Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
The legislature is free to decide that a binary partnering union, presumably for life and for the purpose of creating nuclear families, shall have benefits while a non-binary union shall not. And, this is exactly how this will play out in every state. Believe me, I had to research the heck outta this to answer the legislative committees' questions in Vermont. They asked the same thing.
|
You've got to admit this will weaken significantly the position of anyone trying to limit the spread of what defines a "nuclear family". According to wordreference.com it's "a primary social unit consisting of parents and their offspring". Seems to either be narrow or broad, depending on how you define "parents". If two women with their children are a nuclear family then three women with their children are also one, there is no difference that's as significant as the change from 'man-wife' to 'two parntners'. We're in the process of leaping the big hurdle, everything afterward is stepping over a stick on the ground.
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
On the topic of polygamy, the US busted up the Mormon church and seized all its property until it promised to forego polygamy. The Supreme Court directly attacked the practice, calling it "pernicious" "repugnant" and a slew of other things.
|
How far do you think gay unions would have gotten in those days? Do you honestly believe the words used would have been any different? I don't think so myself, that was a different America.
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
The requirements for marriage can be freely set so long as it does not offend the constitution. Blood tests, prohibitations on consanguinity, and other requirements may be set, but the legislature could also require the couple live together for 9mos/yr or that they be a certain age, or a bunch of other things.
What the legislature cannot do is dole out legal benefits to one couple while not doling them out to another couple on the sole basis of the couple's gender makeup. What that does is fail to provide the "equal protections" of the law to all people regardless of gender. 
|
Shouldn't that be "regardless of sexual orientation". It's not gender but orientation that is historically limiting their access to benefits. I guess I don't see this as a gender issue (enlighten me if I wrong here), And if that's true, isn't polygamy also a "sexual orientation".
I understand that the requirements for marriage can be freely set... but by what standard are they determined? The court SEEMS to have said that traditional moral standards cannot be used to set those requirements. Once we jump to modern relative morality then polygamy is just as "right" as homosexualy.
The reason I'm harping on the polygamy thing is because it's one area where the silliness of moral relativism can be seen. Gay is good, polygamy is bad? That's doesn't make sense to me, they're both neither good or bad by the modern yardstick, they simply ARE. Throw away the moral framework that repudiated polygamy in the past and there's no foundation upon which to repudiate it today.