Art Bahrs wrote:

>    There is, in government's viewpoint, no such thing as marriage or
> divorce... at least not in Washington County, Oregon, USA....  I found
> <snip>

The problem is not that religious "marriage" is unavailable to gay
couples, there are denominations which will marry gay couples, it is that
the benefits of civil "marriage" (making of medical decisions, right to be
insured, legal rights over children, paying the income tax "marriage
penalty":), and many others) are not conferred upon members of gay unions.
Marriage is, in fact, recognized by the government when providing many
benefits.  A good example of benefits not offered to partners in gay
relationships are Veteran's benefits as discussed in 38USC Sec. 103 (watch
for wrap)

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?
WAISdocID=93909211448+4+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

These are the kind of things that gay couples would receive as a benefit
of being "married" in a civil sense.

I would be perfectly content to not allow civil "gay marriage" if all
governments (Federal, State, and Local) were prevented from offering any
benefit on the basis of marital status.  Of course, then there would be no
need for anyone to be married except for in a religious sense, and gay
folks already have access to that.

>     Craig is just advocating what, IIRC I was taught our country was
>founded on.... and that is the concept of "La Saz Faire" (somebody help me

It's "Laissez Faire" :) and a slew of anti-trust legislation exists to
show that it doesn't work particularly well (at least not in its
original "hands completely off" form).

You might look at http://www.bartleby.com/65/la/laissezf.html for more
information.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *