Oops -- the third sentence below should have read, "Sometimes a good
hard black & white analysis does the most to boil an issue down to what
fundamentally matters most."

      <<< Starchild >>>


  It does sound a bit like that, I agree. And that is rather how I feel
about the issue. Sometimes a good hard When it comes to equal marriage
rights, there's not a hell of a lot of room in the mushy, ambiguous
middle -- though that hasn't stopped a lot of politicians from
desperately trying to find some!

  Let us be clear -- the cause of marriage equality does not require new
laws. It simply requires either (a) that existing laws be reworded so
that they do not discriminate on the basis of gender (or, I might add,
on the number of partners or age of individuals to be married), or (b)
that the state stop giving special privileges to opposite-gender

  If one wishes to favor the latter but not the former, and wishes to be
seen as tolerant towards people of differing sexual orientations and
not simply rationalizing a reason to oppose marriage equality without
appearing bigoted, then I think it behooves one to state repeatedly and
in the clearest possible terms that conventional marriage constitutes
discriminatory state welfare for straight couples, that married couples
are the beneficiaries of an unfair privilege which ought to be
abolished, and that the legal recognition granted to any existing
marriage contracts by the state should be formally withdrawn.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

P.S. - Unlike gay marriage, the matter of sanity is one that I see as a
matter of degree... we're all a little bit crazy, some merely more than
others, and at some times more than others. So you may technically be
"going crazy," but not in any great hurry or in any great danger of
arriving at the nuthouse before the trend is reversed. 8)

Starchild - That sounds a bit like neocon philosophy
to me. i.e. "You're either with us, or you're with
the terrorist".

I thought it was clear that I have been advocating for
the removal of these laws, not for promoting them -
whether they be of privilege or rights violation in

Additionally, I am opposed to vindicating the
existence of the state by attempting to level existing
laws and privileges.

To me this is basic libertarian philosophy and I find
it disturbing that we're even having to discuss this
internally. I must be going insane.


  Are we to take it then that you are supporting the
prosecution of
people for violating state licensing laws?

      <<< Starchild >>>

On Friday, March 25, 2005, at 12:41 AM, David
Rhodes wrote (in part):

The legal attempts at criminalizing non-civil


are actually done by criminalizing some of the


ancillary aspects of marriage where they can -
anti-sodomy laws, anti-cohabitation, etc. But the
illegitimacy of these laws are not the discussion


this thread. The fact that everyone _believes_


same-sex 'non-civil' marriage is banned is a


force but it does not indicate direct individual
rights violations. And not giving something is not


same as taking it away.

To exemplify this point -


The interesting part for me is this quote-

District Attorney Don Williams said he was


to prosecute Greenleaf and Sangrey because they
"publicly proclaimed their intent to perform civil
marriages under the authority invested in them by


York State law, rather than performing purely
religious ceremonies."

So basically, they were only prosecuted for


state licensing laws, not for performing an



Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: