Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Was what you did illegal? If not, good. If so, 'tis a shame. I don't buy the "civil disobedience" argument at all. I don't see this as a clear example of discrimination, firstly: if society decides the purpose of marriage benefits is to encourage and aid an institution that produces children, then certainly there's no discrimination here. However, if the purpose is to encourage and aid cohabitation, conservation of resources, *raising* children, etc., then there are other ways to provide the same benef
    • by Ovid (2709) on 2004.03.24 10:58 (#29623) Homepage Journal

      Was what you did illegal?

      After a fair amount of research, I have to conclude that it was. Regardless of the ambiguous wording of Oregon law, the intent of the law was fairly clear and legal decisions are often based on intent, even if the law is worded as poorly as ours.

      As for the "children" argument, I don't by them. Yes, maybe the Catholic (amongst others) Church dictates that marriage is for procreation, many churches do not and many people do not. While there are plenty of federal and state laws that deal with marriage and children, there are many more that do not.

      The "for the children" arguments is similar to the Second Amendment debate over the "well regulated militia" phrase (I keep thinking I may have discussed the following here before...). The legal argument frequently surrounds whether this is a "qualifying" phrase (reason for) or an "exemplifying" phrase (example of). The courts frequently hold that it's a qualifying phrase and thus states can regulate our right to keep and bear arms because arms can be regulated in such a way that a militia's arms may be regulated. If a court rules that it's an exemplifying phrase, then the right to regulate militias is irrelevant and there is therefore no Constitutional right to regulate arms. The "children" argument is similar. Now many people are rallying around the "for the children" battle cry, but they assert that bearing children (not just having or raising them, because same-sex couples can adopt or have children from a previous marriage) is the reason for marriage. If so, why aren't they being logically consistent and banning sterile people from marrying? If I get married again, should they insist upon a signed affidavit from me and my wife that we will attempt to produce at least one child (presumably with each other :)? I find it interesting that those who use this argument only target same-sex marriages and ignore the logical consequences thereof.

      Breaking the law should be a last resort.

      This is a tough one. The first thought that pops into my mind is "Rosa Parks." Had she not broken the law, the civil rights movement would likely not have gained as much ground as it did. Even today, we have areas trying to ban gay people, wanting to make sodomy illegal, permitting discrimination based upon sexual orientation, etc. I can see absolutely no legitimate distinction between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Opposing either is bigotry and reading the arguments used today, one finds them often similar to the arguments used against interracial couples. Still, breaking the law should not be done lightly and I'm hard-pressed to figure out the dividing line. I completely understand why many who have no problem with same sex marriage still oppose my actions.

      • After a fair amount of research, I have to conclude that it was. Regardless of the ambiguous wording of Oregon law, the intent of the law was fairly clear and legal decisions are often based on intent, even if the law is worded as poorly as ours.

        Agreed with the latter, though I can't see how you would think the intent of the law from the 1800s would be to allow homosexuals to marry. That seems unreasonable to me. At best -- being as objective as I can -- I'd have to conclude the intent is ambiguous, and
        • Agreed with the latter, though I can't see how you would think the intent of the law from the 1800s would be to allow homosexuals to marry.

          That's only because I wasn't terribly clear. I think the intent was to define marriage as between one man and one woman and that the legislators simply worded the law poorly. Sorry for the confusion.

          Even today, we have areas trying to ban gay people

          Huh?

          Rhea County in Tennessee [commondreams.org]. It was all over the news a few days ago.

          And speaking of weapons and breaking

          • Rhea County in Tennessee. It was all over the news a few days ago.

            Heh. I hadn't heard about it, and am not inclined to care. It's clearly unconstitutional, and couldn't possibly stand.