a line should be drawn somewhere, who
better than the individual to draw it?  How can you as a libertarian
advocate the GOVERNMENT's drawing that line for you or for anyone?
That's what's happening now.

>> Admit it, hets hedge when confronted with gay marriages,
>> etc., because they realize these are areas in which they themselves
>> enjoy SPECIAL PRIVILEGES!!!!!!

>I don't hedge at all. And yes, we do enjoy a very special priviledge, which is
>the ability to create new human life. Not real sure how you are planning to
>get the government to grant that "right" to homosexual couples....

The ability to bear children exists independent of the government.  If
you're saying that because a fertile het couple possesses the ability
to create life, then they deserve SPECIAL RIGHTS, then I disagree
completely.  As you point out later on, not all het couples are
capable of bearing children.  If the special rights given to married
hets by the government were predicated on this ability, then not all
married hets would be eligible for this special treatment.


>Now if the "special privileges" you are referring to are tax breaks for "real"
>married couples, it is not clear if these really exist. Many couples where

Taxes, no matter how reconed, are inherently unfair.  As long as married
couples receive no special treatment over and above singles or married
gays, then their taxes should be no different.

One particular SPECIAL PRIVILEGE to which I was referring is
immigration.  You yourself had the ability to bring your spouse into
the country and have the government recognize that you were together.
Specifically, the government recognizes the relationship between you.
When my spouse and I came into the country four years ago (I am a US
citizen who was living abroad for a number of years), the government
asks for what reason he is coming into the country.  Officially, the
government treats him as a single man who is in the country for a
certain specific purpose (and thus a certain specific immigration
category), which of course is ancillary to the fact that WE'RE
TOGETHER, but the government does not recognize that.  Because you're
a het, you get special rights.

>If you are referring to the ability to adopt children, in the event (which has
>got to be FAIRLY common in homosexual marriages) that you can't make one
>the "old-fashioned way"... I really feel that it is extremely unfair to any
>child to be raised by two parents of the same sex, and of a sexual persuasion 
>that the bulk of society considers to be abnormal. Such a child cannot be
>considered to have a fair chance of fitting into society, or having normal,
>healthy relationships later in life.

And Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan give you A+'s for completely
swallowing their rhetoric.  It's a catch-22; you're saying that
children raised in gay families are not going to be well adjusted
because the "bulk of society" (gotta love that fibre content) think
they're abnormal.  But why do they think they're abnormal?  Perhaps
it's in part because they don't see EXAMPLES of gay and lesbian
families.

>Being raised by a single parent of either
>sex isn't a great deal better. The conventional family is a good solution that
>has worked well since before recorded history...

That's bunk.  By the "conventional family" I assume you mean the
nuclear, Ward and June family (one man, one woman, one or more
children).  Fairly recent phenomenon.  More common family structures
are tribal and extended families.  Extended families were in fact the
norm in this country until the 20th century.  The nuclear family was
made possible by the industrial age and capitalism, which turns out to
be its very undoing.  For if one member of the nuclear family (the
man) could go off and gain "employment" and remuneration associated
with it, then it was only a matter of time before women would follow
suit.  Other family structures have become possible because of the
economics of the way we live.  What's best is, IMHO, up to the INDIVIDUAL;
I don't want or need the government saying that your relationship
is any better or worse than mine.  Our decisions, our consequences.

>Larry "so there" Hughes

-Jim "my spellchecker doesn't grok 'WoPerChilds'" Mason

  ACTION == LIFE
        \     	   Jim Mason                              --------------
         \    	   NTI Systems Group                         Standard  
        / \   	   NASA/Marshall Space Flight Centre        Disclaimer 
       /   \  	   +1 205 544 2122                        --------------
 SILENCE == DEATH
Newsgroups: hsv.general