Rational thought at the UChicago Law School

[dsrtao]

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2008/10/why-did-marriag.html

Basic argument: the state stays out of baptism, naming, confession, communion, confirmation, and so forth -- it shouldn't be in the marriage business, either.

Comments

[mangosteen]

These are all true things.

Regrettably, the URL you point to above is the bulk of the most disingenuous argument against same-sex marriage, i.e. "The government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, so let's just wait until we can do it properly before giving homosexuals the right to marry."

If you could convince me that:
- FedGov will s/marriage/civil union/g in all parts of federal law.
- This would be reflected in the actions of all 50 states.

In a single atomic transaction, then I could fully get behind the argument noted in your URL. Until then, it's going to have to happen by states like MA, CT and CA "confusing the issue" until FedGov's hand is forced to act in a favorable way.

[dsrtao]

That is such a disingenuous argument that it feels like a strawman. Since it would be raised only in the context of "let's not vote for this civil unions/gay marriage bill right now", the obvious counter is "OK, we'll change this bill to get the government out of marriage altogether. Since that's what you just said you were for, you should be voting for it, right?"