[extropy-chat] Moveon.org

[Samantha Atkins]

On Sep 17, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course, the right answer is to get the government out of the
>> "marriage" business. Treat it all with a standard contract between
>> two (or more) consenting adults. Leave the the 'marriage' part to the
>> churches.  Its not even a state's right issue: the separation of
>> church and state is one of those things that is absolutely inviolable
>> (c.f. Roy Moore).  The government has no authority to provide legal
>> status to a religious institution, period.
>
> This is exactly correct. The problem is that the big brass rings that
> the gay couples complain about are primarily in the area of govenment
> entitlements. If they were not so insistent on getting those bennies,
> I'd believe the argument a bit better. If the gay community supported
> your position, they'd publicly say they don't care about inheritable
> social security benefits.
>

What we are insistent about is equal rights under the law and long 
overdue simple freedom to live our lives and love who we love.   We are 
insistent about our relationships and families enjoying the same 
protections and respect as anyone else's.   It is a question of 
equality, not of seeking to get in line for government bennies (that 
certainly should not have been the government's to give).

Why would it be consistent with working for full equality to say that 
we don't care about our relationships having the same weight in all 
respects, including SS benefits, as anyone else's?


> There is a difference between legal marriage and lawful marriage. What
> the gay community wants is legal marriage. They can already lawfully 
> marry.
>
>

What a joke that is.

-s