Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

Both groups seem to want the government to authorize, sanctify, bless, make official, endorse or in some way sanction “marriage”. Implicit in the popular, but not necessarily legal, meaning of the word “marriage” is intimacy or a very special personal relationship.

A very special personal relationship may or may not include intimacy, so I think that is not germane to the point.

You and I apparently agree that there is nothing about "intimacy" implied by the legal institution of marriage, so I am still left wondering what led you to observe that religious conservatives and the gay community want government involvement in their intimate personal lives.

It appears to me more a case that the religious right wants to create a standard for marriage relationships between same-gendered couples that does not exist for different-gendered couples; namely, that same-gendered couples are assumed to have intimate sexual relations that the religious right believes to be "an abomination" and thus should be prohibited by law from the legal institution of marriage, whereas different-gendered couples are not assumed to have any sexual relations at all.

Does that seem a fair assessment to you?

Both groups seem to want the government to authorize, sanctify, bless, make official, endorse or in some way sanction “marriage”. Implicit in the popular, but not necessarily legal, meaning of the word “marriage” is intimacy or a very special personal relationship.

Both groups seem to want the government to authorize, sanctify, bless, make official, endorse or in some way sanction “marriage”. Implicit in the popular, but not necessarily legal, meaning of the word “marriage” is intimacy or a very special personal relationship.

Sorry about the repetition. I was having some difficulty.
If we accept your very clever phrase that "government does not in any way require or even inquire about a couple's intimacy", then what is the point of government's involvement in marriage?

Yes, I agree. There are a great number of points of government involvement in marriage at the county, state and federal levels. I would submit, however, that there is no compelling justification for any one of them. For example what justification is there for a rich spouse to collect social security based solely on being or having been married while a poor elderly single person might collect nothing?

It looks to me like us single people are getting the screwed....Well, not literally but we're getting the shaft.....
No, that's not right either.....it seems unfair that just because you have a significant other that you get preferential treatment by the government.

I absolutely agree Greger, and you won't get an argument on that point from gays. But even with all benefits and privileges now held exclusively by married couples were removed, there would still be an inequity if only one class can marry.

We're on the same page there, CM.

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? I mean, you don't get preferential treatment "just because you have a significant other". You get preferential treatment because you and a person of the other gender obtain a license from the government designating you a "married couple" even if you share no personal relationship whatsoever!!!

If there were no benefits and privileges, do you think the government would continue to issue the license?