From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:31:31 GMT

In article <oqsrgjc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.172311.20815@rossinc.com> steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>
>>But "marriage" is also a very traditional, very Christian kind of
>>institution.  People should approach it as such.  Let the Christians have
>>their contract (but separate church and state, dammit!).  This talk about
>>making the institution of Marriage more "open" seems rather
>>counterproductive to me--I think people would be better off creating a
>>secular replacement for the marriage contract and work to get that
>>recognized throughout our legal system.  People demanding that the current
>>institution of marriage be changed seems to me a lot like atheists
>>demanding they be allowed to be catholic priests.
>
>Ideally, I agree with you.  However, when I look at the situation and
>realistically try and assess how to change it, I think that my chances of
>getting the entire federal government to change its definition of what
>"marriage" is are rather slim.  The government is okay at changing its
>definitions.  However, I don't think that it can get rid of one definition,
>ie marriage as it stands today, and implement a new definition "marriage
>replacement institution", for example.
>

I'm not thinking changing the current system, I'm thinking about building
ANOTHER system along side the current one.  There are lots of people in
the US that are perfectly happy with the current system: fine, let them
have it.  I just think there might be enough people to create a new
institution along side of the current one.

>I would be equally happy with either of the following solutions:
>
>1.  Remove all secular implications of marriage.  You can still set
>up contracts between people, but the government does not consider single
>people and differently from married people.
>

Yes, this would absolutely be the first step in accomplishing anything:
get the government out the business of giving "married" people special
privileges.

>2.  Redefine the groups which can become married to include any group of
>consenting adults, regardless of number or gender of the adults involved.
>

Well, here you're getting into the business of changing an institution
that too many people are happy with.

>
>Realistically, I think goal 2 will be acheived more readily than goal 1.
>This is not saying that it will be an easy task, just easier.
>
>
>Jeff
>-FWA

Actually, I think that, realistically, the following scenario might be
plausible: a new form of marriage is created, privately--think of it as
a legal "form-contract".  This contract could become known among the
legal system, such that lawyers and judges know about the contract
and that people generally know what it means to sign it--in other words,
they know generally what they'd be getting into before actually seeing
the contract (just like most people today know, generally, what their
getting into [legally speaking!] when they get married).

Then, after millions of people use this new form of marriage instead of
the current one, there might be political clout to remove the special
privileges that the "other" institution has (depending on the ruling
party, they also might vote to give the other institution the same
privs :-(  ).

I definately agree that none of this changes overnight.  But I think
this is a plausible long-term plan to give people another choice
for consumating personal romantic relationships.  Note that this
can all be started without popular vote, without electing a
LP-controled congress, etc...

||-------
Steve R. Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

"You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator."
        - Lisa Simpson

Xref: sparky ca.politics:6741 ba.politics:4473