The Massachusetts Court Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

[chris-uk04]

Gay marriage will be a hot topic of the next couple of years, but don’t you think such heated topic should be left for other internet forums? Topics like whether gays should have the right to marry, or whether they will destroy the institution of marriage, whether Gavin Newsom is political opportunist, or whether the judges are “legislating from the bench,” probably should be posted on something like democratic underground or free republic.

After posting a poll, I think it would be best instead to treat the forum like bar topic: no politics or religion. Both topics can get highly personal even if people act civil.

 

[jackieblue]

----------------
On 2/19/2004 11:29:44 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

Gay marriage will be a hot topic of the next couple of years, but don’t you think such heated topic should be left for other internet forums? Topics like whether gays should have the right to marry, or whether they will destroy the institution of marriage, whether Gavin Newsom is political opportunist, or whether the judges are “legislating from the bench,” probably should be posted on something like democratic underground or free republic.

After posting a poll, I think it would be best instead to treat the forum like bar topic: no politics or religion. Both topics can get highly personal even if people act civil.
----------------

I don't agree. I don't think I should have to subscribe to any of those forums to discuss issues like this. I want to discuss them with "regular people," not the democratic underground.

Having said that, I want to respond that "whether they will destroy the institution of marriage" is the most laughable argument IMO. Why should heteros, who have scewed up marriage plenty, corner the market on "destroying the institution," whatever that means.

 

[winyan]

Accolades to Jackie, I agree with her totally!

win

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 2/19/2004 11:29:44 AM chris-uk04 wrote:





After posting a poll, I think it would be best instead to treat the forum like bar topic: no politics or religion. Both topics can get highly personal even if people act civil.

----------------

Can, yes, but they haven't much here. Leonid lets us discuss stuff like this as long as we behave ourselves.

 

[Hest88]

Besides, there's no way we could have a discussion more heated than the ones we have about Tiffany!!!

 

[Rank Amateur]

I think I'm going to start a thread where I pose as a gay guy looking for a Tiffany engagement ring for my male lifetime partner and ask if Tiffany is worth the premium. That should get things going.

 

[winyan]

*LOL* Hest, you are *so* right!!

win

 

[Hest88]

LOL, RA!!!

 

[AGBF]

San Francisco has taken things a step further. It is now suing the State of California over the constitutionality of barring same-sex marriage. As always, from, "The New York Times":

February 20, 2004
San Francisco Sues State Over Same-Sex Weddings
By DEAN E. MURPHY

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 19 — Officials here moved on Thursday to force a constitutional showdown with opponents of same-sex marriage by suing the State of California over state laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The lawsuit backs the core assertion by Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, that marriage definitions in the state's family code violate the State Constitution. It was also certain to inflame tensions further over Mr. Newsom's directive last week to issue same-sex marriage licenses, which has already led to two legal challenges by conservative and religious groups.

"The City and County of San Francisco is going on offense today in protecting the mayor's action," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified and that the California Constitution provides that there should be equal opportunity under the law, and not just for straight people but for gay and lesbian people as well."

The state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, who had been silent about the same-sex marriages, said in a statement that "it is the duty of my office to defend" the state against the lawsuit. The city contends in the suit that the state family code violates both the Constitution's equal protection clause and its due process clause by not giving equal opportunity to same-sex couples.

"The issue of whether state statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages violate constitutional protections is emerging as one of the great legal and civil rights issues of our day, and the question must be answered by our courts," Mr. Lockyer said.

Mr. Lockyer, a Democrat, also offered a hint of the political minefield that Mr. Newsom seems to have laid by making a personal observation that sounded a lot like an endorsement of the mayor.

"As a lifelong defender of civil rights, due process and equal protection for all," Mr. Lockyer said, "I do not personally support policies that give lesser legal rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples than those provided to heterosexual couples."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said Mr. Lockyer "has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law." The governor also said that the altered marriage licenses in San Francisco, which must be filed with the State Department of Health Services, "fail to meet legal standards."

"I will abide by the oath I took when I was sworn in to uphold California laws," Mr. Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

The lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, also named two conservative groups that last week sued to block the same-sex marriage policy. By including the groups in the lawsuit, the city wanted to make sure that any court decisions in those cases took into consideration the city's constitutional arguments.

"What we are doing is trying to ensure that the constitutional issue is addressed," Mr. Herrera said. "It's doing what any good lawyer would do and ensure that you are protecting your client's position on all available fronts."

Lawyers for the groups that filed the lawsuits against the city said the city's new legal offensive was an acknowledgment that Mr. Newsom's case was weak.

"They are in a defensive posture, and frankly I think it's an admission that they didn't do things in the right way in the first place," said Richard D. Ackerman, a lawyer for one of the groups, Campaign for California Families.

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents backers of Proposition 22, a ballot measure opposed to same-sex marriages that passed in 2000, said in a statement that the new lawsuit was "an implicit concession that the city lacks legal authority" to issue the same-sex marriage licenses.

"It is trying to retroactively validate its lawless activity," the statement said.

Mr. Newsom's directive on Feb. 12 set off a blitz of gay weddings, numbering more than 3,000 by the close of business on Thursday. People waiting in line for a license applauded the city's new legal move, but in a sign of the growing rancor surrounding the marriages, opponents began picketing outside City Hall.

Several people carried posters, including one that said "Homosexuality is sin," while others used megaphones to issue dire warnings to the couples waiting in line on the sidewalk. "You don't have to go to hell," one protester shouted.

Mr. Newsom, who had called a news conference to announce several changes in the top echelons of the Police Department, was bombarded with questions from reporters about the new lawsuit and the growing turmoil over his marriage policy.

"I think what we have done, is we have affirmed marriage in San Francisco," Mr. Newsom said. "We have affirmed it because we're celebrating people coming together in their unions. I feel affirmed as a married man by what's happened here in San Francisco."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections |

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 2/19/2004 3:35:42 PM LawGem wrote:

----------------

Can, yes, but they haven't much here. Leonid lets us discuss stuff like this as long as we behave ourselves.

----------------[/quote]


Fair enough comments and perhaps you and jackieblue are right....

I think this one should be left up to the legislatures. If the people want gay marriage- let there be gay marriage. If the courts say overturn marriage being defined "one woman- one man," they are saying that the government cannot define marriage. If so, then it could serve as other justifications leading to a slippery slope to the ridiculous.

RA had a good point about where would it then stop? A dog and a woman? Or three people? If the courts say the government can't define marriage as between a man and a woman, then how can they just limit it just two people? The courts would not be able to redefine marriage to limiting it to two people. To allow gay marriage, all they could say the government has no business defining or limiting marriage.

This was the problem with the sodomy case, which is rather similar. Although I thought the law was studgy and silly, I again thought it should have been the legislature to repeal the law. When the sodomy law got overturned on the basis that the government has no right to intrude into what goes on in the bedroom between two men, it opened a possible floodgate for the ridiculous. If the courts say that the government cannot prevent two men from having sex in the privacy of their own home, then the government has lost any authority to restrict any type of sexual activity when people are in their privacy of their own home. Therefore by the same rational the government has no authority to prevent a woman and a dog or consenting adult sibilings from having sex. It hasn't happened yet but it could. Wait 25 years. (People are suing McDonalds for being fat... I bet you never thought of that 25 years ago. One of these fat lawsuits will eventually go through.)

If you leave it to the legislature, they could be able to allow gay marriage while maintaining the government's authority to define marriage. This would prevent a possible "slippery slope" effect.

 

[AGBF]

Update on San Francisco and New Mexico (from, "The New York Times"):

February 21, 2004
San Francisco Judge Rules Gay Marriages Can Continue
By DEAN E. MURPHY

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 20 — Opponents of gay marriage suffered another setback here on Friday when a judge refused to block the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses, saying the opponents had not shown that the weddings were causing immediate harm.

In New Mexico, though, Attorney General Patricia A. Madrid moved swiftly to shut down an effort in a county near Albuquerque to follow San Francisco's lead. Ms. Madrid said through a spokeswoman that same-sex marriage licenses issued Friday in Sandoval County violated state law.

"If marriage licenses were issued today to same-sex partners, they will be void," said the spokeswoman, Sam Thompson.

The Sandoval County clerk, Victoria Dunlap, said she only began issuing the licenses because a same-sex couple requested one last week. After conferring with the county attorney, Ms. Dunlap said, it was determined that she had no grounds to deny the couple a license. By midday Friday, she had processed 35 applications from same-sex couples with dozens of others waiting in line.

"What I need is someone in government to stand up and clarify the law," Ms. Dunlap said prior to the attorney general's ruling.

The judge in San Francisco, Ronald Evans Quidachay of San Francisco Superior Court, did not rule on the substance of a lawsuit brought against the city asserting that the licenses violate the state's family code. Those arguments are expected to be heard next month, when a separate lawsuit against the marriage policy is scheduled for a hearing.

The judge said the two lawsuits, brought by conservative and religious groups, would be consolidated to "avoid duplication of labor." It was the third time since Feb. 13 that a judge has refused to block the issuance of the licenses.

Opponents of same-sex marriages said they were confident of victory in the long run. "The radical action that is taking place here is not something most Americans agree with, " said Mathew D. Staver, who represents the Campaign for California Families, one group suing the city.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, concerned about the judge's inaction, wrote a letter late on Friday to the California attorney general, Bill Lockyer, saying that "San Francisco's actions are directly contrary to state law and present an imminent risk to civil order." He directed Mr. Lockyer to "take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution to this controversy."

Some judicial experts said that the moves in San Francisco and New Mexico indicated the debate over the licenses was becoming more rooted in legal, not political, ground.

"The plain effort by the gay rights movement is to have the law take the initiative, to replace the political sentiment," said Jesse H. Choper, professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. Choper called the strategy a bid to sidestep political and public opinion, which remains largely opposed to same-sex marriages.

A poll conducted last weekend by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed that 58 percent of people in the San Francisco Bay area favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, but that only 44 percent of all Californians shared that view. State law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but city officials say equality provisions in the state's Constitution should take precedence.

"This ultimately has got to be resolved upstairs in the United States Supreme Court," Mr. Choper said.

Friday was the ninth day that the same-sex marriage licenses were issued in San Francisco following a directive by Mayor Gavin Newsom, bringing the total to 3,175 by 4 p.m.

Hundreds of couples waited after hours to receive an appointment for a license next week. But protests by religious groups heightened, with some opponents at one point blocking entry to the county clerk's office.

At 10 a.m., Mr. Newsom officiated at the highest-profile wedding yet, that of Cristina Arguedas, 50, and Carol Migden, 55, who have been partners for 19 years. Ms. Arguedas is a criminal lawyer who once represented O. J. Simpson and Ms. Migden is chairwoman of the state's Board of Equalization. She has also served as a San Francisco County supervisor and a state assemblywoman.

Ms. Migden said her decision to marry was partly made to support Mr. Newsom.

"I expect there to be resistance," Ms. Migden said. "Any hard-fought civil rights gains certainly take a lot of time in the trenches. We are not afraid of that. We are not shying away from that. Frankly it all feels like a victory today."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help |

 

[Rank Amateur]

If we get rid of marriage then we'll also get rid of this inherent societal bias against single people. It is really unfair for them.

 

[fire&ice]

I've really given this topic some thought. And, hubby & I have discussed it quite a bit. In my business (the Art & Antique field), I have many gay friends, some with lifetime partners. I don't think their "love" is any less great than a heterosexual couple. But, that said:

Marriage has been an institution for centuries upon centuries. It is between a man and a women. A man & a women can procreate; and, the one man & one women is the best way to raise offspring (please don't site abuse cases etc - I am talking in general on average). Sure, one can say that gays can be loving parents, etc - but they can not procreate (at least not yet). I believe the institution of marriage is best for society as a philosophy. And, as Lawgem pointed out, marriage in the eyes of the courts is treated differently.

To issue of a Civil Union - certainly a viable plan. I am not entering into my thinking lightly. I just don't see how it can work. The Civil Union would supply many of the same benefits as Marriage - Health care, right to survivorship, estate inheritance, etc. But, I don't see that there is *any* way of limiting these "unions". Say my best friend husband dies & my hubby dies. Why wouldn't we be able to form a union where the health insurance can be shared and pass the estate directly to each other initially avoiding estate taxes, etc?

Finally, my husband had the scariest senerio of all. Why does the institution of marriage have these benefits? To be ultimately fair, no one would have these benefits.

And, the most interesting comment I've heard is that gay men & women do have the right to marry. No one is excluding or preventing them from marrying someone of the opposite sex. I could be wrong - but one's sexual preference is not a protected right.

I've really come full circle with this. It's not easy.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/19/2004 4:57:02 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

I think I'm going to start a thread where I pose as a gay guy looking for a Tiffany engagement ring for my male lifetime partner and ask if Tiffany is worth the premium. That should get things going.

----------------

My position on Tiffany & Company would not change!

 

[mike04456]

Whenever anyone goes on about how [fill in the blank] is an age-old tradition that has existed largely unchanged throughout human history, I like to point out that the same thing could be said about slavery, which is sanctioned by the Bible and the US Constitution (until the 13th Amendment), was accepted by Western society until the 19th century, and is still exant in many places around the world.




"Traditional" is not synonymous with "good." Sometimes it's nothing more than inertia.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/24/2004 11:48:37 AM LawGem wrote:


Whenever anyone goes on about how [fill in the blank] is an age-old tradition that has existed largely unchanged throughout human history, I like to point out that the same thing could be said about slavery, which is sanctioned by the Bible and the US Constitution (until the 13th Amendment), was accepted by Western society until the 19th century, and is still exant in many places around the world.


'Traditional' is not synonymous with 'good.' Sometimes it's nothing more than inertia.
----------------

Slavery is not in the best interest of *all* of society. I simply don't buy this argument - and quite frankly, I find it an insult that gays would equate the plight of slaves to their own plight. Not even in the same league.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/25/2004 11:41:49 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------

On 2/24/2004 11:48:37 AM LawGem wrote:



Whenever anyone goes on about how [fill in the blank] is an age-old tradition that has existed largely unchanged throughout human history, I like to point out that the same thing could be said about slavery, which is sanctioned by the Bible and the US Constitution (until the 13th Amendment), was accepted by Western society until the 19th century, and is still exant in many places around the world.




'Traditional' is not synonymous with 'good.' Sometimes it's nothing more than inertia.
----------------

Slavery is not in the best interest of *all* of society. I simply don't buy this argument - and quite frankly, I find it an insult that gays would equate the plight of slaves to their own plight. Not even in the same league.

----------------

f&i,

Look again. Lawgem didn't attribute the equation of slaves and homosexuals to homosexuals. It was *he* who equated them! I am not even sure he *did* equate them, actually. What he did was to say that one social phenomenon (e.g. slavery) can be viewed as good and natural at one time in history and yet be viewed as bad and harmful at another point. In other words, if the societal view of slavery can change, so can the societal view of other social institutions (e.g. marriage).

Deb

 

[Nicrez]

F&I I agree with Deb. I think LawGem was just making a point using an example of how a continued practice or idea is later overturned by "moral" and "conscientious behaviour, when it was once believed that it was OK to do. Just like people complain that being in a same sex relationship is "unnatural" and against what time honored traditions state, he says, the time-honored part does not necessarily make it correct.




We could all say that the world is the center of the universe and that the earth is flat, because long ago that was believed to be true, and everyone thought so for many years, but now that we know it to be different, we can change our perspectives...? (OK, not so great of an example..)

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/25/2004 12:27:26 PM Nicrez wrote:


F&I I agree with Deb. I think LawGem was just making a point using an example of how a continued practice or idea is later overturned by 'moral' and 'conscientious behaviour, when it was once believed that it was OK to do. ...? (.)
----------------

I understood his point. And happen to think it doesn't apply in the marriage case. I don't veiw marriage as a "tradition" persay.

My counterpoint is that the argument *is* viewed by the same light as slavery. I have heard numerous "spokespersons" equate the law of slavery & their inability to marry. I maintain it is not. Not even close. That was truly my point and a pet peeve.

And, I think "marriage" is a form of procreating/continuing society as an institution from an anthropology view - I'm not viewing it as a "tradition".

That said, my most distinct problem is the issue of limitation. If you allow members of the same sex to marry, why wouldn't I be able to marry my friend for practical purposes? Love/sex set aside - marriage has quite a few attractive benefits from the practical side.

Keep in mind at first I was all for gay marriages - in theory.

 

[Nicrez]

F&I you make a good point I hadn't thought of.




I do believe that marriage itself should be a spiritual institution, and not a legal one. If I marry a man or woman the ogevernment should have no say either way. Not being married (YET) myself, I am not fully aware of all the governmental issues involved with "being married" and why it would be so essential to a gay couple. Taxes? Estate benefits? Children?




Tangential sidenote: I sort of laugh when I think that Republicans back in the Constitutional days actually were very different. Deomcrats and Republicans felw under one flag of Jefferon's Ideals of less government involvement. Hamilton's Federalist were more government and less freedom of the people. Feds believed the Republicans to be like the Jacobins of France, who believe in a seperation of Church and state, and now sections fo the the Republicans are advocating that there be a governmental say in the religious unions of couples.




Legally why do we need to be registered with the government, if it's a spiritual thing? Isn't that what counts? Can someone enlighten me here?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/25/2004 1:53:17 PM Nicrez wrote:


F
Legally why do we need to be registered with the government, if it's a spiritual thing? Isn't that what counts? Can someone enlighten me here?
----------------

Let's set the issue of the "spirit" of marriage. Because I believe that a Gay couples love can be just as deep as a Heterosexual couple.

That said, the marriage certificate is some sort of legal arrangement w/ certain unquestionable rights & benefits. A couple applies for a marriage license. They ask for your birth certificate & in the state of NC, each party is required to take a blood test for sexually transmitted disease (I heard they do an HIV test now). You may have the "justice" sign the final form or you can have the priest, minister, rabbi, etc. (I think captains of vessels can sign also). That document carries certain rights.

Things that come to mind:
I am no lawyer & I'm speaking from layman's terms.

You may leave your spouse your entire estate w/o being subject to Estate Taxes.

The right to survivorship is clear.

Something about legally being able to be in the hospital room.

Social Security benefits transfer.

Lots of other legal things - and lot's of societal things like health care participation, etc. So, in this latter instance especially, Healthcare providers may choose to embrace or eliminate your spouse - whoever they may be.

I'm sure there are many other "benefits". So, I see why it's an issue from this perspective. Now, to what level this matters - I don't know.

Again, what sounds good & well in theory may not work in reality.

 

[AGBF]

fire&ice wrote:

"And, I think 'marriage' is a form of procreating/continuing society as an institution from an anthropology view...."

Marriage appears to have evolved once hunter gatherers became farmers; people lived in one place; and property had value. I believe it *was* supposed to help to decide how property would be passed on and was, thus, related to procreation.

Fast forward to the present: the family of today is not the family of yesterday. If there were *no* homosexuals, that would be true. Heterosexual couples procreate outside of marriage, sometimes living together and sometimes (as with Mia farrow and Woody Allen) not.

Unmarried people as well as married people have children when one heterosexual person is infertile. I know of one case where a couple had lived together for 17 years but the man was denied visitation rights to their son when they split up because the woman had been artificially impregnated by an anonymous donor. He was neither her spouse nor the biological father of the child so he had no standing to ask the court for visitation...although the couple had lived together, owned a home together, and the boy had slept between the couple them for his first three years of life.

In other words, now that procreation is not as simple as it once was (one man and one woman needed) society has had to rethink what a family is!

I have a firend who hired a surrogate to bear what turned out to be two boys. He was their biological father, but she was *NOT* their biological mother. He had gotten an egg from an egg donor so that he could find someone with the genetic characteristics he wanted. He later married. His wife is in no way related to the children she is raising. If he does not allow her to adopt them, she and the children could be torn apart legally.

I am not really arguing for anything so much as saying that the idea of a traditional nuclear family is long gone and will not be coming back anytime soon, so that when we start to assess the pros and cons of same sex marriage we should not assume that the alternative will be: one man, one woman, and their biological offspring.

 

[Hest88]

You know, what I'm really doing right now is watching all those prominent gay Republicans come to the inescapable realization that the party they've loudly supported all these years really does think of them as second-class citizens.

 

[fire&ice]

AGBF, you made be dizzy w/ all the and ifs & buts from a "traditional" family.

Remember I live a simple life out here in the country.

My take on the whole thing is much less about morals, tradition, what constitutes love, etc. I'm a realist. I just don't see how they can limit who would qualify as applicant one & applicant two. Let's set love aside. In my little world (and it's probably a self-centered one), I see all *my* benefits to marriage becoming obsolete or impossible to deliver w/ the broad possibilities of a "union".

Plus, and this is taking a bit of a leap, somehow allowing anyone to have a marriage reduces the very core of it's being. I'm not discounting two people who genuinely love one another & want to spend the rest of your life together. But, I see quite a few marriages of convenience being part of this whole equation, especially in the beginning. But, maybe I have weird ideas. I'm not on board w/ marry someone who wants their greencard. I think that is a sham.

 

[fire&ice]

And, to further stir the pot

I don't think one can call all the alternatives the norm of any society. I'm not putting a value judgement - just what I believe is an observation.

Edited to add: sorry Hest, I don't buy into the fact that they are second class citizens. Marriage is not a right - and they certainly have the right to marry.

 

[Hest88]

Sorry, F&I, but you're going to have to define "marriage is not a right" and also how they're actually allowed to marry in order for me to compose a cogent response.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/25/2004 6:21:52 PM fire&ice wrote:


"I don't think one can call all the alternatives the norm of any society."

I am afraid I need further elucidation of this thought, f&i. What, exactly, do you feel about the "norm" of a society versus its "alternatives"?

Also: if you are speaking about OUR society here in the United States are you basing your idea of the "norm" in the US today on the nuclear family? (If you are: don't. It is no longer the norm. Most children are *NOT* raised in a home with two married parents and you must consider children since you state that you believe that marriage *SHOULD* be linked to procreation.)

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/25/2004 6:51:25 PM Hest88 wrote:

Sorry, F&I, but you're going to have to define 'marriage is not a right' and also how they're actually allowed to marry in order for me to compose a cogent response.----------------

Marriage in the way the law/marriage license views it.

Let me back up. Nicerez really opened my eyes to a conversation I had recently w/ hubby - about this very topic. He reminded me that just after our "ceremony" the person marrying us had all of us sign a document. He seriously looked at both of us & stated something like "think long about this document - you are not married at current- this will make it offical". I never gave it a thought. I thought we were married *at* the ceremony where we pledged our love in front of God & many til death do us part.

What does that mean? I never thought the piece of paper was worth anything. Until, I got older & really realized the ramifications (mostly legally) of such thing.

Where I am trying to go w/ this is two fold. 1. - granted - it's a pet peeve of mine that it is absolutely out there that they equate "slavery - prejudice" w/ *their* plight. They are open to practice their lifestyle. They don't belong to anyone. They aren't property.
2. I believe many of the benefits of marriage can be documented w/ a legal domument.

Hest, I'm thinkin out loud here. I'm always of the mind that an inclusive society can not on all occassion be accomodating. That is not the same thing as saying society should be exclusive.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/25/2004 7:39:04 PM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 2/25/2004 6:21:52 PM fire&ice wrote:


'I don't think one can call all the alternatives the norm of any society.'

I am afraid I need further elucidation of this thought, f&i. What, exactly, do you feel about the 'norm' of a society versus its 'alternatives'?

Also: if you are speaking about OUR society here in the United States are you basing your idea of the 'norm' in the US today on the nuclear family? (If you are: don't. It is no longer the norm. Most children are *NOT* raised in a home with two married parents and you must consider children since you state that you believe that marriage *SHOULD* be linked to procreation.)

----------------

No, I never said marriage should be linked to procreation, DEB - Geez - then *our* marriage should be null & void. You are taking my "general" thoughts as the word.

And norm does not = normal

I honestly don't know about the what the stats are about two parent families. In my neck of the woods, they are the norm.

Well, I've got to watch Amercian Idol - yes, sadly I'm hooked. It's exicting because we don't have cable - that's just not normal

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/25/2004 7:53:37 PM fire&ice wrote:
"No, I never said marriage should be linked to procreation, DEB - Geez -"

Is it unfair to say that when you wrote:

"And, I think 'marriage' is a form of procreating/continuing society as an institution from an anthropology view...." you were doing exactly that, linking marriage to procreation?