Gay Marriage

[Nystul]

So, the government should continue to issue civil unions that would come with all the rights that are now given to people who are legally married.

What rational basis is there for giving special legal rights to 2 adults who sign a contract? Either it is the place of government to support family structure (or make practical concessions to that effect), or it is not. If it is, then it is fair game to have a political discussion on the moral and practical purposes behind the concept of family. If not, all of these legal rights should be dissolved, and a "civil union" would literally be nothing more than a contractual obligation between parties, with the government playing no role other than to settle lawsuits between the parties involved.

I think you are wrong in saying the issue is primarily a legal one. However, insofar as the issue is a legal one, your solution is hardly a compromise. It is giving one side the legislation they want, and hoping to appease the other side by using a euphanism.

[Obi2Kenobi]

You gravitated to the extreme and ludicrous examples

Simply because those are always the examples I encounter. Remember, I originally wrote this article for a different forum of lower calibre.

What if 4 women and 4 men wish to create a polyandrous union and call it marriage?

I left out polygamy simply because under the form of government marriage (that is, Civil unions for all) I want, I would allow polygamy, because I would base most things (like the tax breaks) only on having children. The problem with this is when one spouse dies, how would the money be distributed? (If you'd like me to explain how I would like it to be [polygamous marriage, that is], just ask, and you'll be answered. :) ) The way I would have it would need some of the kinks removed from the system, though.

Since marriage to them is a religious act, by sanctioning gay marriage the state is beginning to trample on the traditions of most major religions.

Which is why I am for giving everyone "Civil Unions". Marriage can be religious.

The state shall impose no law restricting the practice of religion.

It's not. Imposing on them would be preventing churches from performing marriages, whether on homosexuals, heterosexuals, or all together. Or it would be requiring them to perform homosexual marriages.

I'm not sure you had an argument for this one. Are you saying that humans are animals, so anything animals do is ok for humans to do? Not quite compelling, as we have some greater level of self control.

I'm not justifying it because it happens in nature. However, many people call it "an unatural perversion to the natural order of things." I would assume that things that happen in nature on a fairly regular basis is, in fact, natural.

One alternative would be to create something "equal" to marriage like "domestic partner"

But the mere fact that it is different in the case is implying that it's not "worthy" of being called marriage, like it is something less.

[Deadlyman]

Well, since this has actually turned into a real discussion, I think I'll add my two cents.  For me, this issue has caused me to wonder why the government is in the business of legislating *anything* that religious people feel so strongly about.  With that as a given, there is no way to come to a successful resolution that I can see. (actually, that's a whole can of worms, but I'm trying to use it to frame my suggestion, below, so keep those worms in the can for now)

So, in my opinion, the government should get out of the marriage business entirely.  Leave that to churches.  Each church could decide what sort of marriages they would allow.  Now, there are a lot of rights that go along with legal marriage.  So, the government should continue to issue civil unions that would come with all the rights that are now given to people who are legally married.  Marriage is such a loded word, even though the issue is primarily a legal one.

Of course, that will happen about the same time pigs start flying.  But, it's what I'd like to see (no, not the pigs, silly, the civil unions).

Perfect way to summarize things Gris. I always looked at this debate as one with no end to it. We go back and forth on the slippery slope theory, the mental defects, the pros/cons of of gay marriage and still not come to a agreement. It really is up to church or us whether it is allowed, not the government. That is what the country was established under. We have the freedom as a country to say no to something.

[Munkay]

We have the freedom as a country to say no to something.

Possible nit, it may just be due to the way language works.

We individually have a right to individually say no to something, for religious purposes etc, but we do not have the right as a country (as a whole) to say no to something that does not encrouch upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

At least that is the idea behind the constitution. Well, negative freedom self governance is more the idea, but yeah.

I agree with Griselda that government certification of 'marriage' should be replaced with civil unions for all married couples, homo or hetero. And reserve differing religions to make their definition to what counts as religious marriage. I am pretty sure this is what you ment as well, just verifying Deadlyman. :)

[Guest]

It refutes some positions similar to mine, but the actual refutations relie on aspects that do differ from my position.


Of course my arguement is entirly based on an opinion, but its an opinion you cant actually refute.
Although you can take just as valid a position in opposition to me - also based on opinion.

[bigeyedbug]

I always looked at this debate as one with  no end to it.

I think this debate will have an end. I'm going to be extremely suprised if gay marriage isn't legalized in most or all of the United States in 25 years Most people will think the opposition was foolish or sadly close-minded for making such a fuss about it.

[kandrathe]

I'm not justifying it because it happens in nature. However, many people call it "an unatural perversion to the natural order of things." I would assume that things that happen in nature on a fairly regular basis is, in fact, natural.

Ok. Many mammals will eat their young if there is a risk to the nest. Male lions will exterminate any unrelated offspring in a pride. It happens in nature. Taking the devils advocate position, one could take the position that the primary purpose of sexuality in nature is for procreation. The fact that it is pleasurable for humans is a trick of nature to induce us to suffer through child rearing. I think the best defense of any sexuality between adults for non-procreation puposes is that it is of no concern to anyone other than those adults involved. Generally, humans are the exception to the rule when it comes to nature, and I think we are guilty of performing "unnatural acts" in many areas other than sexuality.

But the mere fact that it is different in the case is implying that it's not "worthy" of being called marriage, like it is something less.

Well, it is. It is marriage without all the religious encumberances. Let the devotees of a religion be married, and those who do not want the religious baggage have something else. If the religions want to change to accept homosexuality, then they can offer gay marriages. So, if the Anglicans, for instance, want to allow gay clergy, gay bishops and sanction gay marriages why should the state interfere with that particular sects beliefs? But, until homosexuality is commonly accepted by the culture, a gay marriage by civil union may not be recognized by most churches, and many bigots. The important distinction is that there should be zero difference in how it is treated by the state.

[gekko]

Well, it is.  It is marriage without all the religious encumberances.  Let the devotees of a religion be married, and those who do not want the religious baggage have something else.  If the religions want to change to accept homosexuality, then they can offer gay marriages.  So, if the Anglicans, for instance, want to allow gay clergy, gay bishops and sanction gay marriages why should the state interfere with that particular sects beliefs?  But, until homosexuality is commonly accepted by the culture,  a gay marriage by civil union may not be recognized by most churches, and many bigots.  The important distinction is that there should be zero difference in how it is treated by the state.

In other words, marriage by the church vs marriage by the state.

I used to be a believer in the "sperate but equal" stance -- give homosexuals civil unions, with all the benefits of marriage. Just call it something else. Then I realized how foolish that is.

Marriage already defines a rather broad spectrum of "unions," depending on who performs and recognizes the marriage. So here's the question that finally convinced me that "sperate but equal" is simply not enough: if civil unions and marriages are identical in every way except name, what good is a seperate name?

If we're going to allow civil unions to homosexuals while denying them the term "marriage," then the reasons need to be carefully considered. If the reason for said denial is to appeas the religious groups in the states, then you said it nicely in the above quote: Let the devotees of a religion be married, and those who do not want the religious baggage have something else. If, on the other hand, homosexuals get civil unions while, say, atheist heterosexuals get to be married, then we have a problem. Then we're somehow arguing that a heterosexual atheist couple is religious, while a christian homosexual couple is not.

Personally, I'm still waiting for a solid way that allowing homosexual marriages actually harms anyone. I mean, in canada we had some gay marriages passed through a while back. Did anyone actually feel something when the couples said "I do?" I mean, did the temperature go up a few degrees when that law was passed? Did a bunch of "normal" kids a thousand miles away suddenly *pop!* turn gay?

Taking that just a tad further -- I'm curious if those who stand against homosexual marriages also believe all homosexual activity should be outlawed. In other words, is it only being actively married that causes these social harms? If so, how on earth is that possible? If not, I fail to see how it can be OK to allow gays to be gay, and yet not allow them to be married.

gekko

[Griselda]

Well, I think it's just recognizing the fact that there is a family structure that is fairly common among the population, and giving some legal structure to the issue. I think our culture can take care of the morality issue, even for people who are not religious, and the government's position need not be more than legal. I can't see more people rushing out to get "unions" just because they're only a legal contract. Just about any two unmarried heterosexual adults can become legally married right now, and that need not be more than a contractual obligation between parties if that's what the couple wishes. They might have more difficulty finding a clergyperson (of a major church, anyway) to perform a ceremony in that case, but that's why a legal marriage is *already* different from a church marriage.

Maybe it is a euphamism, but I think it's only the fact that the word "marriage" is being used that most people are up in arms. By any other name, it seems like a majority is in favor of such a thing (the last numbers I heard were about 33% oppose, 33% support, and 33% support only "civil unions").

[eppie]

To Kandrathe and Griselda:

I think the government should arrange marriage. Religion and state should not go together, because anyway you will give some people more rights than others just because they are from the right religion.
Seeing the consequences of marriage to al lot of other things like, taxes, alimony, what happens to the money of the partner of he/she dies etc. it is important that the state arranges this. Here, we have to marry for the state, and if we wnat we can also do it for the church. If you skip the state one, anyone can start their own religion which allows marriage, with cats, computers, 26 wives (well we've al seen the examples in this thread).
So the government should decide what is allowed.

And as I said before, I think they should decide that gays can also get married. Being gay has nothing to do with religion, disease, mental condition or whatsoever....you are or you are not. And seeing as gays are people, they should just have the same rights as heterosexuals. The examples of "what if somebody wants to marry his cat" I find a bit ridiculous, you cannot seriously expect a state to allow these kind of things, if you want to marry your cat, you do have a mental condition. :D
The question if gay couples should be allowed to have kids is different, I would say I'm against on that one. But that is something for another time...
eppie

[Occhidiangela]

First off: eppie, bless you, but you need to catch up to the year 2004. :lol: "religion and state should not go together" is a few hundred years too late.

That togetherness is a matter of fact and record, more or less. The secular state grew out of a religious state, to include most of Europe. The tendrils reach far back. Secular statues in some countries provide for those who cannot fall back on a particular religion, or faith, to lay out the laws/rules/customs/taboos inherent in the socially regognized bonding of a man and woman. Marriage laws grew from marriage customs which grew from tribal and spiritual laws, rites, taboos, and customs.

Insofar as law goes, it is what people make up and agree upon. That process often includes debates such as this one, though hopefully at a higher intellecutal level than many of the posts in this thread. (*Frowns at unrealshadow13.* Raise the level of you offerings, friend, or begone from this place. Think more before you post. Weigh your words more carefully. Bring your self up to the Lurker Standard. Please. ;) )

In a representative government, the bulk of the people need to agree on the rightness of a law, at a visceral level, or its credibility and strength via acceptance and self enforcement will be minimal to nil. (I am sure goldfish will take the piss out of me on the points regarding law. *grins* Lay on MacDuff!)

As to the government arranging marriage, I'll pass. The government is bad enough at what it does already. Let's not add to the burden, and to the list of things going hopelessly wrong. I found my dearly beloved Mrs Occhi without the help of the government, (though I do have a marriage license from the State of Texas) and I hope my daughter finds a husband on her own, my son a wife on his own. Any prospective husband of my daughter will have to work past the Occhi barrier first anyway, and doing that will show me his mettle, I'll not give it my blessing otherwise. Pikers need not apply.

But back to THE TOPIC opening this silly thread.

This post refers to an oxymoron. Homosexual marriage -- not gay marriage -- is a term of nonsense. (I was feeling happy and gay the day I got married, and not a little tipsy, what with the sips of Glenmorangie my brother provided me with pre-altar). Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, or a man and many women. Some cultures apparently had one wife many men customs, I am not sure of the specifics. Pick your culture, but on the planet earth, one of the few cross boundary rites and ceremonies that is universal is that of marriage. The union and social fusing, or the older version of the accumulation of feminine/male chattel, "two flesh become one" (and use some KY, fella, yer lover had a jalapeno vindaloo curry chicken dinner last night) of two same genders folks is a rite that does not have a few thousand years of habit and almost universal currency around the globe, so it must have A different name.

Just don't call it marriage, since it is not one. Agree on it or don't, then give it a name.

A codification that earns the kind of universal norming that marriage now has may well evolve over time for the lesbians and fairiescumrump rangers (cynical terms used deliberately: I am tired of the hijacking of the word "gay" by the homosexual community, damnit). The decisions in the Netherlands may be a revolutionary step forward, or it may be a step in the hedonization of Western Society similar to the sabyritic practices of Ancient Rome. Who knows? Or, a third path may be shoveled through the avalanche of BS that surrounds the topic, and one that works.

One should note, when as a liberal one wants to extol Muslims for having contributed so much to modern culture (OK, thanks for the numbers, what have you done for me lately?) that in Arab and Muslim cultures, and in some Oriental cultures, homosexual marriage is not being promoted or pursued with vigor. That is not to say that homosexuality, and in particular pederasty, are not condoned -- it often is --but the activity is in no way confused with marriage and the creation of a family and blood legacy.

Let's talk just a bit about Pederasty in the Modern World, shall we? That's what is at the bottom of this. Lesbians have the best case to make, what with all of the women who lost husbands in wars who still raised their sons and daughters, since they can circumvent the biological problem of matched genitalia via either in vitro methods or use of a man purely for stud functions. (What man could resist the free mating moment? I imagine some could, but many a young and fertile "stud" teen could easily be enlisted or hired to suit)

In Afghanistan, and in many of the Arab states, something similar to the Roman practice of pederasty mentioned above, the buggering of boys, teens, or men by other men for sexual pleasure, is not infrequently practiced. I get two different reports from our culturally "in the know" folks out here, but at either 16 or 18, the shame line is drawn in re being on the receiving end of an afternoon's buggery. I think it is 18 here in Qatar, and in Iraq.

In Afghanistan a number of my colleagues serving in the Marines were puzzled, shocked, or otherwise bewildered by the rather noticeable stable of 'pretty boys' that some of the Warlords who they dealt with kept around them. Men in Afghanistan are some tough, fighting sunzabitches, the same Marines assured me. What struck them as odd, but which is explained somewhat by the cultural habits in re women as chattel and as brood mares, was these ferocious fighters being so fond of buggery as a hobby. A look into any American prison would probably have been instructive, I think.

Pederasty is also promoted for commercial purposes. See the "sex tourism" in Thailand and Philippines, and I suspect China: it is well known that young boys, or approximations thereof, as sex pleasure vessels are part of touristic advertising.

So, let's call a fag a fag, and not a cigarette. Should the fag marry? No, he can't, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Can society craft suitable codification for a legally sanctioned arrangement for two homosexuals, be they man or woman, so that they can go, in circumstances where such a will evolves, beyond the merely carnal and into the spiritual . . . with complete social sanction?

Sure, I suppose so. Society has to agree to do so first, and it takes someone to raise and defend the idea. It won't happen in Iraq or Saudi Arabia any time soon, but who cares? Just please, call it, whatever it is, somehting else, not marriage.

The Netherlands has made such a codification, Massachusettes and California have attempted to do so. Canada has done so.

Should it be done? *scratches head* My gut feel says No, it is not necessary, there are heterosexual couples arrangements that work without the marriage, so too homosexual couples can simply be a couple.

What is at stake is not a freedom to choose a life style, it is a freedom to choose AND to accrue the already agreed benifits that a society invests into marriages: benefits that were tailored to the institution of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman, in the interest of promoting a stable society and procreation of its self. It may be for the good of society to do so for lesbians and homosexuals.

I admit to being imperfectly equipped with a functioning crystal ball that can show me the outcome of such a societal decision, as has been done in the Netherlands. It might have beneficial long term effects, it might not.

Ini any case, in this discussion let's stop, please, confusing the difference a lifestyle, one based on how one get's ones carnal pleasure, and on the combination of spiritual and legal bonds that have the full APPROVAL of society. Current marriage forms do. Polyandry does not, in America, though in other nations IT DOES. Bigamy is a valid approach in some places, but NOT HERE. Hence, homosexual marriage may be OK elsewhere, BUT NOT HERE. (at present)

I have said enough. Back to your usual conversation.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

I've stayed out of it this far and plan to continue to do so. But your argument is too persuasive to let pass unanswered. And the answer is simple. It is not the gays that are screwing with the meaning of of the word "marriage". That has been done and done well by government and industry. Start by changing the wording in all the laws and regulations that mix the religious concept of marriage with the legal concept of civil union.

Frankly, I find it strange that people get up in arms (supposedly) about the "misuse" of the world "marriage" (as in, "I'm not a homophobe, just don't let them call it marriage") but ignore the rest of the bastardization of the language that goes on constantly. Tell me, do you write posts when someone uses "presently" for "now"? Does the fact that people are forever mixing up "infer" and "imply" make you want a Constitutional Amendment? Are you supporting a letter campaign to the auto makers and the DOT over the grammatical and physical inanity of "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"?

Every time time I hear, "I don't care if they do it, just don't let them use the word 'marriage'", I wonder if there isn't a touch of "protest too much". To me, that is the educated homophobe's argument.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

The strength of my position is the universial nature of marriage as a bond between man and woman -- up to the present.

I can can call a pig a goat, but it is not one. As the old wizards in a hundred mythologies assert, to know the true name of something is to hold power over it. (Ursula K LeGuinn first introduced that idea to me in the Earthsea stories.) To corrupt the Name is thus, in part, an attempt to corrupt the Thing. (Hmmm, that is a bit Hegelian.) The power of words is no small part of the debate, as I am sure you are aware. Controlling and or choosing the language of a discussion is a means of using leverage to achieve one's end, while attempting to appear objective. Ask any lawyer. The problem, of course, in that path of discussion is that laws, codified habits and practices, are extremely semantics and meaning dependent. That informs my attack on the sloppy terms used. The general sloppiness in the public discussion disturbs me, partly due to my own background in crafting doctrinal tenets and policies. That exercise also requires careful consideration of each word chosen.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't call an strut a cantilever.

The name calling and semantic hair splitting is hardly gracious, particularly the use of terms that polite company no longer use, and the shock value was deliberate. "twas also a chance to indulge, once again, in some locker room humor. Call me a curmudgeon, but I weary of all of the dancing about the point. Sometimes, a cripple is a cripple. Other times, a boor is a boar, which is a pig. ;)

While such chaffe certainly detracts from my original, and most culturally grounded point, the real frustration with the growing practice of obfuscation is personal. Getting the words right matters to me, and always has. (Hey, has Occhi ever been a Grammarian? DOH!) The narrowness of the Reader's Digest version of the position pro as portrayed in much of the "one page deep" discussion in the media, and on discussion forums such as this one, is that the act of choosing a partner based on an unconventional premise, same gender, renders irrelevant the nature of the formal pairing being of opposite gender that it is aping.

Where you mistake me is in assuming that what was probably a case of what is now called homophobia in my teenage years has sustained into adulthood. That is an easy impression to be left with based on some of the language in the post. As many of my friends have noted, I am prone to sometimes cut through the BS to get at a particular point. Tactless is another term used in conjunction with my name. When I get a chance to share a real cup of Joe with you in person, we can discuss the wherefore and why.

But back to the discussion at hand. Since laws and social customs are the focus of the debate as it stands now, since simple homosexual behavious is far more socially accepted and condoned that it was even thirty years ago, imprecision in the language is exactly what must be stamped out.

Examine the assumptions, you warn us many time, Pete, in a variety of conversations. That is worth doing in this discussion as well. My desire to apply that guidance in this case is an effort, among other things, to expose how damned hard and how detailed the effort must be to get the proper level of social support for the new norm to include the same gender pairing, if that is to become codified in law. If we get one thing right on this topic, let's get the law that gets crafted to codify the formal, versus the "living together informal," social relationship of two homosexual or lesbian Americans, right the first time: or at least as right as possible. If the vast majority choose to call it marriage, it will be over my objection on the grounds of calling a pig a goat, however, like some other laws I disagree with, I'll accept it as "good enough for government work." That standard is all that many of our laws can claim to have met.

It takes buy in, if it is a law, since laws are commonly agreed on, via whatever law making process there is in a society, norms of behaviour. If the evolution of our own laws and our own cultural attidudes is the direciton of pro, versus contra, so be it. In the end, such a course of action could well reduce the aggregate amount of hate and discontent in our country, which would be a good thing, and even extend the number of people indulging in the pursuit of happiness.

That end is part of why the public discusssion of this topic is worth considering and participating in.

But for my money, let it be done without cloaking the detail in shadow. Get it all, and I mean all, out in the open. (I know I have!)

I still can find no logic from a pragmatic point of view regarding the lesbian couples, based on the finite factors I consider, but I am not the King. In truth, there are more factors to consider before all is sad and done than I am willing to take the time to consider at present.

Allegedly, the laws in a representative society require the buy in of the citizen, though that ideal is not as common as many of us would like. At present, the discussion is quite polarized. So too was the heated debate on "Women's Lib" and more importantly "Women's suffrage." In time, the country has ended up better off with both.

PS: thanks for the link. :lol: You unintentionally hit upon, in the depths an entitlement issue regarding military pensions that I will not get into here, an extremely sore subject, based on completely subjective, outdated, and in my mind BS assumptions.

[Guest]

The strength of my position is the universial nature of marriage as a bond between man and woman -- up to the present.

I can can call a pig a goat, but it is not one. As the old wizards in a hundred mythologies assert, to know the true name of something is to hold power over it. (Ursula K LeGuinn first introd....ws in a representative society require the buy in of the citizen, though that ideal is not as common as many of us would like. At present, the discussion is quite polarized. So too was the heated debate on "Women's Lib" and more importantly "Women's suffrage." In time, the country has ended up better off with both.

'


I had to look up 9 words to read your post and I still don't get it :huh:

[Griselda]

Since it's been overnight since I posted, I'll use bad form and reply to myself rather than editing.

If only churches performed actual marriages, but homo- and hetero- sexual unions were available from the state, I would expect some churches, even mainstream ones, to offer homosexual marriages. There's a church down the street from me (I never have paid attention to what kind of church it is) that has a "rainbow" sticker on its signpost. I'd guess that, at least eventually, such a church would offer homosexual marriages. So, I'm not proposing only civil unions for homosexual couples.

I'm sure that won't make you more likely to agree with me (probably the opposite), but I felt I should clarify fow whatever it's worth.

[Occhidiangela]

Spend more time looking up the words, and for that matter, reading the 19th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution, and you will be better off for it. :)

Link to the U.S. Constitution

Bill of Rights -- which are the first 10 Amendments

AMendments 11 through 26

USS Constitution -- a neat Age of Sail Ship now parked in Boston Harbor

Why do I suggest this?

Learning new words, and fitting them into how and why someone used them expands your mind, even if after you understand it better you disagree. The site for the ship is just neat, as is the ship itself. :D

I also apologize, to all and sundry, for not being a bit tighter with my prose, one more edit might have made the post more easily understood.

[Occhidiangela]

That if the congregation of the church endorses it, the marriage in that church will have all the sanctity necessary for cementing the spiritual bond the couple seeks, assuming the state of grace one normally feels in a church at a wedding, is reached during the proceedings by the hearts in the congregation.

I can't remember where it was, I think it was in Dallas, but some months ago there was an immense tiff in the Episcopalean Church which threatens to split it, over whether or not The Church will condone or perform homosexual marriages. I think there are already homosexual and lesbian clerbymen in that Church, but I may have remembered incorrectly.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Where you mistake me is in assuming that what was probably a case of what is now called homophobia in my teenage years has sustained into adulthood.

Nope, since I made no assumptions about *your* state of mind at all. I called the *argument* that of a educated homophobe. And it is. However, that all horses have hair doesn't make all hairy beasts horses.

As to the rest, if wine can be married to food, then I contend the word has become sufficiently imprecise to cover a multitude of relationships, both animate and inanimate, and the argument from grammar does not impress me.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

In descriptive writing, a figurative use of marry, to reflect a joining in harmony of two different things, is certainly appropriate. Hmmm, let's try our hand at this, eh?

"How merry to marry, within one's palate, some smoked salmon, with capers and onions, and a Pinot Grigiot. The consummation on a bed of Swedish crackers leaves the taste buds gently wriggling in a pleasurable, sensual glow." Gawd, prolix prose can get syrupy. I am rusty. :P

In law, where literal meanings are and should be pounded into the dust, both in creating the law itself and in the aftermath and later challenges in courts, extreme precision in usage and meaning are mandatory. Would that the ideal was met by the standard folks are willing to accept.

That English has the attribute of rapidly changing usage and meaning helps nothing, true enough, but it does allow for folks to find loopholes, and even to exercise the Humpty Dumpty approach to communication, argument, and meaning.

Funnily enough, that is an enabling feature of the language, for all that it frustrates me. I have used words to be deliberately vague in proposing policy, in order to allow for "wiggle room" and flexibility.

Occhi
Rogue who needs to craft shorter posts

[--Pete]

Hi,

In law, where literal meanings are and should be pounded into the dust, both in creating the law itself and in the aftermath and later challenges in courts, extreme precision in usage and meaning are mandatory.

Yes. But the lawmakers are also members of society and thus subject to social assumptions. So, when the tax code was (re)written, and the categories "married filing jointly", "married filing separately", "unmarried head of household" were established, what was the *intent*? Do two people living together without children constitute a "family"? Does some number of people living together and raising children?

The point, again, is that the word "marriage" is already being used by government and industry to mean something other than it means in religion (which is again different from what it means in society). Now, either the lawmakers indeed need to use "extreme precision in usage and meaning" and rewrite the laws to say what they mean or we have to examine the words used in the context of the society that the lawmakers lived in.

After all, if in two hundred years the word 'voter' can evolve from 'adult white Anglo-Saxon male with real property' to 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude' and '. . . on account of sex' and '. . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax' and '. . . on account of age (though they did slip that bit about "eighteen years of age or older") then I think there might just be some room to expand the *legal* definition of marriage. After all, as you implied, the legal definition is not always in total accord with the common usage.

--Pete