The courts are not supposed to rule on morality, but on the Law — with the highest Law being the Constitution of the State (for state courts) or of the United States (for federal courts). If the elected government has a convincing reason to believe that a moral law (such as the anti-sodomy law) also has a public benefit, then by all means they should pass that law and enforce it. But that is not enforcing morality, but merely an overlap of morality with public benefit.

“It is an open secret that the CA court overstepped its authority.”

I would like to think so, too, but I do not. “Everyone thinks so, even if they won’t admit it,” is not evidence. One of the rules of logic is that, “Gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously dismissed.” I do not like homosexual marriage or civil unions, but we must make coherent, logical arguments.

“Before birth control, people had large families.”

Well, they had many children, anyway. The “replacement birth rate” is now 2.1 children per couple. 200 years ago, it was probebly 5 or 6.

Again, Tom, I’m afraid I must say that, while I oppose homosexual marriage and civil unions, your arguments about “protecting children” is painfully weak. If you could prove such harm, that would only get you to the point of not allowing homosexual couples to adopt. Unfortunately, there is enough evidence of step-fathers’ abusing step-daughters that the same argument can clearly be used to outlaw remarriage when children are involved — or to require that the father be given custody if the mother remarries. In any case, it is not enough to outlaw homosexual unions.

My objection is in the granting of government benefits, and in the governments’ forcing companies to grant such benefits, against the moral objections of the taxpayers and stockholders. Just get the government out of it entirely, and I don’t care if homosexuals can find some Unitarian minister to marry them and confer the blessings of the Great Fuzzy Teddy Bear upon their union.

Quite true, Vivian. My point was that the state HAS outlawed the some of the things you say would be outlawed if “marriage really [were] about sex or about procreation.”

(The sodomy laws, as far as I know, have been repealed. I could not find them in an on-line search of the VA Code.)

“I wonder if it will be 19 years before the SCOTUS takes up this as well.”

The concern that the Supremes will take such as case is the impetus for a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I would love for the government to “get out of the business… [and] remove all of the benefits of such unions from our laws, particularly our tax code.” Of course, the easiest way to do that is to repeal the 16th Amendment and impose a federal sales tax.

I was reading an article today about this ruling and it said that CA threw out it laws against different races marrying 19 years before Loving. I wonder if it will be 19 years before the SCOTUS takes up this as well.

Tom – if civil unions are an imposition, then I suggest the government get out of the business. And remove all of the benefits of such unions from our laws, particularly our tax code. Level the playing field. Treat everyone the same.

Many of the worse sins of the past were imposed by government. These sins resulted from one group trying to impose its will on another. Marriage, as it now exists, recognizes the physical reality that it takes two people of the opposite sex to give birth to a child. Government instituted marriage to protect the rights of children, to provide a safe haven for their growth. Some imposition is involved. However, we have anoverriding concern and justification, the rights children.

Civil unions is simply an imposition. To make a small minority feel accepted, we would force everyone to treat their perversion as a marriage. Why? We want people to feel good about themselves?

I sympathasize with this desire to help people feel good about themselves. Nonetheless, what is the point in getting government involved in such matters? If you think it important to help a same-sex couple celebrate its “marriage,” that is your choice. Why do you have to make it my choice too?

VA Code § 18.2-344

The problem is, as you point out, government is in the civil union business. Although it is illegal to get married, or to perform a marriage, without a licence (§ 20-13), marriage is not a government institution, but a religious one. Marriage existed before government, and will when government is no more.

Many people consider homosexual acts sinful, and government sanction of homosexual unions as sactioning sinful activity. The question arises, why do homosexuals give a damn whether they have government sanction or not? The answer is, of course, that the government provides benefits based on that sanction and forces private companies to do so as well, and homosexuals want those benefits. That’s why atheists go through the process with a Justice of the Peace, too, instead of just shacking up. Never mind that cohabitation is also illegal (§ 18.2-345).

So the next question is, what government interest is served in providing, or forcing others to provide, these benefits?

I do not have an answer to that one. If there is no such government interest, then the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. In the case of polygamy, at least, the government intrusion is a clear violation of the right to excercise one’s religion.

I agree that our government is supposed to represent us all – and that they should be protecting the rights of all of us, especially the rights of minorities. When the government decides that one group can have a civil union and another group cannot, it is not protecting the interests of all, it is not representing all.

Allowing gay people to have civil unions – just like straight people – gets us closer to that ideal.

And that’s the part that you guys just don’t get. If everyone is allowed to have civil unions, what will effect will it have on the so-called “nuclear family”? None. Will there be any more children in who don’t have parents? No; in fact, I’d venture to say that there might just be more children who are raised in loving homes.

I’m not living in the past. In the past, it was OK to own slaves. In the past, women were considered property. In the past, blacks and whites were unable to marry. All those things were considered moral, too – at one time.

And that’s just the recent past.

What about all those black kids, who grew up seeing their families torn apart? What about all the little girls who grew up seeing their mothers mistreated? What effect do you think those “moral” rules had on them? See, it really isn’t about the children – it’s about the tyranny of the majority. Our country is supposed to protect us from that.

As the great, great grandaughter of a slave, I’m pretty happy that those who came before me understood that those things simply weren’t right and did what was necessary to make change.

Mankind is an experiment. American society is an experiment. Since our creation human beings have been trying to figure what it means to be an intelligent, self-aware life form. Why do we exist? What is good? What is bad? In the frenzy of our experiments, we sometimes discard the wisdom of the past. We sometimes advocate things our forebears would have thought plainly foolish. We arrogantly perceive that what those in the past believed was simply foolish and ignorant. We sometimes even forget the world did not begin at the date of our birth.

Consider the past. Marriage was not consumated without sex. Before birth control, people had large families. People did outlaw sex outside of marriage. People of the same sex, who cannot even conceive children, were not allowed to marry. Because morality is based upon religion, government and religion have alway been interwined in Law. In fact, most of what I just said is still true in large portions of the world.

But to the average American, the “real world” ceases to exist at our borders. What makes us unique? The success of our Republic only partly based on the fact that our government represents us all. What has made our nation truly successful is how restrained our government tends to be. Our government focuses on protecting the right of individuals to make their own decisions. This right of decision includes most of the relationships we form. Where we each work, where we live, what we buy and sell, who we spend our time with…, these are decisions we make for ourselves. With relatively few exceptions, our government does not intervene in much of anything we do. Those exceptions largely occur when the perception exists that someone’s rights need to be protected. Unlike so many governments in the past, our govenment rarely permits one group to impose its beliefs on the rest of us.

Children are the weakest amongst us. Parents are their greatest advocates and protection. Marriage is the institution whereby parents afford children their protection. Marriage is not an institution that exists to certify and protect various types of sexual relationships.

What is the threat to children? There are those interested in shaping the future. For these people children are the most valuable commodity in the world. What some people will do to control impressionable young minds is an abomination. Have you ever heard of the Janissaries, for example? Read about how the Janissaries were first recruited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary). Yet compared to modern child soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children), especially those sad recruits in some parts of Africa, the Sultans treated their Janissaries quite well.

The cornerstone of our nation is the family. We recognize that Mothers and Fathers love their children far more than anyone else is likely to. Because we protect the family, that is why most adults in our nation cherish the memory of the people who raised them. For the sake of future generations, we must protect the rights of parents and the institution of marriage from foolish experimentation.

And, truth be told, the government isn’t in the marriage business. The government is in the civil union business. One can be married without a license issued by the government and yes, some people chose that route, just as others chose the civil union route, ie, no religious ceremony and only a license. So let’s call it what it is: the government sanctions civil unions and in doing so, creates a situation whereby one class of citizens is treated differently from the other. And that’s what the CA decision essentially says.

Don – Your idea is interesting, but what you propose accomplishes the exact opposite of what you intend. The primary reason we need government is to protect people’s rights. Neither marriage nor civil unions are a right. Marriage is about responsibility. When a couple marries, the couple acknowledges the responsibilities that may arise from sexual intercourse between a man and woman. To make its own job of protecting children easier, our government “rewards” a married couple with the legal recognition of their union.

Civil unions, since they would primarily involve same-sex couples, creates more problems for government than they resolve. Without extraordinary efforts, same-sex couples do not produce children. So the state has no practical need to get involved. In fact, the only “practical” reason the state has for becoming involved breaks the barrier between church and state. By recognizing civil unions, the state lends its sanctification to a type of relationship that most people consider sinful.

While you may disagree and think same-sex unions are perfectly OK, the question remains. What reason do you have for imposing your opinion on everyone else? Why are civil unions something government needs to worry about? Children? Where do these children come from? Why should the government encourage people to have children in such a fashion?

~

Tom, I hate to spoil your weekend plans, but I don’t have any livestock available to you. If you want my attention, you should: 1) have an honest and relevant argument, supported by facts, or; 2) be funny. This, of course, is why we have so little to say to each other. I will admit that there is a third avenue, and it involves posting mind-bendingly stupid things in public fora, but I’m working on being a little more selective, there.

The legal perks of marriage should be available to everyone in the form of a civil union, for any couple regardless of gender.

But marriage itself should be a social construct supported by church, family, community, bowling league or whatever group the couple chooses to make their promises before and on whose social support they will rely.

I have emailed the author of the article, and will let you know her response.

Now, if we can find out to whom they make political contributions….

Anonymous idiots? You don’t have to respond. As you have already pointed out, there is no point in conversing with me. Of course, the truth is you are saying one thing and doing another. People, all of us, do have an unfortunate habit of doing that. Don’t we?

California, unfortunately, has led the way in promoting this sort of 21st Century behavior. So what a politician calls himself in California, Republican or Democrat, makes less difference than elsewhere. The result is that instead of smoke filled rooms at conventions the rich and well positioned are more likely to control California political processes.

(Not that Dems – and *especially* Virginia Democrats – have much to crow about.)

That said, I’m thrilled for America, where states like California will drag assbackwards states like Virginia into the 21st century.