marriage for breeders, only Options

[theIncredibleEdi...]

The sad thing is that this would be seen as INSTANTLY ridiculous, as it infringes upon the rights of those who would want to get married (heteroseuals) but cannot produce children. But when it is gay men and lesbian women whose rights would be infringed upon (and to me changing the Constitution to prevent someone from marrying is considered that) no one looks twice.

[pebkac]

well that's not too shocking considering gay marriage goes completely against almost all major religions. It doesn't mean we have some infiltration of the state by the church though. Ultimately the congress member's votes come from their home state/district's views, which is how it's supposed to be.

1) There are sects of all major religions that would allow gay marriage.
2) Even by taking the "all major religions" argument, you're still having the government endorse religion. Gay marriage would not be against atheism.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Feb 13 2007, 05:30 PM

[Spectatrix]

Ultimately the congress member's votes come from their home state/district's views, which is how it's supposed to be.

I understand that. It's the old dilemma of the "tyranny of the majority". In many situations there is a balancing act between following the wishes of the majority and protecting the rights and wishes of some particular minority, homosexuals in this case. My personal philosophy on this and related issues is that I have absolutely no problem with religious views being an inspiration or guide for legislation (or lack thereof), but in a nation with separation of church and state, such legislation needs to be backed up with secular rationale.

So where's the solution here? Some have suggested setting up a civil institution similar to marriage for homosexuals, such as the civil unions that some states have. That's a step in the right direction, but currently partners in such unions receive some (Maine, Hawaii, DC) or all (Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, California), of the same state benefits as married couples, but none of the same federal benefits. You could set up an equivalent institution, but call it something other than marriage, but then you have the old "separate, but equal" BS. Others have suggested abolishing civil marriage entirely, but that makes a mess of our current tax structure (among other things) and would undoubtedly piss people off more than simply permitting gay marriages/unions would. It's a conundrum, to be certain.

Regarding the original topic of this thread, I think this is a nice bit of satirical legislation. In all honesty, though, I could see this being real legislation with a few modifications. What about remarriages where one partner has custody of a child from a previous marriage? What about couples that are infertile (or don't want to have biological children), but wish to create a family unit through adoption? Of course, with provisions addressing these issues, it wouldn't be excluding homosexual couples and thus wouldn't be of benefit to the anti-gay marriage crowd.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Feb 13 2007, 06:30 PM