NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9974

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 4.3 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:51:47 GMT
Lines: 68

In <[e-mail]>, Mitchell Watnik writes:

>Dear Rush Limbaugh fans, foes and others:
>My friend and I have spent a great deal of time recently arguing over the
>legal recognition of gay marriages.  Unfortunately, our arguments have
>turned into either trivializations of the subject or just a simple
>difference of opinions.  I would like to hear arguments for and against
>LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay marriages (not the idea of the marriage itself or
>moral issues--  I am pretty close to Libertarian in my politics and I've
>granted my friend the point that government should not enforce morality or
>enter into people's bedrooms).

Well, first keep in mind that the government grants special privileges to
married couples that it doesn't give to single people (lower tax brackets,
survivor benefits, and so on).  From the Libertarian and 14th Amendment point
of view, that seems unconstitutional to me.

Thus, from my point of view, it goes beyond whether so-called "gay marriages"
should be recognized.  I actually wonder whether the privileges that the
government gives to "married" folks (however we choose to define "married") is
discriminatory against single people.  And I don't include private employers
who choose to give spousal benefits--that isn't the government, and providing
such benefits isn't mandated by the Constitution.

Some may say that anyone can *change* their marital status (just by choosing to
get married), so it isn't really discrimination based on circumstances out of
our control.  The problem with this is that it assumes two things:  first, that
people should have to marry someone--perhaps not to their liking--if they want
to receive marriage benefits.  Secondly, it assumes that someone will always
be willing to marry you.  If no one will marry you, your marital status IS out
of your control.

>For example:  My friend argues that the 14th Amendment provides that all
>citizens should have the same rights and privileges.  He says that gays'
>14th Amendment rights are violated since they do not enjoy the privilege
>of marrying the person of their choice.  I've argued against this point 3
>ways.  First, the legal definition of marriage currently says that
>marriage includes one member of each sex and everybody DOES enjoy this
>privilege (he claims that this does not let them include the person of
>their choice).  Second, if choice is the issue, I argue that this
>"privilege" (which I say he's drawing out of thin air:  "Where does it say
>that you have the right to get married to whomever you want?") since I am
>not entitled to marry, say, "that pretty woman over there" (he talks about
>mutual consent, to which I respond (admittedly feebly) that then we could
>address inter-species marriage).  Finally, we argue over the purpose of
>the 14th Amendment.  He is one of those people who claims in arguments
>against the Second Amendment that the "Founding Fathers could never have
>foreseen automatic weapons...";  so I turn the argument to "the writers of
>the 14th Amendment could never have foreseen it being used as a tool to
>expand the rights of certain political factions above others."

I agree with you.  The problem with the "living document" crowd is that it
tries to *expand* rights according to their own agenda (like the 14th
Amendment) while *shrinking* others which they dislike (like the 2nd).  They
use *selective* interpretation--not based in academia, but rather in ideology.

>Once again, I wish to emphasize that we are NOT discussing morality or
>judgment.  The words "fag" and "homophobe" do not make for good arguments.
>I hope to get good responses, both pro and con, so that the two of us will
>have more ammunition with which to waste our free time.

I know what you mean.  I'm sick of all the name calling and knee-jerk stereo-
typing based on ideology...

Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"Dammit, Jim!  I'm a programmer, not a doctor!"