Comments on: More unintended consequences of same sex marriage

By: Ruth Institute Blog » Are you really better off, Gay America?

Ruth Institute Blog » Are you really better off, Gay America? — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:27:05 +0000

[...] Maggie Gallagher, referring to the unintended consequences of same sex marriage in DC. (I posted on this yesterday: the Catholic diocese discontinues health care for spouses; the words “bride” and [...]

By: Liz H.

Liz H. — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:29:07 +0000

I submit that the state does not, under the principal of separation of church and state, have the competence to define “marriage”. Its interest in the institution is only in the sphere of contract law — rights and obligations, real property, children and chattels etc. In that way, the Code Napoleon is really a better model: A legally contracted union in a city hall, and only optionally a religious or personal ceremony following that. A Permanent Conjugal Contract could be offered to all eligible partners but no one would be obligated to call those parties married if one did not believe that they were. Hence, I, an Anglican, could not be obligated to call two homosexuals “married”, nor would I regard myself as married if I had had only a registry contract. What the law knows of marriage is, after all, merely a mutual indenture.

By: Karen Grube

Karen Grube — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:14:29 +0000

You should know that there were also lawsuits in California over the change to the marriage license form that said “Party A” and “Party B” after the State Supreme Court struck down the traditional marriage law, because some REAL brides and grooms wanted their marriage license to actually SAY Husband and Wife or Bride and Groom! The state ended up changing the forms a second time during the few months that gay marriage was allowed so that it gave the option of Bride and Groom as well as Party A and Party B, even before the election when they had to replace them all back to the original Husban and Wife. It would be terrific if a real husband and wife sued DC the same way. I’d love it.

By: Jennifer Roback Morse: The “unintended consequences” of gay marriage in Washington D.C. | Cup o' Joel

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:37:04 +0000

[...] Julie Ponzi, we get Jennifer Roback Morse lamenting the “consequences” of the new gay marriage law in Washington D.C. Apparently one of those consequences is that some people don’t like the [...]

By: Shannon

Shannon — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:24:06 +0000

Just wait until someone sues the Catholic Archdiocese for not providing those services. Can you “separation of Church and State”? THAT’s the darling of the LEFT. Oh what a tangled web we weave… (BTW, also the achilles heel of any attempt at health care reform on the national level that has any sort of requirement for birth control and/or abortion coverage).

By: Kevin J Jones

Kevin J Jones — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:38:41 +0000

Has anybody done a study of the compliance costs of these sorts of laws? They are burdensome to both non-profits and for-profits. It would be a good issue to unite social conservatives and pro-business conservatives.