What has done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage?

[Renew Deal]

[lagged_variable]

1. I'll bite

Maybe I'm just dumb, could someone fill me in? Clearly, gay marraige has done nothing to destroy the sanctity of marriage. But how has the Schiavo case done anything in this respect?

[Renew Deal]

2. It used to be a spouses responsibility to care for their spouse,.

Meaning that if we were married, I could make decisions for you or you could make decisions for me. Now even marriage isn't enough. Married couples have to get legal documents to hopefully protect themselves from the gov't or courts. It has weakened the sanctity of marriage more than gay marriage ever could have.

[lagged_variable]

5. OK

I believe that, and I understand. I think it's just the word "sanctity" that I don't like. It's a Repub word, and I feel like using it is just fighting the battle on their terms.

The Schiavo thing is a legalistic battle: who has rights (power of attorney?) if there is no living will and the individual is 'alive' but unable to speak in their defense? When I hear "sanctity", I think of an inner understanding, a link that has nothing to do with what the government says, what crazy fundies say, or what anyone but the two parties to the marriage say and believe.

Letting this all be about "sanctity" skews the debate in a way that makes no sense to me, and certainly does not operate in anyone's favor but those who feel like they have an entitlement to define what is sanctified and who sanctifies it.

Am I wrong? Am I being nitpicky?

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. That's just the point.

The 'sanctity of marriage' is the Republican meme, and they would have it apply to all marriages, and since they claim their bible is against gay marriage, no gay marriage can be sanctified. To allow a gay marriage, simply on legalistic grounds of equal rights, threatens the sanctity of all marriages.

But in the Schizo case, they put up legalistic challenges to the marriage which was sanctified in a religious ceremony giving the husband all final say: "Who gives this woman?" and the father replies, I do, and relinquishes all rights and responsibilities to the husband. Now the parents, and their RW backers, justify interfering in that sanctified relationship on purely legalistic grounds, saying in effect that marriage is not sacred, but a legal contract which can be overturned by clever lawyers and a lot of money. And this, somehow, does not threaten the sanctity of marriage.

Either a marriage is just a legal construct, and therefore there is no legal grounds to deny gay marriage, or it is a sacred bond between two people, and there is no justification for interfering in the husband's decision.

They want it both ways.

[mondo joe]

3. It has defiled the privacy of the family and the right of one spouse

to make medical decision for the other when necessary - some of the very things gays are seeking to GAIN in marriage.

[kweerwolf]

4. I think the point is ...

... Congress attempted to override the sanctity of the Schiavos' marriage (and a concept going back hundreds of years even into common law) when they over-ruled her husband's decision. Because people chose their spouses (as opposed to not being able to pick one's family) the spouse has traditionally been considered the one who should decide issues such as this when the other spouse is incapacitated.

[Renew Deal]

7. kick

:kick: