Comments on: A Modest Proposal: How to Make Everyone Happy About Lesbian and Gay Marriage http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/ Thoughts, musings, and rants by Karl Fogel Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:30:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding By: Karl Fogel http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/#comment-443 Karl Fogel Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:07:04 +0000 http://www.rants.org/?p=8#comment-443 That's a good point. But, but... we had to destroy marriage in order to save it! That’s a good point. But, but… we had to destroy marriage in order to save it!

]]> By: Joe http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/#comment-441 Joe Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:37:19 +0000 http://www.rants.org/?p=8#comment-441 Unfortunately, I think that proponents of your solution would end up being accused of attempting to destroy the institution of marriage. Now, granted, these folks are already being accused of same, but at the moment those arguments are fairly ridiculous. Once we actually start lobbying to get rid of some aspect of marriage, their accusations start to hold some water. Unfortunately, I think that proponents of your solution would end up being accused of attempting to destroy the institution of marriage. Now, granted, these folks are already being accused of same, but at the moment those arguments are fairly ridiculous. Once we actually start lobbying to get rid of some aspect of marriage, their accusations start to hold some water.

]]> By: Lee http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/#comment-348 Lee Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:31:34 +0000 http://www.rants.org/?p=8#comment-348 Good on you Karl. Here in Canada we've got a lovely independent judiciary, with a supreme court that's bound to interpret case law and uphold the charter of rights and freedoms, and has ruled any ban on same sex marriage in violation of the charter. But your solution works in theory for the US. Think it could ever pass? Who supports same sex rights at the Federal level? Good on you Karl. Here in Canada we’ve got a lovely independent judiciary, with a supreme court that’s bound to interpret case law and uphold the charter of rights and freedoms, and has ruled any ban on same sex marriage in violation of the charter. But your solution works in theory for the US. Think it could ever pass? Who supports same sex rights at the Federal level?

]]> By: Jessica http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/#comment-317 Jessica Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:22:04 +0000 http://www.rants.org/?p=8#comment-317 This has been my sentiment for quite a while now. This has been my sentiment for quite a while now.

]]> By: Karl Fogel http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/#comment-152 Karl Fogel Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:04:08 +0000 http://www.rants.org/?p=8#comment-152 P.S. I think this one qualified as a "musing". My musings often take the outward form of definite thoughts :-). P.S. I think this one qualified as a “musing”. My musings often take the outward form of definite thoughts :-).

]]> By: Karl Fogel http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/#comment-151 Karl Fogel Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:44:39 +0000 http://www.rants.org/?p=8#comment-151 No, I'm actually being serious: I think it would be best for the government not to be involved defining the meaning of a religious and spiritual bond. There are aspects of partnership that have nothing to do with spirituality per se: for example, its contractual nature, the inheritance effects, the tax effects, the legal right to make medical decisions for each other, that sort of thing. These aspects are better thought of as part of a "civil union" code than a "marriage" code. The number of people who are unwilling to let the government define marriage in a way they don't like, but wouldn't mind the government simply declining altogether to give marriage a definition, should be roughly equal to the number of people who support marriage-equivalent civil unions but oppose same-sex marriage. I don't know what that number is, but I think it's not the important question anyway: since some states have actually passed such civil union laws, we *know* that it's possible to get them passed. Framing the issue in these terms puts those who would deny legal partnerships for same-sex couples on the defensive. With "marriage" off the table, those who still oppose the partnerships would at least have to be completely open about the fact that they want to obstruct legal partnership itself. No, I’m actually being serious: I think it would be best for the government not to be involved defining the meaning of a religious and spiritual bond. There are aspects of partnership that have nothing to do with spirituality per se: for example, its contractual nature, the inheritance effects, the tax effects, the legal right to make medical decisions for each other, that sort of thing. These aspects are better thought of as part of a “civil union” code than a “marriage” code.

The number of people who are unwilling to let the government define marriage in a way they don’t like, but wouldn’t mind the government simply declining altogether to give marriage a definition, should be roughly equal to the number of people who support marriage-equivalent civil unions but oppose same-sex marriage. I don’t know what that number is, but I think it’s not the important question anyway: since some states have actually passed such civil union laws, we *know* that it’s possible to get them passed.

Framing the issue in these terms puts those who would deny legal partnerships for same-sex couples on the defensive. With “marriage” off the table, those who still oppose the partnerships would at least have to be completely open about the fact that they want to obstruct legal partnership itself.

]]> By: Rachel http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/#comment-147 Rachel Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:20:59 +0000 http://www.rants.org/?p=8#comment-147 P. S. Are there any musings here? I think I see some rants, and possibly some thoughts, but maybe the musings are to come later? P. S. Are there any musings here? I think I see some rants, and possibly some thoughts, but maybe the musings are to come later?

]]> By: Rachel http://www.rants.org/2007/03/22/a-modest-proposal/#comment-146 Rachel Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:19:55 +0000 http://www.rants.org/?p=8#comment-146 Oh, fie. How does this solve anything? You seek to deny the deliberate-slappers-in-the-face their slap. I suppose there may be some small number of people out there who are unwilling to let the government define marriage in a way they don't like, but wouldn't mind the government simply declining altogether to give marriage a definition. But I kind of suspect that the people who are willing to put effort, money, and whatnot into lobbying against same-sex couples being officially recognized as married feel morally compelled to define things for everybody, not just to resist the imposition of definitions they don't like. Oh, fie. How does this solve anything? You seek to deny the deliberate-slappers-in-the-face their slap. I suppose there may be some small number of people out there who are unwilling to let the government define marriage in a way they don’t like, but wouldn’t mind the government simply declining altogether to give marriage a definition. But I kind of suspect that the people who are willing to put effort, money, and whatnot into lobbying against same-sex couples being officially recognized as married feel morally compelled to define things for everybody, not just to resist the imposition of definitions they don’t like.

]]>