More Hateful Bile on Gay "Marriage"

[dgs49]

I have been told (but cannot confirm) that in the little town in Italy where my in-laws grew up, when a couple wanted to become engaged, they would trot on down to the Italian equivalent of a Justice of the Peace and get “married” by the government. They would not live together at that time, or “consummate” the marriage. Then, when they really want to get married, they would have a big church wedding, and start living together.

I describe this custom because it illustrates what I think should be the key point in the “gay marriage” debate: There is a difference between what the government describes as “marriage,” and what the Church defines as marriage, and that’s completely OK.

Let me provide a few illustrations to prove the point. If a person gets married before a JP, the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize that marriage. If he later gets divorced and wants to get married in the Catholic church, it is not a problem because the Church doesn’t recognize that the person was ever married before. Similarly, the State doesn’t have to recognize the marriage of a couple who are married in a religious ceremony, without a marriage license. In the eyes of the couple and in “God’s” eyes (presumably) they are married, but not in the view of the state. If they later want a divorce, the state courts need not take jurisdiction over the issue (but could if they want to), since there was never a cognizable marriage.

So what difference does it make if the State decides to define marriage differently than the Church? Not much, in my opinion. While I recognize that most of our marriage laws are now based on a paradigm of Husband-Wife-Kids, it does no harm to re-think that paradigm and change it, or create other paradigms for other quasi-marital relationships. Same sex, multiple partner, communal, elderly partners, inter-species, whatever. The State should only be concerned about protecting its legitimate interests in property ownership (and orderly transfer of ownership), inheritance, division of property upon breakup, child custody, insurance, and things of that nature. If they can set up rules that make sense for each of the types of relationships they recognize, then why should it be a problem for anyone in other types of relationships, or who are not availing themselves?

And it's none of the Federal Government's business. If it's a problem for the IRS or HHS or NPR, fuck 'em. Let them work something out.

[Scooter]

Who are you and what did you do with Dave?

[Sue U]

[Sean]

LMAO - I was waiting for a tirade at the end of that post which never arrived...

[Lord Jim]

Well......

This suggests to me:

Same sex, multiple partner, communal, elderly partners, inter-species, whatever.

That this could be tongue-in-cheek....

[Scooter]

funny, all it suggested to me was that that is the level upon which he puts same-sex relationships

[rubato]

"...

I describe this custom because it illustrates what I think should be the key point in the “gay marriage” debate: There is a difference between what the government describes as “marriage,” and what the Church defines as marriage, and that’s completely OK.

...

So what difference does it make if the State decides to define marriage differently than the Church? Not much, in my opinion. ... If they can set up rules that make sense for each of the types of relationships they recognize, then why should it be a problem for anyone in other types of relationships, or who are not availing themselves?

And it's none of the Federal Government's business. If it's a problem for the IRS or HHS or NPR, fuck 'em. Let them work something out.

"

Dave's turned liberal on us!

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Not tongue in cheek. The "inter-species" was an attempt at humor. Sorry.

I fear I am out of step with most social conservatives on this issue. But as usual, I'm right and they are wrong.

[BoSoxGal]

dgs!