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 *