[GCFL-discuss] Amendments

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

I can't comment on the reasoning of New Jersey's court yet, because I
haven't read it. I will in the next few days.

I generally am in favor of a very broadly worded law allowing any person
to enter into agreement with one or more persons to share property in
common, exchange rights to hospital visitation, etc., without taking any
notice of the reason for it. That would, among other things, allow
same-sex couples to grant each other mutual rights and obligations,
without society having to celebrate or acknowledge or name or give formal
approval to whatever it is these two individuals are sharing.

Marriage is what it is, it isn't anything else someone would like it to
be.

I would guess that the NJ court's decision is similar to Chief Judge
Kaye's dissent from the NY decision to leave the state's marriage laws
alone. I have to sympathize with her motives. Kaye wrote about how for
many, their wedding day is one of the most important events in their
life, and there is no reason to deny this to our fellow-citizens who
happen to choose a partner of their own gender.

But I don't agree that there is a constitutional obligation to provide
same-sex couples with a marriage license. The Massachusetts court started
with the premise 'we have before us two classes of people, heterosexuals
and homosexuals, and the latter desires the same benefits, known as
marriage, which are enjoyed by the former class.' IF you put it that way,
then equal protection of the laws DOES require that gay couples be able
to obtain marriage licenses.

The first point should have been, every person is either a man or a
woman. That is a fact. The word "homosexual" would have no meaning
otherwise. As every man has the right to marry any woman who will have
him, and every woman has the right to marry any man who will have her,
equal protection of the laws is fully satisfied. I ran across a blog
which announced that the NY decision "discriminated against homosexuals
as a class." I left a note asking "What makes you think homosexuals are a
class at all?" There is nothing more elusive to define. You can tell a
man from a woman. How do you determine who is "a homosexual"? I'm not
sure anyone's IDENTITY can be so defined, whatever their preferences or
acts.

What these lawsuits have really been seeking is to redefine something
already available to everyone, so those who don't want marriage, as it
is, but want to call what they want "marriage" can have the expanded
definition. Also, there is an implication that all of us OWE same-sex
couples respect and admiration. I'm sorry, I don't have a constitutional
obligation to admire your choices. Maybe I think your choices stink. I
have a right to that opinion, and to say so. You have a right to make
your own choices, and live with them.

Vermont has something called "civil union" which conveys the legal
benefits associated with marriage, but does not grant a marriage license.
It seems to work all right. California started some of the first
"domestic partner" laws. I found those ludicrous. The first to take
advantage of them were heterosexual couples who had been "living
together" but had not gotten married. So they want to have the benefits
of marriage without calling themselves man and wife? I don't think its
unreasonable that couples who want the benefits of marriage should marry,
and those who want something looser should be content with something
looser.

Anyway, I can comment more on the NJ decision after I read it, but I try
not to rely on headlines to tell me what the court said or how or why.

Siarlys