17 responses to “Good Question”

1. 

   Todd Juvinall

   14 September 2010

   We know all kinds of permutations on marriage will be coming down the pike if Prop 8 is tossed by the king judges.

   LikeLike

2. 

   RL Crabb

   14 September 2010

   Now, now, George. You’re violating the Tea Party playbook by revealing homophobic tendancies before the election…Besides, it’s only the fringe elements of the Mormons who still sell their daughters into polygamy.

   LikeLike

3. 

   George Rebane

   15 September 2010

   At my level of membership in the TPP we are not yet issued playbooks – have to work up a couple of ranks. But your comment indicates a deep understanding of the definition of homophobia, which definition I hope you share with us since I was ignorant of such hidden (denied?) tendencies.
   BTW, ornithologists tell us that the spiritual needs of double-breasted wallet suckers are fulfilled by traditions more numerous than just Mormons.

   LikeLike

4. 

   RL Crabb

   15 September 2010

   Your choice of cartoon…You tell me.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Mikey McD

   15 September 2010

   Why the hell should the government be included in a man’s nuptials? a man’s doctors office?
   The issue of Prop 8 (and Obamacare for that matter) simply shows our culture’s acceptance of an omnipotent government.

   LikeLike

6. 

   George Rebane

   15 September 2010

   Bob – I chose the cartoon to make a point about the expanded definition of marriage toward which we are now heading. Let alone accusing someone of having tendencies in that direction, I did not choose to address the meaning of ‘homophobia’. This little lexicographic misanthrope is causing us about as much trouble as the indiscriminate allegations of ‘racist’, of which I am also a frequent target of the local progressives. My attempt at an operational definition of racist is available in these pages. While gladly willing to give similar treatment to ‘homophobia’, a word which I seldom if ever use, I thought that those who comfortably bandy such terms should be the first to give their meaning. Although not accusing you of any such shortcomings, in the past when I have asked for definitions of supposedly common terms, I have received gibberish for an answer. Your own contribution here would be a welcome exception.
   Mikey – why indeed would government get into a “man’s nuptials”? Somehow, I think it has to for the simple reason that we yield government the power to mediate many of our social interactions, especially with people who are to us strangers. Within a society marriage is more than just a cultural construct between a man and woman (or any other number and combinations of genders). Marriage can be viewed as an extension of contract law which declares to all people in the society (land) that certain parties have committed to behave/act in a specified way in specified situations for a specified time. And if such specifications are not met, then parties to and parties in witness may sue for redress to be extracted by third party (government) force if necessary. Similarly parties to the marriage contract have the right to sue third parties and society itself if their marriage contract is not honored. It is these provisions which give marriage its power and glory beyond the intensity of dedication that the parties have for each other. And therefore in an organized society government is always the unseen third (or fourth or fifth …) party in the marriage bed. That being the case, it behooves the franchised members of a society (a country’s voters) to carefully choose the structure and define the legitimate operations of such a powerful contract.
   I think it is these considerations which we all understand to various degrees that has always made the definition of marriage important within societies, and today makes the proposed re-definition of marriage such a hot-button issue. Very definitely, as the cartoon indicates, today we hold Pandora’s box in our hands.

   LikeLike

7. 

   RL Crabb

   15 September 2010

   Our difference of opinion seems to stem from your belief that two persons of the same sex should not be allowed to enter into the same type of contract that you and I have successfully navigated with our respective spouses. Extending these rights to those individuals does not threaten me or my marriage, and I believe that anyone who wants to enter into that commitment should not be treated any diffent than I am.
   As to multiple partner relationships, anyone who is foolhardy enough to think they can handle more than one spouse at a time deserves what he, she or it will no doubt get…misery, unhappiness and a lot of lawyer’s fees.

   LikeLike

8. 

   George Rebane

   15 September 2010

   Bob, on what do you base your assessment that I harbor such a belief?

   LikeLike

9. 

   RL Crabb

   15 September 2010

   If you don’t, then why won’t you just come out and say so?

   LikeLike

10. 

    George Rebane

    15 September 2010

    There are not enough trees in the world to record all the things that I do not believe in. I have had many other progressives demand to know why in espousing A, I did not also deny B and C and …, or promote the same. Perhaps believing that that is a necessary element of reasoned discourse is one of the tenets that attaches the ‘Progressive’ to Progressive Libertarian.
    But if you are interested in things other than what I have chosen to say or write, then I will take that to be the implied question. I am in favor of homosexuals having a legally binding relationship that has almost all benefits/obligations of heterosexual monogamous marriage. The ‘almost’ part has to do with the raising of children in homosexual union, and that needs more thought and words than are appropriate here.
    In any event, I would prefer that such homosexual union have its own distinct label – not ‘marriage’ – and be as carefully constructed so as not to ease the opening of Pandora’s box.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Mikey McD

    15 September 2010

    George, with a divorce rate of 50%+/- I think we could come up with a better contractual partnership agreement than ‘marriage’ :).
    Are not LLCs, family trusts, etc viable alternatives for supporting said laws?
    Morality, procreation, and divorce attorney bailout discussions aside, I guess I just don’t see how a business partnership or trust document is any different than a marriage in the realm you outline. Understanding that those who fail to plan are planning to fail. I am sure the government would be happy to inherit any estates which are not held in trust etc…

    LikeLike

12. 

    RL Crabb

    15 September 2010

    Whew…Thank you, George, for clearing that up.

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    15 September 2010

    Mikey – you may just have an approach worth pursuing there. Why not forge a new human-human relationship that can be an alternative to traditional marriage? Who knows, maybe even heteros will want to enter into that instead of the rocky road of marriage. What are your thoughts about the constraints placed on relationships in which children can be 1) conceived, 2) birthed, 3) raised, 4) attached to a familial line?

    LikeLike

14. 

    Mikey McD

    15 September 2010

    Short answer: much ado about nothing. There are no ‘constraints placed on relationships with or without children’. Prop 8 is a smoke screen to cover up our country/states financial mess. Prop 8 does not accomplish anything that a trip to a local lawyers office could not accomplish.
    1) [birthed] Are children not born out of wedlock today? [read The Union’s birth announcements to see births coupled with parents of different last names]
    2) [conceived] Are ‘children’ not conceived via intravenous and other scientific measures within our legally titled/instituted “marriage”?
    3) [raised] Are children not raised in single parent households, homosexual homes, by grandparents, and orphanages amidst our current structure?
    4) [attached to a familial line] Except for contractually (estate inheritance) I don’t see society placing any premium/respect on family lines.
    I have not lived in a period when ‘traditional’ family values ruled the day. With the population of lawyers we have in the USA I think we could find another way…

    LikeLike

15. 

    George Rebane

    15 September 2010

    Mikey – I am not contending the pros and cons of Prop8 in my question to you. I am interested in your concept of a newly forged human-to-human relationship. Be not diverted by Prop8 in your response; what can we write on a clean slate?

    LikeLike

16. 

    Mikey McD

    15 September 2010

    My poorly articulated points from earlier are: 1.) the traditional “marriage” is an anomaly today (so why the fuss?) and 2.) our system of Trusts, proper account titles, pre-nuptials, and various partnerships already include options for non-traditional unions (i.e. multiple wives, homosexuals, etc). There should be no need for government to bless the union in addition to said paperwork.

    LikeLike

17. 

    George Rebane

    15 September 2010

    That’s a complete and acceptable proposal Mikey. You propose to replace traditional marriage with a civil contractual arrangement under existing laws which most certainly are sufficient for the complexities involved. Presumably, those wishing for some sort of addendum of spiritual blessing are free to obtain that according to their cultural traditions,… or not.
    Time for all to noodle on that one.

    LikeLike