06-20-2003, 09:09 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood the premise here. Is the question whether one country is under obligation to honor another country's laws outside of that country's defining borders? If this were the case, then there would be no need for national borders to define the limits of a country's jurisprudence; and hence the question is whether to allow national sovereignty. Is it being asked here if "love" can only exist if sanctioned by a governmental authority in the form of marriage? We are asking the government to be the sanctioning body of, and to define "love"? Is the question whether two (or more) people should be given tax benefits because they choose to associate with each other? Heck, I may love and live with my dog, should I be allowed to marry it so that the state can recognize that 1) love exists in this relationship, and 2) that I (we) can get tax benefits as co-habitants? Sadly this little ad absurdum fits all the criteria for a new definition of marriage - love, living together, being committed, companionship, etc. It only lacks state recognition - you're not a speciesists, are you? Does it diminish the status of marriage, in general, if I marry my dog or am formally committed to a lifetime of love and companionship with a gallon (3.79 liters) of Haagen Daz double chocolate-chip ice cream? (I just love ice cream, it can be a companion when I'm feeling low, a real life-saver.) If one is true and just, can they not love the vast majority of all others who are also true and just? Can I therefore enter into a group marriage with, say, an entire country? Or, is the question here whether marriage can be used as a straw man to attack religion in general, as a benighted superstitious ignorant relic, or simply to be iconoclastic?