02-26-2004, 04:53 AM
(Nico, this is not reply to you, I put it here cuz it addresses multiple subthreads.)
First of all, "hear hear" to Pete and Cryptic, and thanks to Bone.
My question for those in favor of "defending the sanctity":
1. How do you enforce the proposed amendment or even DOMA? Genital checks? Blood/DNA tests? Don't laugh about the genital checks, it has happened, sort of. In formerly authoritarian Romania, women would have their privates checked AT THEIR PLACE OF WORK so that the employers (the state) could monitor their menstrual cycles; this was done to prevent possible abortions, which were illegal. (This is why I believe conservatives in this country can just as easily go authoritarian as any communist group.) And what about those that go under the knife and hormone treatments, do they qualify as having changed their gender or do you go to DNA? Did you know that scientifically speaking, gender is not an "either-or" proposition? There are numerous things that can go wrong during development. Do you consider an XYY person more of a man, or less of a man? Do you consider single-X people to be women? Into which category falls the person who is XY but whose genes did not properly transmit the right signals to the developing cells to become male? Do you deny all these people the right to form a government-recognized bond with someone? (Anyone?)
2. There is a "rich cultural history" of polygamy, too. Why doesn't it command your respect, too? If I'm correct, muslim men are allowed up to four wives (or 72 in heaven, right?). That's 1500 years. IIRC Solomon had many wives. It's a cultural thing, you wouldn't understand. What's that? We have to make marriage into a union of two that have equal rights before the law? Well then what's their ding-dongs and oysters got to do with anything??
3. If this amendment is to protect the Judeo-Christian "sanctity" of marriage, it has NO PLACE in the Constitution, as that is a religious tenet that is defining who may marry who. If we're afraid of slippery slopes, why not consider the slope toward more strictly defined marriages? Why can't we go on to say that old men can only marry old women, that marriage can only happen between literate people, or only between healthy people capable of producing children? Should my wife and I disband now that we cannot produce children the natural way anymore? Can I claim Biblical perogative and try to impregnate our cleaning lady instead?? That's the Bible precedent for you. I don't think my wife cares for that precedent tho.
4. The rights of the wife. Marriage used to be, and to some degree still is, the guarantee a man would make that he would not run off after siring a few rugrats, leaving the economically disadvantaged (it was a man's world) woman to raise them alone. (Sometime it's the mama who runs tho) Well, I think the rights of women have caught up in terms of the courts assigning legal responsibility. Courts may still hold any man, regardless of marital status, responsible for the raising of the child. Marriage is no longer necessary in this regard. Furthermore, it used to be that women who gave it up to one man were not desired socially by men, they were "fallen women". Aren't we past that now? We don't need marriage for this reason any more, right??
5. The children. Yes, it is optimal to be raised by a loving father and mother, but look at the hetero marriages these days... does the presence of a marriage prevent the parents from splitting up these days? Not at all. Sanctity my arse. Parents are supposed to be responsible whether they are married or not. Those sharing a household for several years are in general subject to the same legal ramifications if they split as a divorcing couple. And while the diversity of having two genders as parents is admirable, I think the presence of two loving parents is better than just one. Since I believe that single people should be able to adopt, why not two people who are committed to each other?
6. Promiscuity. That's your fear, really, right? And gosh, those people sure are promiscuous, huh? So we're putting sex into the Constitution? I'm all for it, of course-- I want an amendment that says I can have sex wherever, whenever, and with any consenting adult I want. (Miss Scarlett, in the Library, with the Candlestick.)
(ok, not ANYwhere, you'd have to divide restaurants into Poking and Non-poking.)
I'm in favor of making government responsible for civil unions only, and leave "marriages" to the churches. All legal benefits and responsibilities should go to all civil unions.
-V
First of all, "hear hear" to Pete and Cryptic, and thanks to Bone.
My question for those in favor of "defending the sanctity":
1. How do you enforce the proposed amendment or even DOMA? Genital checks? Blood/DNA tests? Don't laugh about the genital checks, it has happened, sort of. In formerly authoritarian Romania, women would have their privates checked AT THEIR PLACE OF WORK so that the employers (the state) could monitor their menstrual cycles; this was done to prevent possible abortions, which were illegal. (This is why I believe conservatives in this country can just as easily go authoritarian as any communist group.) And what about those that go under the knife and hormone treatments, do they qualify as having changed their gender or do you go to DNA? Did you know that scientifically speaking, gender is not an "either-or" proposition? There are numerous things that can go wrong during development. Do you consider an XYY person more of a man, or less of a man? Do you consider single-X people to be women? Into which category falls the person who is XY but whose genes did not properly transmit the right signals to the developing cells to become male? Do you deny all these people the right to form a government-recognized bond with someone? (Anyone?)
2. There is a "rich cultural history" of polygamy, too. Why doesn't it command your respect, too? If I'm correct, muslim men are allowed up to four wives (or 72 in heaven, right?). That's 1500 years. IIRC Solomon had many wives. It's a cultural thing, you wouldn't understand. What's that? We have to make marriage into a union of two that have equal rights before the law? Well then what's their ding-dongs and oysters got to do with anything??
3. If this amendment is to protect the Judeo-Christian "sanctity" of marriage, it has NO PLACE in the Constitution, as that is a religious tenet that is defining who may marry who. If we're afraid of slippery slopes, why not consider the slope toward more strictly defined marriages? Why can't we go on to say that old men can only marry old women, that marriage can only happen between literate people, or only between healthy people capable of producing children? Should my wife and I disband now that we cannot produce children the natural way anymore? Can I claim Biblical perogative and try to impregnate our cleaning lady instead?? That's the Bible precedent for you. I don't think my wife cares for that precedent tho.
4. The rights of the wife. Marriage used to be, and to some degree still is, the guarantee a man would make that he would not run off after siring a few rugrats, leaving the economically disadvantaged (it was a man's world) woman to raise them alone. (Sometime it's the mama who runs tho) Well, I think the rights of women have caught up in terms of the courts assigning legal responsibility. Courts may still hold any man, regardless of marital status, responsible for the raising of the child. Marriage is no longer necessary in this regard. Furthermore, it used to be that women who gave it up to one man were not desired socially by men, they were "fallen women". Aren't we past that now? We don't need marriage for this reason any more, right??
5. The children. Yes, it is optimal to be raised by a loving father and mother, but look at the hetero marriages these days... does the presence of a marriage prevent the parents from splitting up these days? Not at all. Sanctity my arse. Parents are supposed to be responsible whether they are married or not. Those sharing a household for several years are in general subject to the same legal ramifications if they split as a divorcing couple. And while the diversity of having two genders as parents is admirable, I think the presence of two loving parents is better than just one. Since I believe that single people should be able to adopt, why not two people who are committed to each other?
6. Promiscuity. That's your fear, really, right? And gosh, those people sure are promiscuous, huh? So we're putting sex into the Constitution? I'm all for it, of course-- I want an amendment that says I can have sex wherever, whenever, and with any consenting adult I want. (Miss Scarlett, in the Library, with the Candlestick.)
(ok, not ANYwhere, you'd have to divide restaurants into Poking and Non-poking.)
I'm in favor of making government responsible for civil unions only, and leave "marriages" to the churches. All legal benefits and responsibilities should go to all civil unions.
-V