Comments on: Summary of the California Marriage Decision http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2008/05/15/summary-of-the-california-marriage-decision/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:20:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Daniel http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2008/05/15/summary-of-the-california-marriage-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-126691 Daniel Fri, 16 May 2008 14:45:32 +0000 http://www.tinmanic.com/?p=2779#comment-126691 Resentment, bitterness, and misanthropy, I guess. I would actually prefer the ability to form domestic corporations with as many partners of any gender as one chooses. But that would also entail getting rid of marriage and all the patriarchal baggage that goes along with it. Resentment, bitterness, and misanthropy, I guess.

I would actually prefer the ability to form domestic corporations with as many partners of any gender as one chooses.

But that would also entail getting rid of marriage and all the patriarchal baggage that goes along with it.

]]> By: Tin Man http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2008/05/15/summary-of-the-california-marriage-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-126690 Tin Man Fri, 16 May 2008 14:29:29 +0000 http://www.tinmanic.com/?p=2779#comment-126690 In that case, why don't you think the proper remedy would be to allow groups of any size to get married, rather than to prevent anyone from doing it? I don't see how the remedy for a "restriction on fundamental rights of free association" is to reduce that right even further. In that case, why don’t you think the proper remedy would be to allow groups of any size to get married, rather than to prevent anyone from doing it? I don’t see how the remedy for a “restriction on fundamental rights of free association” is to reduce that right even further.

]]> By: Daniel http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2008/05/15/summary-of-the-california-marriage-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-126689 Daniel Fri, 16 May 2008 14:15:52 +0000 http://www.tinmanic.com/?p=2779#comment-126689 <i>pp. 119-121: what is the proper remedy: deny marriage rights to everyone, or extend marriage rights to same-sex couples? The latter.</i> This is what I most passionately disagree with. The proper remeedy is to abolish this suppurating sore called "civil marriage" altogether. There is no "fundamental right to marry." It is a social construct. There are fundamental rights to privacy, personal liberty, and property. One has the fundamental right to establish a home and mingle property with one individual or two or ten -- yet this "right to marry" only permits two individuals to form such a union. This is an unjustified restriction on the individual's fundamental rights of free association and property, as well as an unjustified social recognition of one form of domestic organization over others. pp. 119-121: what is the proper remedy: deny marriage rights to everyone, or extend marriage rights to same-sex couples? The latter.

This is what I most passionately disagree with. The proper remeedy is to abolish this suppurating sore called “civil marriage” altogether.

There is no “fundamental right to marry.” It is a social construct. There are fundamental rights to privacy, personal liberty, and property. One has the fundamental right to establish a home and mingle property with one individual or two or ten — yet this “right to marry” only permits two individuals to form such a union. This is an unjustified restriction on the individual’s fundamental rights of free association and property, as well as an unjustified social recognition of one form of domestic organization over others.

]]>