People Who Still Have Blogs:
- Me
Archives
February, 2021
September, 2020
August, 2018
July, 2018
December, 2017
September, 2017
August, 2017
May, 2017
March, 2017
December, 2016
November, 2016
August, 2016
July, 2016
April, 2016
January, 2016
December, 2015
November, 2015
October, 2015
June, 2015
May, 2015
April, 2015
February, 2015
January, 2015
December, 2014
September, 2014
August, 2014
July, 2014
June, 2014
May, 2014
April, 2014
March, 2014
February, 2014
January, 2014
December, 2013
November, 2013
October, 2013
September, 2013
August, 2013
July, 2013
June, 2013
May, 2013
November, 2012
October, 2012
September, 2012
August, 2012
July, 2012
June, 2012
March, 2012
February, 2012
January, 2012
December, 2011
November, 2011
September, 2011
August, 2011
July, 2011
June, 2011
May, 2011
April, 2011
March, 2011
February, 2011
January, 2011
December, 2010
November, 2010
October, 2010
September, 2010
August, 2010
June, 2010
May, 2010
March, 2010
February, 2010
January, 2010
November, 2009
October, 2009
September, 2009
August, 2009
July, 2009
June, 2009
May, 2009
April, 2009
March, 2009
February, 2009
January, 2009
December, 2008
November, 2008
October, 2008
September, 2008
August, 2008
July, 2008
June, 2008
May, 2008
April, 2008
March, 2008
February, 2008
January, 2008
December, 2007
November, 2007
October, 2007
September, 2007
August, 2007
July, 2007
June, 2007
May, 2007
April, 2007
March, 2007
February, 2007
January, 2007
November, 2006
October, 2006
September, 2006
August, 2006
July, 2006
June, 2006
May, 2006
April, 2006
March, 2006
February, 2006
January, 2006
November, 2005
October, 2005
September, 2005
August, 2005
July, 2005
June, 2005
March, 2005
January, 2005
December, 2004
November, 2004
August, 2004
July, 2004
June, 2004
May, 2004
April, 2004
March, 2004
February, 2004
January, 2004
December, 2003
November, 2003
October, 2003
September, 2003
August, 2003
July, 2003
May, 2003
April, 2003
March, 2003
February, 2003
January, 2003
December, 2002
29 comments:
Imagine if they abandoned trying to get "married" and instead called it "lovelock" in protest.
All us straight socially liberal folk could then begin embracing that term instead of marriage. We could still sign up for the rights, but help them fight the semantic war.
I mean, if your opposition already believes you're trying to destroy the institution of marriage, you have nothing to lose by having a go at it. =)
Gay couples ought to be able to get marriage licenses in Ramsey County the same as I did. That's a lot more expeditious than Rube Goldberg-ing up equality through a complex web of private contracts.
I would also like to see an end to the legal institution of marriage all together. Thus, whatever the benefits of marriage, I think they should be attainable from straight forward boilerplate private contracts.
I also would like to see taxation abolished, so I guess that would solve the married filing joint problem. :)
Defining "tax and adoption benefits" as "outliers" seems disingenuous to me.
There are sociological advantages to encouraging two parent family units, and stable long term 'coupling.' There are good economic and social reasons to give married couples certain privileges, sich as breaks on taxes. There is no rational reason to repeal all tax-based sociological nudges and even less reason to deny them to homosexual couples, particularly when we are talking about the sort of privileges that cannot be replicated through private contract.
You make some fine points in favor of 'legal marriage good'.
Fifty years ago, people would have said that gay marriage would never, EVER happen (except on some rock in Pacific). Even today, its a long shot. Our progressive president is explicitly against legal gay marriage, Kyle's blog links an article that gay activists are in the wrong fight, etc. So, in my opinion, its a good time to question are we taking the conversation in the right direction. Toward more people included in legal benefits of marriage or away from legal marriage all together.
It is also interesting that opponents of gay marriage use 'sociological' arguments too. That there are certain 'advantages' to promoting 'opposite sex' couplings. Which sociologist should the government consult in making this social engineering decision?
I propose that gays (and all of us) would be much better off if government got out of the business of engineering society.
(Bear in mind, I agree that gay couples should not be denied a legal privilege available to straight couples. I just think that we can make it equal by eliminating the privilege, rather than extending it).
It is an elegant solution to be sure, but isn't likely to go over well with the thousands of fans in the stadium who already bought their overpriced bag of peanuts.
Is it really necessary? If people like baseball, they'll just go to the game.
Likewise, I'm not talking about getting rid of religious marriage or any other bonding rituals. I just don't think we really need government to pick one to be 'official'.
(Sorry for hijacking your blog, Kyle!)
It seems a long way off now. 50 years? 100 years? Who knows really?
As for what I would rather "spend my emotional energy on?". As Kyle has discussed many times in his blog, our society is caught in a constant struggle over who gets to have the social engineering to their liking. I like to spend my energy pointing out that it doesn't have to be that way. That one policy at a time we can dig ourselves out rather than dig ourselves deeper.
bcsarts http://www.bcsarts.com/
[url=http://www.lacarspotting.com/]lacarspotting[/url]
caspigas http://www.caspigas.com/
bonekwani http://www.bonekwani.com/
animenovel http://www.animenovel.net/
ds-flow http://www.ds-flow.net/
biothay http://www.biothay.com/
latzinsurance http://www.latzinsurance.net/
droitausommeil http://www.droitausommeil.net/
seloroh http://www.seloroh.com/
osterwoche http://www.osterwoche.net/
massamuscle http://www.massamuscle.net/
ilovejay http://www.ilovejay.net/
Nonetheless, I beleive that the politicians today (such as Obama) which oppose gay marriage but support civil unions will one day be look upon like those who supported separate but equal or other politically convieneint yet morally repugnant positions.
Oppose legal marriage, support legal marriage, but do it consistently at least.