[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Daldoma

commentary

The issue is over the reasons for redefining marriage and the public purpose of the institution. The public purpose is to bind parents to their children and to each other. All laws and regulations of the institution should then be predicated upon that facet.

Most scholars today, on both sides of the issue, freely acknowledge that the freedom to contract should include the freedom to assign (medical) power of attorney, insurance benefits, inheritance, and so on. In effect, any right that is typically associated, but not at the root of the institution can be severable and expanded without redefining marriage itself. Thus, the argument that marriage needs to be redefined for non-biological/parenting reasons generally falls short. Essentially, the public purpose is replaced by redefinition to fulfill the private purposes of individuals seeking the redefinition. Example: three people are "in love" and want to get married solely on that basis. Such would require a redefinition of the institution.

The question is "why?" Why is there a pressing need to do so? Consider that friendships are not regulated in any way. Why would this "new" marriage require a definition that carries the force of law? In effect, if any form of new marriage (gay, group, etc.) is non-procreative what point is there in creating a new legal regime? The burden lies upon those seeking the change, and in light if the above, that burden is not met.

It is absolutely true that you can find instances of a gay couple or a single parent that do the job far more admirably than some normal parents. However, the aggregation of society is most benefited from the promotion the nuclear family. The role of mother and father cannot be reduced to a series of tasks that can be performed in a rote fashion. To be fair to your entire set of points, the issue is not specifically just gay marriage. It's about the redefinition of the institution and the subsequent weakening of it. For example, this also begs a discussion of no fault divorce which is a prime example of how the redefinition marriage weakens and detracts from the public purpose of the institution. Gay marriage is but one facet of the discussion (polygamy/andry, 3 or more "legal" parents, etc.)

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad

'm really happy that a phd candidate wrote a paper

It's a bit nitpickey to attack the writers and not the content, but I'll bite. I suggest you investigate the writers a bit more. Robert P. George is a very respected scholar (including a JD from Harvard), Ryan T. Anderson is a rising star in political/social commentary, and Sherif Girgis is a Princeton Phd. Candidate, a 3L at Yale Law School, a Rhodes Scholar, he recently gave the keynote speech at the Harvard Law symposium on intellectual diversity in academia, and he's a 2011 Blackstone Legal Fellow (which holds a special place in my heart since I'm also a Blackstone alumni).

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad

at is obviously biased by judeo christian moral ethics and western family culture

Let it be noted that the opposition was the first to even mention religion or Christianity as any sort of justification or point of contention.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad

I'm not going to go look up the studies

I find it interesting that you drop a [citation needed] on me, and when they are offered you turn around and drop this.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad

but rest assured they show that the social benefit of having people committed together in the same domicile are more stable than single people, which offers enough of a benefit to society to justify the tax writeoff that they get. Keep in mind, this kind of legislation exists in most states, for this reason, and it's the name of "marriage," in the name of equality, that queers have been fighting for. It is highly disingenuous to suggest that rearing children is the only public purpose of the contractual union of people, whether sexual, romantic, under god, or fiscal.

This is in no way a civil rights issue. All parties possess the same rights to enter into marriage as it is currently defined.

This again begs the question of, why is marriage regulated but friendships are not? Yes, some benefits have been intertwined with marriage over the years such as tax benefits. This can be seen through two lenses. First, tax benefits are ostensibly to support the children and not the adults which justifies it. Alternatively, it would be just as permissible to remove all tax benefits and simply keep the marriage as it is sans certain benefits. See above, for additional discussion of contractual relationships and how some rights that often accompany marriage SHOULD be severable and expandable by contract.

Why is marriage regulated, but friendships are not? Anyone who submits that marriage must be redefined must first answer this. Only then, can the discussion move forward.