Detour: Point of View thread

Daryl wrote:Going by the double rainbow over Dublin the next morning, someone else agreed as well.

PeterZ wrote:Marriage is equally available to all as it is. The right to marry IS equal. What you are calling for is redefining that right which is already equally available to all. The redefinition is being called for because some people don't like the current right. By redefining the right to marry, everyone will be effected. Please don't equate this to the 60s civil rights fight. Not the same at all. Anyone can sip of the drinking fountain of marriage or sit at its front. Whether we choose to or not is our choice and preference.

Concerns: As I have already written in prior posts

How will redefining marriage impact parental rights? Same sex marriage cannot produce offspring from within the marriage. Adoption and surrogacy will be used more frequently. Will this impact parental rights? Where will parental rights stem from? Will it remain primarily biological and genetic?

A homosexual parent leaves a heterosexual marriage and enters into a homosexual marriage while the ex-wife remains single. He has joint custody with the ex. Both he and his ex-wife die while the child is still a minor. Who has responsibility of the child? Are the next of kin grandparents or the man's spouse? If the spouse is considered the legal next of kin, what legal principle does that determination use? That legal relationships supersede biological ones? Not an unreasonable determination. Does that mean judges have more leeway to assert authority over parents and children than they do now?

Ok next. How will the redefinition be impacted by other laws? As an example, the Americans with Disabilities Act states that reasonable accommodation must be given to people with disabilities. If marriage is defined as a union between two people regardless of sex and same sex couples cannot have children, don't they suffer from a disability? Most couples who marry can have children. Those that can't then suffer from a disability. What reasonable accommodation must be given to same sex couples regarding rights to gain children and parental rights over children?

Next, Discrimination. There is talk about the IRS revoking the tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform gay marriages. If they perform marriages at all and the definition of marriage changes, they must perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couple just like heterosexual couples or illegally discriminate. How much further will the government intrude in matters of conscience?

These issues arise because no distinction is made between a long term relationship between a man and a woman and between a same sex couple. The two relationships are different because men and women are different. Asserting men and women are identical is ludicrous. Different possibilities arise from the different unions. Those possibilities must be recognized or all sorts of issues arise that impact everone.

I do have good reasons for my concerns. My lack of trust stems from progressive liberals refusing to stop any sort of change. Eventually you will change the very social contract that binds all Americans; our Constitution. Obama says it plain enough. He and those that believe as he does will fundamentally transform America. Into what? Into a nation where our social contract is not one defined by negative rights? That means he wishes government to grant positive rights, yes? If the US is transformed in this way, then that means American sovereignty will no longer reside in the individual citizen but the federal government.

So, no. I will not support change on a progressive liberal's whim or claim. Support it and show me the limiting principles limiting the proposed change's impact on the rest of us. You want change, you justify it.