[extropy-chat] marriage and the State

stencil etcs.ret at verizon.net
Thu Nov 4 23:39:24 UTC 2004


On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:39:17 -0600
Kevin Freels wrote in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9
> [ ... ]
> The problem is not
>that gays should be allowed to marry. The problem is that the state should
>get out of the marriage business altogether. Churches should marry people,
>the state should enforce contract law. Any two people can create a contract.

The churches, or at least the Church, are quick and strong to protest that
they are not in the marrying business, nor is anyone else with the sole
exception of the couple directly involved.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__P3U.HTM

As Mike Lorrey indicated,  the actions of the Roman church, of other churches,
and of secular states, have largely focused on prohibiting or rewarding
marriages to achieve various agendas unrelated to marriage per se.  If one
ignores or evades canon law's qualifiers, the core definition of marriage
identifies it as an act will shared by the partners, and a resulting ongoing
condition;  If he and she, or you and your partner, or Geoffrey and his
refrigerator,  mutually will yourselves to be a partnership, then the magic
works, and marriage is.

The obvious problem is that, having snuck in to see the show, you lack a
ticket stub when time comes to distribute the door prizes.

Since in most Western countries the material benefits of sanctioned marriage
greatly outweigh plain-vanilla connubial bliss (Google, "divorce") ya gotta
believe that gay marriage is merely another porkbarrel scheme, the moral
equivalent of a research grant to dig up the Ohio mounds in search of
artifacts of the lost tribes of the Bible.  If the taxpayers don't buy into
it, it doesn't necessarily mean they're archaeological or ecclesiastical
bigots;  they may just see better uses for their money.

stencil sends





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list