I don't think the legal definition of marriage should have to include the
possibility of procreation. After all, that would exclude a lot of elderly
and infertile couples anyway. But I think we need to be mindful that the
main reason for the existence of marriage *is* to provide a (theoretically)
stable environment for the raising of children.
I'd go with Ozzy's definition--or bag entirely the idea that the government
should be giving its blessing to private unions. Probably the former, since
there should be a legal "shorthand" for the various benefits married people
need/enjoy. That way, the union doesn't have to be constructed
piece-by-piece by lawyers every single time.
As it is, people occasionally do get legally divorced just to detach their
finances--and then still live together as a couple. So it already happens.
As for yahoos out in Nevada and New Mexico who marry family members, I don't
really have a problem with it--though if the state ever recognizes this, it
should also insist on birth control. And I have no problem with legalizing
prostitution, though that's a separate issue from marriage.
--Q.M.
* * * * *
OK, that takes care of sex between family members and "humans too
young to know any better, legally". That probably also covers
animals, since it's kind of hard to prove consent on BOTH ends - er,
sides. I suppose prostitution is also out of the mix since some
states have legalized it. That leaves homosexual &
polygamous/polyandrous relationships, "alternate" methods (sodomy,
etc), and ??? (Am I missing anything else?) So perhaps not such a
slippery slope after all.
Oz proposed (in one of his blogs) that marriage simply be defined as a
legalized relationship between two consenting adults. Emphasis on
CONSENTING. All the tax benefits, etc. thereof included. Something
bothers me about this. I see the potential for including things like
child-parent relationships, or perhaps a legalized union for 10 years,
then stopping it as tax-ically useful, etc.
Should the definition of marriage include procreation?
--G.H.
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, Joy McCann
<jmmccann_at_s...> wrote:
> I liked the general point it was making, and disliked that it rested
so
> heavily on defending Santorum. I still feel Santorum's arguments
were bogus,
> but I have to admit I don't really fear marriage will be legalized
between
> sisters/brothers and parents/children, because I think it will be
found that
> the state has a compelling interest in controlling the circumstances
under
> which it licenses potential procreation (that is, if it is going to
continue
> to issue marriage licenses at all, which I have mixed feelings about
in the
> first place).
>
> I blogged on this at the time, since I was outraged by Santorum's
remarks.
> See my archives from last spring--at the old Blogspot site. (Haven't
moved
> 'em yet.)
>
> --Q.M.
>
> * * * *
>
> I had no idea what this article was about, so I looked it up.
>
> Bowers v. Hardwick was a 1986 decision of the Supreme Court. The
> Bowers decision upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law
> that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting
> adults. (Not distinguishing between homo- or heterosexual couples.)
> Seventeen years later, in 2003, the Supreme Court explicitly
overruled
> Bowers in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, and held that such laws
are
> unconstitutional.
>
> It all centers around the 14th amendment. "No state shall make or
> enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
> citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person
> of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to
> any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"
>
> In May 2003 the senator said he did not like homosexual acts
(although
> he had "nothing against homosexuals") and said if the Lawrence
> decision about the right to privacy were extended, then not only
> sodomy, but also fornication, adultery, polygamy, group sex,
> prostitution, adult brother-sister or parent-child incest, and
> (arguably) bestiality are protected as specifications of the
> constitutional right of privacy. All of these acts and practices
are,
> or can be, consensual. If consent provides the standard of inclusion
> within the right of privacy, they must all be admitted.
>
> Slippery slope?
>
> G.H.
>
> --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, Joy McCann
> <jmmccann_at_s...> wrote:
> > A topic for our times (and, um, places).
> >
> > --Q.M.
> >
> > http://www.techcentralstation.com/061703B.html
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OliveStarlightOrchestra/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscr
> ibe>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OliveStarlightOrchestra/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscr
ibe>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2004-04-11 19:20:20