>I'm not sure this is guilt some much as my stupid-people sense kicking
>in. I mean, I'm not rapidly opposed to the idea, I can just see
>situations where it might be put to bad use.
>
>Soemthing strikes me as odd when two guys could watch the Red Sox play a
>1:00 game, get wasted on Schlitz, and end up at a county courthouse
>later that day with the full legal right to get married. That's not
>catholic guilt, that's a joke people were telling back in the 50s.
>
>Or a fraternity could use it as a hazing ritual, getting all the plebes
>married off to one another. I have seen this done in mock fashion, and I
>know people who would have made kids go all the way (and kids who would
>have).
>
>Or a gang thing where you have to prove how hardcore you are.
Given the number of gangs recruiting girls, i.e., MI-13 etc, what's to stop
them in doing it now. Its probably too difficult, given what's involved.
>Imagine if downtrodden men were marrying themselves off to help
>immigrants get citizenship. Panhandlers will beat themselves up with
>sticks for a $20, why not marriage?
I take it you've never had to go through the immigration interviews. Take
it from someone who's gone through it, things are not that easy. At one
time maybe but not any more.
>It just strikes me as running counter to the stated aims of the
>instituion of marriage, to bring social and financial stablity to a
>country. People could easily abuse this for short-term gain, amusement,
>status, etc. The bar would need to be set fairly high in order to avoid
>the problems that go along with it.
Why not have the same for straight people as well. All the objections
you've raised could be easily applied to those who are not homosexual.
A question, if a couple is in a long term relationship and one gets very
sick, shouldn't the other have some say in his or her treatment rather than
a relative who has not seen the sick person for 20 years? Or what happens
when this couple splits? Shouldn't there be some fair accounting of the
joint assets? What if one of them gets Alzheimer's and has to go into a
care home? Who makes those decisions?
If the couple is heterosexual and has been together only a short while, no
problem. If the couple is gay or lesbian, and has been together for 20
years or more, the partner cannot make those decision. I've heard of a
number of cases where one partner has been sick or incapacitated, and the
other cannot even see the other in the hospital. Is that right or fair?
Myself I see it as only fulfilling the equal protection clause of the
constitution. There is a difference between a religious marriage and a
civil marriage. The first is recognized by the person's religion while the
second is more of a contractual agreement overseen by the state.
regards,
larry
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
