Traditional marriage is not simply a creature of statute.... In the eyes of the law, a married couple is considered one person, which is an extension of the Biblical principle of “two becoming one flesh.” Our body of laws regarding tenancy by the entireties, spousal immunity, (which prevents the state from compelling one spouse to testify against the other), and community property are but a few examples of this. 

"Traditional marriage" did not allow the wife to own property.  Clearly, the "traditional marriage" has evolved in the law.  There is no reason why the concept of marriage should not continue to evolve in ways that are consistent with good public policy, as it has in the past.

Same-sex unions, by their very nature, are sterile unions whose primary purpose is to gratify of the desires of two persons, rather than to benefit society as a whole.They deny the innate differences between the sexes, not to mention the primary purpose of marriage: propagation of the human race.

With 7 billion people inhabiting every corner of this planet, I don't think we need to worry too much curently about propogation of the human race.  On the other hand, encouraging people to peacably and permanently live together in the same home does have benefits on an increasingly crowded planet.

If the state must grant equal status to same-sex couples based simply upon the fact that they love one another, on what logical basis can it prohibit such things as incest, bestiality or pedophilia?
 

Again, I think there are strong public policy arguments for gay marriage that go beyond love and into more practical areas like stability, shared use of  resources, etc., so i disagree with your premise.

Also, your argument is basically a slippery slope argument, which is logical fallacy.  If the law is changed to allow gay marriage, the status quo in this respect remains fundamentally the same: some marriages between individuals will be allowed by the state, and some will not. 

I also reject the argument that traditional marriage somehow "deprives" homosexuals of their civil rights. There are already a number of ways that same-sex couples can secure and preserve their legal rights as couples; many companies now even offer the same benefit packages to employees with same-sex domestic partners as they do for traditional spouses.

All you are point out here is that some businesses are getting ahead of the curve on the issue.  But the fact that some private businesses are doing what they can to treat gay couples equally does not change the fact that gay couples do not have equal rights under current law. There is no way under current law that a gay couple can "secure" many of the rights that opposite sex couples now enjoy.  For just one of many possible examples, a member of a gay couple cannot secure the right to continue to collect benefits from a partner's social security when the partner dies, no matter what they do, whereas an opposite sex couple enjoys this benefit automatically.  .

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Slade.  I appreciate your readership and commentary.

"Traditional marriage" did not allow the wife to own property. Clearly, the "traditional marriage" has evolved in the law.

With 7 billion people inhabiting every corner of this planet, I don't think we need to worry too much curently about propogation of the human race. On the other hand, encouraging people to peacably and permanently live together in the same home does have benefits on an increasingly crowded planet.

Also, your argument is basically a slippery slope argument, which is logical fallacy. If the law is changed to allow gay marriage, the status quo in this respect remains fundamentally the same: some marriages between individuals will be allowed by the state, and some will not.

There is no way under current law that a gay couple can "secure" many of the rights that opposite sex couples now enjoy. For just one of many possible examples, a member of a gay couple cannot secure the right to continue to collect benefits from a partner's social security when the partner dies, no matter what they do, whereas an opposite sex couple enjoys this benefit automatically.

Aside from being wildly inappropriate for a professional title industry forum, I don't think we should be denying equal rights to anybody because Scott Perry can't tolerate it. Despite your claim that you are not motivated by bigotry and hatred - your post is full of just that. 

And... you are not a true libertarian.

Please find a new place for your political views.  They don't belong here.

Mr. Franco, if you deem anything I’ve written in this post to be “bigoted,” “hateful” or otherwise objectionable, then by all means, ask me to remove it. I will gladly do so upon your request.  It’s your website, your prerogative and I respect that.  But please do not profess to know what is in my heart based solely on the fact that I wrote something that Robert Franco isn’t comfortable with. 

And since when is it “wildly inappropriate” to write an about an issue which is sure to have a lasting and profound impact on individual property rights on a website devoted to the discussion of---property rights?

I could be totally off the mark here (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), but I’m willing to bet that my political views aren’t what you find so troubling.

So exactly where do you stand on the issue of professional athletes sharing their sexual orientation in the public arena?

Well, that’s not entirely true.In common law, a feme sole could in fact own property, sign contracts, enter suits at law in her own name or do any other act or thing that a man could do. Once the feme sole entered into marriage, her legal identity merged into that of her husband, and her property automatically became his under the doctrine of coverture.

So in other words, what I sad IS entirely true.  Traditional marriage did not allow the WIFE to own property. 

So marriage wasn’t exactly the oppressive one-sided autocracy that some modern feminists would have us believe. I guess it just depends on what you consider “evolved”.

Your approval of and nostalgia for the marriage laws of two centuries ago is duly noted. I consider a view of marriage where men and women have equal rights in an opposite sex marriage to be evolved compared to a view of the marriage where a woman cannot own property, enter into contracts, etc.. It seems that you belive otherwise.

If we follow your line of reasoning, who will be the arbiter of who will or will not be allowed to marry?

The people, through the government will be the arbiter, just like it is now.  Not a single thing will have changed in that regard.  So your implications that legalizing gay marriage will lead to such things as bestial marriage or incestuous marriage are absurd.

Should two heterosexual persons of the same sex be permitted to enter into a state-sanctioned “marriage”? If not, what sort of litmus test should there be for a person to “prove” that they are in fact homosexual? Maybe I’m being a bit too practical, but do you really think there’s no potential for abuse here?

The potential for abuse is no different than for heterosexual marriage.  No proof should be required in either case.  I once knew a guy who married a girl so he could stay in the country.  I don't think he ever loved her.  It never caused me to believe we should outlaw heterosexual marriage. 

So in other words, what I sad IS entirely true. Traditional marriage did not allow the WIFE to own property.

Your approval of and nostalgia for the marriage laws of two centuries ago is duly noted. I consider a view of marriage where men and women have equal rights in an opposite sex marriage to be evolved compared to a view of the marriage where a woman cannot own property, enter into contracts, etc.. It seems that you belive otherwise.

The people, through the government will be the arbiter, just like it is now. Not a single thing will have changed in that regard.

The potential for abuse is no different than for heterosexual marriage.

That a wife had a future interest in property that vested when her husband died-- in other words, when she was no longer a wife-- refutes nothing in my simple statement.

That a single woman could create a trust before marriage to get around laws that did not allow her to own and control property in marriage also refutes nothing in my simple statement.  In fact, it supports my statement.  Ask yourself: why would a woman need to do this if she could own property in marriage?

To the fact that a wife could contract in certain special circumstances, all I can say is that the exception proves the rule. 

I would accept your argument if that had settled the issue, but the challenge to Prop. 8 certainly suggests that it hasn’t.

Are not courts also an arm of the government chosen by the people, if indirectly?  Should not people be able to challenge the validity of laws in court?  No Brown v. Board of Education?

Personally, I believe such fraud will be commonplace because it will be so difficult to prove.

But again, how does the potential for fraud differ from heterosexual marriage?  Unless you can articulate a difference, you really have no argument here.

Your acknowledgement that “the exception proves the rule” is a prima fascie affirmation of my simple statement:

“Not entirely true.”