Gay Marraige will be legal in 50 years

[dazzleman]

I think the issue should be decided through the Democratic process and not the courts.  That is really my only concern.

If it's decided through the courts, we'll have the same mess as we have on abortion, where the issue has been unsettled for 30 years because the activists thought it would be easier to convince a few judges of their position than the state legislatures.  But now, 30 years laters, they're still sweating bullets over every Supreme Court appointment.

So I think it's better for all involved, including gays who wish to marry, if this issue is resolved through the Democratic process.

[dazzleman]

It's funny how things have turned.  Thirty years ago, many heterosexuals who could get married declined to, because they said it was just a piece of paper.  Parents were outraged by their kids living with lovers and not getting married.

Also at that time, we seriously undermined marriage by liberalizing divorce laws.  It has been said, with some truth, that marriage is the one case in which the government is on the side of the person who wants to break a contract, particularly if the person breaking the contract is a woman.

So marriage has been undermined, and become a risky proposition for some people.  Now gays are demanding the right to get married.  But the issue with marriage today goes beyond whether it's a man and a woman, or two men or two women.  While marriage was originally created for the purpose of raising kids, it is now thought of as an instrument of personal fulfillment.

When enough gays get married, and one partner runs off with somebody else, while demanding and getting all sorts of compensation from the partner being ditched (which happens all the time with heterosexual marriage), gays may wish they just kept living together.

[dazzleman]

It's funny how things have turned.  Thirty years ago, many heterosexuals who could get married declined to, because they said it was just a piece of paper.  Parents were outraged by their kids living with lovers and not getting married.

Also at that time, we seriously undermined marriage by liberalizing divorce laws.  It has been said, with some truth, that marriage is the one case in which the government is on the side of the person who wants to break a contract, particularly if the person breaking the contract is a woman.

So marriage has been undermined, and become a risky proposition for some people.  Now gays are demanding the right to get married.  But the issue with marriage today goes beyond whether it's a man and a woman, or two men or two women.  While marriage was originally created for the purpose of raising kids, it is now thought of as an instrument of personal fulfillment.

When enough gays get married, and one partner runs off with somebody else, while demanding and getting all sorts of compensation from the partner being ditched (which happens all the time with heterosexual marriage), gays may wish they just kept living together.

Is he saying people shouldn't be allowed to divorce?

No, I think people should be allowed to divorce.  But I do think the divorce laws are in need of an overhaul.

Today's divorce laws have been influenced by feminist thinking, which says that if a man leaves his wife, he's no good and should be taken to the cleaners.  But a woman who leaves her husband should be applauded for this liberating act, and rewarded with most of her husband's assets, as well as total control over their children.  There's an obvious double standard that is undermining the institution of marriage.

Marriage should be recognized as a contract, and all contracts can be broken under certain circumstances.  But the government should not unquestioning get behind the party that seeks to break the contract, with or without good reason.