Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't know anything about the Massachusetts constitution, but I can think of a whole bunch of arguments that would pass the (flacid) rational-basis test. E.g., polygamy is expensive because multiple wives tend not to work, and instead collect unemployment benefits.
|
That isn't a rational basis argument that would work. If that argument would work, then the argument that you should be able to ban severely disabled people from marrying because they tend not to work and instead collect unemployment benefits would work. But it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Why do you keep ducking my question about polygamous civil unions, gay or otherwise?
|
I wasn't ducking it. I can only type so fast and answer so many questions at a time. Others were higher priority than yours.
What is it you want to know? Should we allow those? No. I don't think we should have gay civil unions, either. But we weren't talking about that. We were talking about gay marriage. And I said - why do you need gay marriage if you already can have a civil union? The only difference that I can see between a gay civil union and a gay marriage is government and employer based benefits. However, that doesn't mean that I am for gay civil unions.
Why do gay people need the state to authorize civil unions? They can do by contract anything that they get from a civil union. Medical power of attorney, wills, property rights, etc. What is the purpose of having the state sanction it? What do they get from a civil union that they cannot get by private contract with each other. Answer me that.
