I endorse Proposal 2 based on the ideal that altering the institution of marriage should not be left up to a judge who saw a case brought forth by two homosexuals.
If something like that is changed it must be done on the ruling of the electorate itself. Amending our state constitution to render marriage as a man and woman in a more concrete declaration means that changes can only be made at high levels with great measures and nothing can be perverted by one liberal’s whim or three.
If my state had voted to change marriage I would have no choice but to live with it. But we should never be overridden by one man… no judiciary should have such power.
David Fiore (126.96.36.199)
Riiight. “The people” always know best, don’t they?I guess you didn’t like Brown vs. Board of Education either?
DaveChristopher J. Arndt (188.8.131.52)
Did the Board of Education tell Brown that he couldn’t marry his boyfriend?CJAChris Galdieri (184.108.40.206)
What business of it is the Board of Education’s (or any other state agency) to tell Brown or anyone else whom they can or cannot marry?Oh, right. None.Chris Arndt (220.127.116.11)
I wish it was that simple.The State issues marriage liscenses. Marriage is a social contract that has been legally codified and bound with certain obligations.
Thus the social contract requires an actual liscense issued by the State.
The first question is how inclusive should the State be when they issue marriage liscenses?
The second question is who should answer the first question?
“Marriage” is a recognition and/or endorsement of a relationship that is also coupled with legal benefits, obligations, connections, and property rights.
This brings up the third question. How neccessary is the endorsement of and from the State to the institute of marriage or to the relationships?
The fourth question is borne from the fact that the State is an institution of the people. Society includes religous institutions and people are guided by their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
If the State recognizes something, the people are forced, to an extent, to recognize thatChris Arndt (18.104.22.168)
The fourth question is, should the people be forced to endorse or recognize something they do not agree with?The fourth question has an answer to an extent. Democracy or Democratic Republics hold that if the minority does not agree with the majority in a vote then the minority still must live with the new laws. However, that leads to the issue, which is not a question, on what determines the recognition or the mandate.Wednesday, November 10, 2004, 4:34:43 PM
Update from the future year 2016
2016-06-28: I was wrong about Proposal 2. From every angle I was incorrect about Proposal 2. I was not necessarily wrong about my philosophy regarding the role of the State in recognizing romantic entanglements and the de facto notion that the government’s recognition is a sort of representation of the collective recognition of society but I was incorrect that the way to deflect the government’s recognition of one sort of romantic entanglement is to codify a different but specific sort of romantic entanglement. More on that later.