Thanks for not holding me to the state’s platform. There are many things in there that make my more libertarian side cringe. And, egad, we certainly don’t need a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The reason there are efforts to redefine/codify the other relationships is because marriage is, save only in Massachusetts as far as I know, between a man and a woman.
This is obviously a question about which you feel strongly. It is not one that keeps me up at night. I certainly don’t care about what relationships into which any consenting adults want to enter (even the polyamorous). Accordingly, this is just me spouting off as opposed to any real study.
The question to me is not so much about denying rights to nontraditional relationships, as to whether special rights should be conferred on relationships other than the traditional one of marriage between man and woman. Those special rights can all be obtained in other, granted much less romantic, ways: contract, powers of attorney, etc.
Indeed, I just helped an associate here in Austin "divorce" from her partner by helping get all the assets divided properly. Fortunately for me there weren’t all that many and they had prepared all the paperwork correctly. I'm not married and have none of the benefits that the married designation carries with it. If I want those benefits, I can arrange for almost all of them. Marriage "penalty" coming back in a couple of years by the way.
The states rights question is pretty easy actually to me. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Granted that it’s gotten all mucked up since 1789 (Michael’s con law prof says that even "judicial review" is extra-constitutional), but to me, the idea that experimentation should go on at the state level was a thing of beauty. Let the states be scientists with the grand experiments. If one is going to overturn a 400 year old "traditional" definition (here at least) of the institution of the family, why rush pell-mell into it?
Cognitive dissonance: full faith and credit clause.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Can't contract to get spousal social security benefits or to get covered under employers health plan (if employer doesn't choose to cover partners).
That's why I wrote "almost all."
And that's what I meant by granting "special rights" rather than those to which I am entitled.
Post a Comment