The Interocitor

"This is what marriage is about -- not just a temporary alliance of passions, but a life-long (and possibly longer) committment between two people. I really don't see where gender comes into it."

But where does government come into it?

Well, in the libertarian utopia, somewhere the other side of the Probability Broach, there would be no such involvement. You'd just "jump the broom" and be done with it.

But in this here less-than-perfect "real" world, there are other considerations. Laws and stuff. Divorce, taxes, deeds, medical consent, financial responsibility, etc, are all hinged on whether the state has recognized the union.

What you should be asking is: why does the state refuse to recognize or enforce contracts *solely* due to the gender of the parties?

"But in this here less-than-perfect "real" world, there are other considerations. Laws and stuff. Divorce, taxes, deeds, medical consent, financial responsibility, etc, are all hinged on whether the state has recognized the union."

Ah yes, the benefits package. What does this in principle have to do with what you said marriage is really about?

Marriage is both a union and a contract -- the willingness to enter the contract is the difference between shacking up and marriage -- the promise that you'll still be there when she's old and grey.

In this society, contracts have no meaning -- and no possibility of enforcement of the breach clauses -- unless and until the state recongnizes them.

Again: why may the state refuse to recognize or enforce contracts *solely* due to the gender of the parties? What principle does *that* serve?

Brooks' use of Ruth's pledge to Naomi is an example of the danger of quoting out of context. Yes, it's a fine example of the commitment marriage partners should make to one another, but Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. In the context of Brooks' column, it can be taken to mean more.

Was it marriage? *Definitely* not as such.

One more note (that's always the way--what I wanted to say hits me about ten minutes after the fact): Here's where gender enters into marriage:

1 When Jesus finished speaking, he left Galilee and traveled along the other side of the Jordan River to the territory of Judea. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to test him. They asked, "Can a man divorce his wife for any reason?" 4 Jesus answered, "Haven't you read that the Creator made them male and female in the beginning 5 and that he said, 'That's why a man will leave his father and mother and will remain united with his wife, and the two will be one'? 6 So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, don't let anyone separate what God has joined together."

Gilbert--

That is a fine religious argument, but I doubt it has a lot to do with the contract part. From the point of view of a church, marriage is spiritual union. From the point of view of the State, it is a contract and a social mechanism.

I'd be aghast at any attempt to force a church to perform any ceremony against its will. I think that the state should not even attempt to enforce employment laws on churches. But I also object to religious encroachment on purely civil matters.

By the way, you seem to read that "God has joined" these two into one solely because they are male and female (love, for example, is not mentioned). Yet in the current context one could say that two gays have also become as one, and God made them, too. So are not you in some danger of doing the separating (or at least the keeping-apart).

I suspect that this argument rests on certain assumptions. IF ONE BELIEVES that gays are the way they are due to a chosen behavior (or mental disease), then one can fairly discriminate against this behavior, just as one could do with bank robbers (or crazy people). IF, HOWEVER, one beieves that gays are somehow wired for this behavior, and this wiring is irreversible, then this separate treatment becomes MUCH harder to justify.