Shots Across The Bow

Not making any kind of judgement call either way, but as a point of definition - doesn't the government already restrict marriage to legal-age, unrelated humans? I mean, you can't marry:

a) a goat
b) a child
c) your big sister

While obviously all of these examples are reprehensible, technically speaking the government is telling you whom (or what) you cannot marry. Using your definition, "it's a governmental invasion of my rights as a free adult to do what I want with my life."

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the amendment itself, I'm just saying I don't see how you can object to government intrusion one way, while ignoring its common application in others?

There are potential and real negative effects of allowing those types of marriage, Barry. That's the difference. Being married (or in a civil union with) a person of the same gender has no negative effect on anyone.

Obviously, marrying an animal is ridiculous - it does not have the mental capacity to enter into a marriage or civil union contract. Much the same thing goes for a child, and there are many other laws that pertain to what we can and cannot do with a child. Not being able to marry a close relative is to prevent genetic birth defects that often occur with such relationships.

The slippery slope can also work the other way ... if this passes, what next? What other kinds of restrictions could the state place on marriage? To explore the possibilities too much could invoke Godwin's Law here.

There is no tangible reason not to allow same gender couple to enter into a civil union contract. As for marriage, that's none of the government's business anyway ... it is a religious institution. The majority of the objections to gay marriage are religious based as well. Do we really want religious groups dictating our laws?

Being married (or in a civil union with) a person of the same gender has no negative effect on anyone.

That's just it - there is a certain group of people who categorically assert that marriage to a person of the same gender does and will have a negative effect on society and the institution of marriage. And that's the group that is in support of this amendment.

And as strongly as you and others believe that marriage to pets, kids and sisters causes real societal damage, so do they believe the same thing about same-sex marriage.

Just because you don't agree with a concept doesn't invalidate its existence or meaning or importance to other people.

And that's what I was trying to say in the first place - we may all agree that the government should prohibit marriage with those three things, because that's a Very Bad Thing to do. But a certain group of people also believe that same-sex marriage is a Very Bad Thing to do as well, and it's possible the majority of Tennesee voters will agree. In which case, all four become Very Bad Things and outlawed by state law.

So if you agree that the first three should be outlawed by the government then you have to agree that the fourth, by popular vote and will of the people, should be allowed to be outlawed as well. Otherwise, there's no argument for the first three. As bad as they are, there's a possible majority that believes the fourth is just as bad.

I'm still undecided on it all, but as a point of government and law, that argument can't stand.

((The comment filters are a little too stringent, methinks ... I had to munge some of the "naughty" words))

But that's the thing of it ... those who say there is an impact from same-sex unions on others cannot define or enumerate what exactly that impact is, either on a personal level or a societal one. Believe me, I have asked and asked that question - I have yet to get a real answer that defines any kind of effect of g@y marriage on anyone. That animals and children cannot make the decision to enter into a contract, and that ince$tuous reproduction can render horrific results IS a definable and measurable effect.

With g@y marriage it's a religious objection and/or the 'ick' factor.

I do not like the idea of the government having any sort of control over what I do with my personal life ... who I marry - or not, who I live with, how many children I have and when ... right up there with whether or not I own a gun or drive an SUV - and whaddaya know, I can enumerate lots of potential negative effects of allowing those!

Unless and until someone can define how g@y marriage infringes upon anyone else's rights, I will be strongly for the concept of live and let live.

For the record, I tend to agree with you on your basic premise. However, your commenter makes a valid point.

Genetic predisposition to birth defects is a much larger risk factor than immediacy of family relation. Should the government regulate marriage between unrelated, otherwise healthy adults who have a family history of genetic defects?

Opposition to inter-family marriage could easily be defined as no less a religious issue (and/or the "ick" factor) than opposition to gay marriage.

There are several peer reviewed scientific studies that indicate homosexual behavior as a risk factor for many health related issues. There is also significant evidence that a family structure consisting of a father and a mother (of the appropriate sexes) is much more conducive to the proper emotional development of children than any other arrangement.

What is a "child"? Are there no 15 year olds in the world capable of the reason required to enter into a marriage contract? 13 year olds? 10 year olds? People, by nature, are different and mature at different rates. I would submit that some 21 year olds (heck, some 40 year olds) do not possess the emotional maturity to enter into a legal contract. Since when is it the government's role to establish an arbitrary age at which one becomes capable of entering into a contract?

What about mentally disabled people? Should they be allowed to enter into marriage regardless of their age? They can and do. Should that be allowed?

I agree with the basic premise established by one of our founding fathers and which you seem to espouse:

"[A] wise and frugal government...shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement...This is the sum of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

However, to effectively espouse such a philosophy, one has to be careful about drawing the lines of where "injur[y to] one another" begins and ends.

It's not always a simple, black and white proposition.

30 years ago (or so), the church found it "abominable" that Inter-racial marriage took place. There were claims that people that married out of their own race would "go to hell" (and I am willing to bet there are those that still believe this). But nobody thought of trying to create a "constitional ammendment" to "protect" marriage. People think it is bad, but there is no outcry for this law. There are no Barry's saying... just give us our say on how you live your life. Why?

That brings me to the next point in the problem.

The worst part about this is that I do not believe that those in power are actually telling it the way it is. They are playing to the homophobes in decrying the cause as a religious one, but in reality, I believe it is nothing more than a front that enables, cities, companies and insurance companies to have reason to deny coverage to people that would have the rights if such unions were "legal"

In reality, this would probably not be such a big issue now, if instead of using any excuse to deny benefits, etc. to life-partners and just did the right thing, the demands wouldn't be as acute. But they are because it has been a convenient excuse to keep pensions, deny benefits that rightfully belonged to these people.

Back to the point though. "Marriage" that takes place in a city hall (or some place other than a church) is not recognized by the church. But for all legal intents and purposes, it does. So why is this so difficult? "The Church" does not need to recognize this "in the eyes of the church" but that is no reason why it should not be handled "legally" or "civally"

When it boils down to that... there really is nothing left to argue about. (Although, the hard-core religious fanatic will disagree).

I would love a link to these "peer reviewed" studies that show being a homosexual is a health risk or that children raised in homosexual families become maladjusted adults. If your link connects to Focus on the Family or any other institution connected to religion, don't bother. I want to know what prominant medical professionals are saying. Show me something from the AMA, for example.