Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » WHAT A THREAD!
  • WHAT A THREAD!

    Filed at 11:21 pm under by dcobranchi

    Holy cow! This NHEN thread has it all: anarchy, necrophilia, dueling (as in to the death) libertarians, and the FMA as it relates to homeschooling (obligatory HS reference there).

    It really is terrifically fascinating. HSLDA attorned Scott Somerville, in particular, has some really neat ideas.

    UPDATE: I guess I should mention, in case I haven’t made my position clear, that I am opposed to the FMA. I just don’t see how allowing same-sex marriages could affect heterosexual marriages or our right to homeschool.

    20 Responses to “WHAT A THREAD!”


    Comment by
    Chris
    February 20th, 2004
    at 8:25 am

    Your not kidding! I read page 1 of 12 – I guess I know what I’m doing tonight – reading the next 11 pages.


    Comment by
    Judy Aron
    February 20th, 2004
    at 11:16 am

    I guess the only thing I am concerned about is that if same sex marriages are allowed by civil (as opposed to religious)law, then what happens to folks who then want to have polygamous marriages, or have 1st cousins marry and so on… That would have to be allowed as well, because it is all about equal protection and due process …So other permutations of relationships might then be open to marriage.. which I don’t think overall is a good thing for society.

    Many of our laws, as well as policies, in businesses we deal with, base rights and priveledges on marriage and I think the real trick is to sort those out and see why they are there to begin with. I think businesses, government, etc. are very concerned that people will “get married” just to enjoy certain benefits..which could be viewed as fraudulant. Heterosexuals have been known to do this as well I suppose.

    Perhaps government should just be concerned with civil partnerships (like setting up a business) and only religion should be concerned with marriage?? What I have heard is that marriage in Sweden is pretty much meaningless since it has been made to mean more than a traditional interpretation. Additionally in so far as being married under religious law, there is already schisms in religion because Orthodox followers don’t accept Reform gay marriages anyway .. based on what you believe you can accept that as valid or not..

    I don’t think marital status has any bearing whatsoever on how you choose to educate your child..


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    February 20th, 2004
    at 11:55 am

    I don’t have a problem with polyamy or polyandry, either. As long as all participants are adults, I don’t think it’s the state’s business who sleeps with whom.


    Comment by
    izzy
    February 20th, 2004
    at 12:11 pm

    Such a liberal libertarian you are, D.C.
    Hey, Judy!


    Comment by
    Traci
    February 20th, 2004
    at 12:12 pm

    Wow, Chris you made through 12 pages… I could only make it through 4. I’ll check back later when I can uncross my eyes & sort out my scrambled brain.


    Comment by
    Hearn
    February 20th, 2004
    at 12:18 pm

    As to polygamy and 1st cousins marrying:

    The former is fine with me, although I am a bit concerned that most of the time when it happens, the wives involved seem a bit brainwashed. Note that polygamy usually stems from a similar religious extremism as folks who insist that homosexuality is a sin.

    1st cousins is a thornier issue, but in that case I think there is a scientifically verifiable reason for not allowing them to marry; people who are too closely related tend to produce genetically damaged children. The right to do something extends only so far as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, and I think the possible harm to yet-unborn children disqualifies blood-kin.


    Comment by
    Scott
    February 20th, 2004
    at 12:34 pm

    If you want to see what happens when reletives marry (1st cousins and closer) just keep an eye on the royal family in England! Just looking at Charles, you have to see that somebodyin his family tree knew somebody else in his family tree! OK, it’s just a joke!


    Comment by
    Skip Oliva
    February 20th, 2004
    at 2:01 pm

    The problem with applying the Equal Protection Clause to gay marriage (or polygamy, incest, etc.) is that the *institution* of marriage predates both the U.S. Constitution and the Englightenment-era philosophy that it’s based on. Slavery and religion are two other institutions in that category, which is why they were given special provisions in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Marriage serves two functions: The governmental function is principally administrative; the government records marriages for recordkeeping purposes, such as probate, establishing paternity, etc. Then there is the social function, whch includes religious (i.e., encouragement of procreation) and non-religious emotional (i.e. love) purposes. Until recently, these functions coexisted largely without incident, miscegenation laws notwithstanding. The problem now is that both sides of the gay marriage debate want one function to overrule the other: Advocates want the law to recognize gay couples to promote social acceptance of gay relationships, while opponents want their particular social view to enjoy a monopoly over the governmental function.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    February 20th, 2004
    at 3:51 pm

    Skip,
    Be that as it may, we’re here now. The status quo ante is unsustenable. So, which way do we go? Do we amend the Constitution to “permanently” prevent a section of the population from marrying? Or, do we move further down the road towards complete recognition of gay rights.

    I think Scott Somerville (somewhere in the thread) and Skip got it right. The problem is that we use the term “marriage” for two different things. Civil marriage and “sacred” marriage. When Bush talks about the “sanctity” of marriage, I think he is crossing a line that is better left uncrossed. The government should not be in the “sanctity” business. That’s church ground.

    The government should (and does) recognize “civil” marriages. It also extends to preachers the right to perform a marriage ceremony that has the same effect. If, instead, we all had the opportunity for “civil unions” (recognized by the state) and “sacred unions” (call them marriages for now, performed by and recognized by churches) everyone could be happy.

    Gays would have civil unions (as they do now in some states) and if they found a church that would marry them, they could be “married”, too. Heterosexuals, same deal.

    And, I still don’t think it’s a homeschooling issue.


    Comment by
    Skip Oliva
    February 20th, 2004
    at 4:07 pm

    Actually, Daryl, this could be a homeschooling issue. Suppose you’re a gay man with young children, and your partner does the homeschooling. Hinjinks could ensue under various state laws. 🙂

    There are four basic schools of thought on gay marriage: (1) the civil rights faction, which argues denying the “benefits of marriage” to gays violates the principle of equal protection; (2) the institutional faction, which argues marriage is a “sacred” institution that cannot be altered; (3) the privatization faction, which argues the government should get out of the marriage business altogether; and (4) the individual rights faction, which I consider myself in.

    I don’t view this as an issue of “gay rights”, since social groups cannot properly exercise rights. The civil rights faction sees this as an issue of gaining government sanction for homosexuality qua homosexuality, hence they invoke an egalitarian view of “equal protection”—all self-defined social groups are equal, and any distinction among them is inherently unconstitutional. This is taking equal protection beyond its plain constitutional meaning.

    I view this, as I view most individual rights issues, as a Ninth Amendment question. Gay couples want the government to recognize their freedom of action when it comes to establishing domestic unions. Opponents want the government to deny that recognition based on a pre-constitutional construction of social order. The Ninth Amendment binds the federal government, however, to the interpertation that favors individual rights.

    This is why the institutional faction correctly recognized that they needed a constitutional amendment to prevail. The Constitution is predicated on a presumption of individual rights except where they are expressly disclaimed, as in the case with the original slavery provisions and the Prohibition amendment.


    Comment by
    Judy Aron
    February 20th, 2004
    at 4:29 pm

    Looks like we are heading down the road to re-defining what marriage and what family means.. especially in a legal sense.. heaven knows we had a big brouhaha here in my own town over stupid town pool fees and membership and the whole idea of family membership because some gay couples didn’t fit the traditional description, and they cried descrimination and took the town to court because they had to pay for two seperate adult memberships rather than a cheaper family membership… so the town ended up ditching family memberships all together and now two adults with kids pay more for membership then they did before.. Family memberships were originally put in place to give families a break so that kids could learn to swim.
    Just one example how we have to rethink things.

    People do what they want to do anyway – there are many permutations of group/clan living arrangements. So why don’t we abandon the institution of marriage all together ? That isn’t my particular cup of tea – but if we are looking for total civil rights it looks like that is where things are headed.
    Menawhile it is a shame that the gay marriage issue is dividing this country the way it is..


    Comment by
    darby
    February 20th, 2004
    at 5:19 pm

    Interesting example re the swimming pool family memberships.

    I have to wonder though who’s *really* responsible for families losing out on membership breaks. Surely not the gay couple who complained, right? Because there ARE other options than throwing out family memberships altogether (which seems like a very childish variation on, “If you won’t play by my rules, then I’m taking my ball and going home!”).
    The pool could have what my local swimming pools and museums have. Family memberships may be purchased by absolutely anyone, and they admit two adults and up to four children at a time. Home day care providers use them, and no one asks that they provide birth certificates to prove the children are theirs. I’ve used mine to take a female friend and her son to the museum with my son and me. And yes, I asked first if that was allowed.
    It’s perfectly equitable and non-discriminatory.

    The government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation. Nor does the church belong there, or the synagogue or the mosque, or anyone else, including me and you. That’s presuming, of course, that said bedrooms belong to consenting adults. (And they can of course, invite their own religious leaders in, if that’s their desire… ;-))


    Comment by
    Tim Haas
    February 20th, 2004
    at 7:02 pm

    Just so y’all know, first cousins can marry in 26 states, Canada, Mexico, and all of Europe. That six-toed genetic stuff is mostly hogwash.

    cousin....shtml


    Comment by
    Laura
    February 20th, 2004
    at 7:17 pm

    First cousins having children together is only a problem if they share a recessive trait that might affect their children. Even brother and sister parents (usually that’s accidental) aren’t necessarily a disaster. And sometimes people who aren’t related learn that they are not compatible for procreation. I just read about such a couple, all four of whose sons developed devastating blood disorders. All but one died in their teens, and the last one is terminal. Who knew.

    As to gay marriage – I don’t know what to think. Obviously, if Elizabeth Taylor’s eight or nine trips to the alter, not to mention many other examples we can all readily think of, don’t affect the sanctity of my marriage, I can’t think that gay people marrying would. It still “feels” wrong to me and I don’t know how much of that is cultural. One thing that does bother me is that the gay people I’ve known who’ve advocated gay marriage, seem to have abandoned any idea that sexual morals exist at all: adultery’s OK, teen sex is OK, and so on. I know lots of non-gay people would not have a problem with this, but I do. So it’s a red flag for me.


    Comment by
    Miller Smith
    February 20th, 2004
    at 8:37 pm

    What in the world is the government of a free people doing registering or even monitoring the freewill relationships of the adults in a free society?

    If you want to get married you can do it without the imprimatur of the government. Such things are private business.

    Sincerely, Miller Smith


    Comment by
    Claire
    February 25th, 2004
    at 5:21 pm

    Actually, I think Bush’s idea of pursuing a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage is a good deal. But not for the reasons that all of you might automatically assume.

    See, I actually support the rights of same-sex couple to marry. My attitude is probably more in alignment with that of the libertarian position, where I believe that individuals have the right to determine such things and that big government should keep their noses out of it entirely. I also think religious groups have the right to prohibit their members from doing so within their own religions organizations, but not in society at large. Keep the church and the civil functions separate, and let each mind their own.

    Now, as to why Bush’s action is a good one. Does anyone else remember the details of the fight for the Equal Rights amendment? This amendment to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex generally enjoyed widespread support. But it nevertheless failed to pass. Why?

    Well, constitutional amendments are deliberately designed to be difficult to pass. They require more than a simple majority to pass in a given state, and there is also a specific timeframe for the requisite number of states to ratify the amendment. And, where the Equal Rights amendment enjoyed widespread support and STILL failed, I simply can’t see a Marriage amendment passing at all.

    But at least while the religious conservatives are focusing their efforts there, they will hopefully lay off state efforts, where the real progress is being made. There should be a least a couple of years before it sinks in that their efforts are likely to fail.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    February 25th, 2004
    at 7:21 pm

    Well, I have to disagree on a couple of points:

    1) I think it’s a really bad idea and very divisive for the President to be supporting an amendment aimed at limiting a particular group’s freedom. How would you feel if a future ultra-liberal President proposed an amendment banning homeschooling?

    2) I think you over-estimate how long this will take to go down in flames. It needs 2/3 in each house. Ain’t no way, no how it will pass in the Senate. I’d be surprised if it even gets 50%.


    Comment by
    christie
    March 8th, 2004
    at 12:04 am

    QUOTE: I guess the only thing I am concerned about is that if same sex marriages are allowed by civil (as opposed to religious)law, then what happens to folks who then want to have polygamous marriages, or have 1st cousins marry and so on…

    i’m not sure what you mean by ‘as opposed to religious’ law, considering that the Bible notsanctions marriage between first cousins. as far as the civil laws, those that ban cousin marriages in the US have only been in existence for 150 years or less. most were passed during the early 1900’s, the first one was passed during the mid 1800’s.

    why were they passed? two-fold answer… the eugenics movement was bent on trying to improve the human race, and the government was trying to keep america “white”. the eugenics movement was very deeply entrenched with politicians. the bans were passed to prevent rapid assimilation of immigrants.

    suddenly those arguments against cousin marriages sound quite bigoted, don’t they?


    Comment by
    christie
    March 8th, 2004
    at 12:06 am

    sorry, that was supposed to be not only sanctions marriage between cousins, but in some cases commands it. i got halfway through my thought and forgot to finish it.


    Trackback from
    Homeschool & Other Education Stuff
    March 8th, 2004
    at 12:47 am

    FMA AND COUSIN MARRIAGE

    An interesting comment and link from Christie (scroll way down the comments). As it had scrolled off the main page, I’m providing a pointer. And, Izzy, I don’t think I’ll ever earn my VWRC merit badge….