At 02:15 PM 2/26/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Suppose that, in an effort to control world overpopulation
>> > Everyone is free to marry anyone they want from the
>> > same sex, but not of the opposite sex. Would you consider
>> > that "equal protection"? How would you feel about such a thing?
>>
>> No, I would not consider it a denial of equal protection.
>
>
>Somehow I don't believe you. I have a hard time believing that you would
>not take exception to such a scenario had it actually occurred.
I would take all kinds of exception to such a situation. I just wouldn't
argue that it is a denial of my equal protection rights.
Another thing to keep in mind is that in my conception of marriage,
appearing before a judge is a mere annoyance in the process. In my mind,
I am only married once I make my vows to my wife before the Church.
And if your proposed society is prohibiting the Catholic Church from
performing the Sacrament of Marriage, then there are all kinds of other
objections to be had. Otherwise, if you are proposing a scenario
analagous to that which exists in the United States today, then I will
still be perfectly free to marry within the Catholic Church, live with my
wife, and refer to her as my wife in all conversations except legal ones.
The only difference is that I would be denied several legal incenties that
currently exist for marriage.
Thus, it is important to keep in mind in this whole debate that nobody is
talking about preventing homosexual couples from marrying themselves and
living together. The debate rather is about legal terminology and
incentives.
>Actually, I don't concede that it is, as you say "A profound redefinition of
>marriage". I never have conceded that. It is a redefinition, but only a
>minor one. Marriage has been re-defined for centuries. Only a few
>centuries ago, the vast majority of marriages were arranged. Parents were
>the ones who chose who married who, and the purpose of which was usually to
>form partnerships/alliances between families. The redefinition of marriage
>as an institution that two people (a man and a woman) who love each other
>willingly choose to enter, promising their lives to eachother was a far
>greater redefinition of Marriage from arranged marriages than extending an
>institution that two people who love each other willingly choose to enter,
>promising their lives to eachother to include same-sex partners. The
>"radical redefinition" as you say, is only in your mind.
Sorry, but I don't believe you :-) The concept of romantic love in
marriage is at least 4,000 years old. Moreover, I am not at all sure
that most of the peasantry and working class in Wester Civilization over
that time were married by arrangement. At any rate, an organic
development in the mechanisms of marriage hardly seems on par to me with a
very redefinition of marriage from "husband and wife" to "wife and wife."
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
