Carteret Title
DRN Title Search
Register
Log In
Forget your Password?

Home
Directory
Bulletins
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Links
Classifieds
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise
FAQ
Privacy Policy


Blurbs from the Bossman

Anti-Proposition 8 Arguments Based on Feelings, Not Facts
by Scott Perry | 2013/03/03 |

I recently read an article by Meg Whitman, CEO of Hewlett-Packard, in which she outlines her reasons for joining “a prominent group of conservatives, moderate  Republicans and social libertarians” in signing onto an amicus brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a Supreme Court case challenging California’s Proposition 8.  In citing her reasons for opposing Prop. 8, Ms. Whitman states in her article that, “I feel the time has come to bestow marriage equality to same-sex couples,” arguing that there is “no legitimate, fact-based reason for providing different legal treatment of committed relationships between same-sex couples.”  I respectfully disagree.

Blurbs from the Bossman ::

In the interest of full disclosure, this writer is a Bible-believing disciple of Jesus Christ; therefore, my thoughts and opinions on this subject are firmly rooted in the tenets of His teachings.  Furthermore, I am a true libertarian where this issue is concerned. However, I am against being compelled by militant homosexual activists to “tolerate” and agree with their lifestyle. Trust me when I say that I REALLY do not care what anyone does in the privacy of his/her bedroom.  When someone insists, however, that it’s none of my business while flouting their sexual proclivities in my face, telling me that I MUST accept their lifestyle as "normal" or "natural", that’s where they lose me.

I also feel it necessary to point out here that nowhere in the Bible does it state that God "hates" or singles out homosexuals.  His Word, as expressed in the Holy Bible, states that ALL sex outside of marriage, (hetero AND homo), is a sin. “Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery,” Hebrews 13:4 (NLT).  It also espouses the principle that God hates the sin, “For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard,” Romans 3:23 (NLT), but loves the sinner, “But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners,” Romans 5:8 (NLT).  Thus, “gay bashing” is DEFINITELY not in accordance with Christian teaching, either, despite the stories you see in the news about that handful of knuckleheads from the Westboro Baptist Church, who go around spewing that “God hates fags” nonsense. To be clear, bigotry and hatred are not my motivations here.

Marriage is a civil and social contract, to be sure, but it’s much more than just a “corporate merger” between two persons.  Traditional marriage is not simply a creature of statute.  Rather, it is based on the Scriptural principle of a holy union between man and woman, ordained by God, geared not only toward procreation, but the unity and well-being of both the husband and wife.  We see this principle manifest throughout history.  It has been codified into our system of laws.  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. 

Marriage also imposes certain duties and obligations upon both a husband and his wife. Throughout Scripture, a wife is regarded as highly valuable, thus worthy of great care and respect, “The man who finds a wife finds a treasure, and he receives favor from the LORD,” Proverbs 18:22 (NLT);  Who can find a virtuous and capable wife?  She is more precious than rubies,” Proverbs 31:10 (NLT).  This is why God even sets forth a commandment to men in this regard: “For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up His life for her,” Ephesians 5:25 (NLT).  In addition, the Bible clearly sets forth the duties of husbands and wives toward one another in Ephesians Chapter 5.  This is not to say that all marriages are perfect unions, by any means.  As fallible human beings, we are prone to defect and failure, but this does not alter the principle of the ideal.

My main argument against so-called ‘homosexual marriage’ is based not only on the Bible, but also on science and biology.  The physiological and psychological (as well as spiritual) differences between males and females are self-evident and are well-documented. 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.  “This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined with his wife; and the two are united into one,” Genesis 2:24 (NLT).  The King James version calls this “two becoming one flesh.”  In addition to the Scriptural argument, the biology is all wrong, therein is my problem with so-called "gay marriage".  Biologically speaking, it is impossible for two persons of the same sex to “become one flesh”.  The institution of marriage was founded out of biological necessity and if the word “marriage” is redefined to mean anything, it will eventually mean nothing.  Allow me to explain.

Even traditional marriage between two opposite-sex persons imposes certain legal limitations upon its participants. Persons of the opposite sex, for example, cannot legally marry if they are related to one another, (i.e., brother and sister, father and daughter, etc.), not to mention laws against polygamy. Now, let's just say that in a state which recognizes homosexual unions, for example, Connecticut, that two brothers wish to be "married". What's to stop them from challenging laws prohibiting blood relatives from marrying?  Already, the ACLU is using precedents set by the decisions regarding same-sex unions to argue for the legalization of polygamy.  Simply put, every time society crosses one line, the activists move the goal post.  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?

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.  I am by no means against homosexual persons living their lives in any way they choose.  I do believe, however, that state sanctioning of same-sex unions will have far-reaching implications for society that few people have really bothered to completely think through.




Rating: 

1560 words | 1855 views | 11 comments | log in or register to post a comment


Many things to disagee with here!

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.  .

 
by Slade Smith | 2013/03/04 | log in or register to post a reply

Somehow, I Thought You Might...

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

 
by Scott Perry | 2013/03/04 | log in or register to post a reply

A Few More Thoughts Here

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

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. By today’s standard, this sort of arrangement may seem offensive and degrading to some, but by no means was it a “one-way street”. It was designed to provide for the protection and care of the woman, and it imposed certain duties and obligations upon a man. In exercising such control over his wife and her property, a husband was obliged to provide for her support, maintenance and protection. He was also liable for her tortious acts (even those committed prior to marriage) as well as any debts she may have incurred as a feme sole. Thus, by marriage, a woman became a feme covert (literally meaning “woman under cover”). 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”.

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.

Human beings occupy only about 0.05% of the earth’s total land area. The entire population of the world could live in an area of roughly 0.14% of the planet’s surface, so overpopulation is a pretty weak argument for same-sex domestic partnerships.

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.

Slippery slope? More like “creeping normalcy”, IMO. If we follow your line of reasoning, who will be the arbiter of who will or will not be allowed to marry? 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?

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.

Then change the Internal Revenue Code to include same-sex domestic partners rather than redefine the parameters of an institution which has served the needs of humanity so well for thousands of years. In other words, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Thanks again for your comments. Really, no sarcasm intended, skymutt.
 
by Scott Perry | 2013/03/04 | log in or register to post a reply

Wildly inappropriate

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.

 
by Robert Franco | 2013/03/05 | log in or register to post a reply

Since When?

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.

 
by Scott Perry | 2013/03/11 | log in or register to post a reply

You are right...
It is not your political views that I find so troubling.  You are free to believe whatever you want.  It is sharing those on a professional forum that I find troubling.  As I said, they do not belong here.   
by Robert Franco | 2013/03/12 | log in or register to post a reply

Sorry, I Just Have To Ask


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

 
by Scott Perry | 2013/05/06 | log in or register to post a reply

Not entirely true?

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. 

 

 
by Slade Smith | 2013/03/05 | log in or register to post a reply

Just Like I Said--Not Entirely True
So in other words, what I sad IS entirely true. Traditional marriage did not allow the WIFE to own property.
Not exactly. A wife did indeed have property ownership rights; those rights were just subordinate to those of her husband. Under coverture, a wife retained an inchoate (dower) interest in any property she brought into the marriage, along with a one-third interest in her husband’s property. Thus, a husband’s right to alienate or pledge property (as security for a mortgage, for example) was limited unless his wife signed away her dower interest. Furthermore, a husband could not easily dispose of any of his property without his wife’s approval because of her right of inheritance. This is why property deeds out of the mid-to-late 19th century are more often than not executed by both spouses. I see it all the time in my work.

Another interesting thing to note is that many deeds and leases of that time period include special certification language stating that the wife was examined “separate and apart from her husband”, and that she had not been unduly influenced or coerced into signing off on the document.

In addition, it was not uncommon for a feme sole contemplating marriage to retain control over her property by conveying it into a trust prior to the marriage for her “sole and separate use and benefit during the coverture.” There were also certain circumstances in which a wife could, in fact, sign binding contracts and conduct business in her husband’s name, for example, in his absence. She could also serve as special trustee for her husband, in cases of insolvency, to protect family assets from creditors. So, in other words, it’s just like I said--not entirely true.
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.
Perhaps I should clarify. I do not “approve” -- I “understand”. Of course I was not suggesting a return to the arcane laws of the past. However, to gain a true understanding of the law, I believe it is important to understand its origins and I was simply providing historical context. Indeed, I believe that today’s more enlightened approach to marital rights is a far more fitting adaptation of the Christian model of marriage as a merging of identities.
The people, through the government will be the arbiter, just like it is now. Not a single thing will have changed in that regard.
A majority of the people of 39 states, including California, acting through their respective governments, have banned homosexual marriage outright. I would accept your argument if that had settled the issue, but the challenge to Prop. 8 certainly suggests that it hasn’t.
The potential for abuse is no different than for heterosexual marriage.
If you truly believe that, then you have a lot more faith in your fellow man than I. Personally, I believe such fraud will be commonplace because it will be so difficult to prove.
 
by Scott Perry | 2013/03/11 | log in or register to post a reply

Meh.

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.

 

 
by Slade Smith | 2013/03/12 | log in or register to post a reply

Doesn't Change What I Said


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

“Not entirely true.”

 
by Scott Perry | 2013/05/06 | log in or register to post a reply
Blurbs from the Bossman

 

Thoughts, Observations
and Ruminations of an Independent Title Examiner Living & Working in the "Steel Buckle of the Rust Belt."

 

Links

Recent Comments

Relevant changes to the Act are items 2,3,4 and 5 (bold). To stress Scott's point, the lien must be...
by ted mullucey
Under Pennsylvania law, delinquent property taxes are considered Municipal Liens. "Municipal Liens...
by Scott Perry
I haven't read the amendment or new law, but from what you've said, it appears a county   ...
by john gault
“Act 93, originally House Bill 388, only changed how municipalities reduce property&nbs...
by Scott Perry
This is a major change to Pennsylvania law - up to now, if a lien was recorded as a municipal lien, ...
by Elizabeth Helman
While there is a need for some kind of health support, we still need to make sure that it is real...
by Yusni Bonlingo
Your acknowledgement that “the exception proves the rule” is a prima fascie af...
by Scott Perry
So exactly where do you stand on the issue of professional athletes sharing their sex...
by Scott Perry
Categories

     
    © 2007, Source of Title.