Slightly OT: Pete Ashdown for Utah Senator in 2006

Josh Hansen lists at
Wed Jul 13 23:44:13 MDT 2005

Joel Finlinson wrote:
>     I agree with Sasha on this one.  
>    In an ideal world, we would want the State to have as small a part
> of our lives as possible, but since the bill almost always falls to
> the States to clean up the messes of mostly irresponsibile individuals
> who don't take care of their own 'accidental' children in the form of
> millions of dollars spent on welfare, child protective services,
> foster parents, law enforcement, drug treatment facilities, prisons,
> etc, they do have a very strong vested interest in trying to make sure
> that families stay together and the composition and definition of
> marriage.
>    JOEL

I don't understand what the state being involved in the marriage
business has to do with irresponsible individuals raising delinquent
children.  Unless there is some kind of "responsibility test" you have
to pass to get a marriage license that I'm not aware of, that argument
makes absolutely no sense.  As far as I know, kids raised by gay people
are no more likely to end up in prison or on welfare than kids raised by
straight people.  So why exactly should the government have the power to
decide which adults can marry eachother and which ones can't?  If the
government simply recognized "civil unions", which would include
marriages performed by a church, or people getting married at the
courthouse, regardless of whether it was a man and a woman or not, and
adjusted taxes and so forth accordingly, how would that be a problem?

Josh H.

More information about the PLUG mailing list