And you could plausibly support such a proposal by pointing to objectively verifiable statistical data that reflexes, eyesight and hearing tend to diminish at or around age 75, creating deficits that significantly affect driving skill. Thus a test for an individual, with loss of license upon failure, is a defensible imposition in the interest of public safety.
What is the corresponding deficit, the threat to public safety, in a homosexual relationship that justifies denying access to marriage? If it’s just “procreation”, this has been dealt with and dismissed, and if it’s “tradition”, likewise. A 28 year-old driver in full command of his faculties could be killed by a 75 year-old driver who is not. How might a heterosexual marriage be “killed” or “threatened” or even “inconvenienced” by a gay marriage?
If magellan won’t answer me, could someone ask him these questions on my behalf? Thanks.
Without the Christian vote, the conservatives with only the racist vote to back them up would not have the political power to go after minorities like they have been doing for the past 60 years.
On further reflection, I think I get what magellan is describing:
Hypothetical civil code:
Section 1. “Marriage” is defined as…
Section 2. “Civil Union” is defined as…
Section 3. The set of privileges and responsibilities associated with “Marriage” (see Section 1) and “Civil Union” (see Section 2) is listed below. Any modifications to this list affect both “Marriage” and “Civil Union”. It is not lawful to create exceptions.
Section 3.1. If one spouse is injured the other can make medical decisions…
Section 3.2. Property inheritance…
Section 3.3. Marital confidence in court proceedings…
Section 3.4. Divorce procedures…
… 1000 or so additional sections reflecting the current state of marital law…
Thus, “one set” of laws, I guess, though I’d think of it as two sets with a 99.9% overlap, as long as “marriage” and “civil union” are defined separately.
Does any state actually keep an omnibus list of marital rights and responsibilities? I was under the impression that references to marriage pop up in various statutes across the entire legal code. Tracking them all down and modifying them to specifically expand them to cover civil unions would be quite the undertaking.
Yeah, that’s exactly what he’s describing, as near as I can tell. He seems to think that because section 1 and section 2 both point to section 3, it can be described as one set of laws. I, and most other folks, see that section 1 and section 2 are also part of the relevant sets of laws, and so he’s talking about two different sets of laws (one set including section 1 and one set including section 2).
Which is less a “true” marriage, a childless marriage or a loveless marriage?
Sometimes I wonder if any gay marriage opponents are married or even know anyone who is married. Think of what the focus is on when dating gives way to engagement then the early years of marriage and then fast forward to the later post child-rearing years. Doesn’t the love and companionship transcend the child-rearing process?
If a couple hasn’t had children yet, or if they’re children are grown, or they’re never going to have children, they’re marriage is still a marriage.
Given the nature of many of the arguments against same sex marriage, I’ve often thought that many of its opponents must be stuck in deeply unhappy marriages, or look forward to them, since they seem to conceive of marriage as practically a curse.
When you actually look at the arguments, it frequently comes down to “women need a reliable way to trap men into raising children with them” or “a supernatural entity forces us into legal agreements so that we may procreate and please him, and if we don’t he’ll harm us now or torture is in the afterlife.” The fact that love and companionship motivate the desire to recognize same sex marriage almost seems to be a negative.
