(May 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In the United States, LBGT couples are free practice the sacrement of marriage within denominations that allow the practive. Although those marriages are not legally recongnized by the states, in most states civil unions between LBGT couples enjoy the same legal benefits as those of heterosexual marriages. There is no real civil rights issue. Civil unions and tradional marriages are equal before the law.
On a local level, but not a federal level. This overlooks over 1000 different federal laws that affect the couple in the relationship. Such laws are laws states cannot affect. Immigration. Taxes. Inter-state custody disputes. The list goes on. So, no, they aren't equal.
(May 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Nevertheless, same sex marriage presents a number of problems. First, American culture has always defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Tweeking that definition could reopen our historical fight against polygamy, only this time with Mulsims instead of Mormons. I consider that a very real possibility.
This is a slippery slope argument and applies to all liberties if true. Luckily it isn't. Guns are legal. Bazookas aren't. It's the role of SCOPUS and the courts to define specific boundaries as they change and deal with said issues on a case-by-case basis. Overall they do an adequate job.
(May 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Also, common law practices that have grown around the traditional understanding of marriage, like divorce, child custody, and inheritence, cannot easily accommodate alternate definitions. For example, if a man and a woman room togethor for 7 years then common law considers them married. While it’s unlikely, in theory the 7-year roommate of another man, could claim inheretance rights to the other man’s property over the objections of blood relatives.The same argument would apply to roommates of a different sex. Why not make marriage illegal? Because this is a challenge to the boundaries of common law legal disputes, not the civil liberties of adults.
(May 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Finally, govenments can and should recognize differneces between different types of relationships when they affect society in different ways. Tax laws recognize this distinction because heterosexual couples often produce children and there is a compelling governemet interest in recognizing the uniqueness of this situation.
The real benefit is not child bearing, it is the stability of the household. Dependent persons (unemployed, sick, minors, etc.) cost money.
Stable households relieve the government of a very significant amount of welfare oversight. This is the real reason spouses get a tax break: if they get a little more money now, they can take better care of the children and one another and it relieves a greater cost/benefit burden off of the government. It is in many of the legal discussions on the topic.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate by the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
- Dennis the peasant.
- Dennis the peasant.


