David Hyde Pierce On His Marriage And Prop 8

This is a little old and comes from before the landmark Prop 8 ruling of this summer, but it is still poignant:

YouTube Preview Image

Your Thoughts?

Education Funding: Where Two Fundamental American Ideals Completely Conflict.
Alix Jules On Being An African American Humanist
Drunken Mall Santa
Discrimination Against Atheist Invocations by Local Legislatures
About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • chuckarama

    They want government, a public institution, to recognize their marriages. If you need/want government to give you that, then don’t be surprised when it’s subjected to all the lunacy that _IS_ government.

    I think the whole gay marriage issue drives things in the wrong direction to begin with. A consenting adult has a right to be with whatever other consenting adult wants to be with them, with or without government sanction. The government only need be involved if there is a separation of some kind that results in a dispute over shared properties. To that end there may need to be some kind of notarized contract between two parties when they decide to be together, but that’s it. I’m think we should back the government out of heterosexual marriages even, and all other consenting adult relationships, period. Industry, such as insurance, will adjust – and already have. Things like insurance are always what I hear as the counter argument. The premise of that thinking is, well, we’ve already baked these things into the law, so we can’t really back up and fix it, we have to go forward and allow gov’t intrusion into homosexual relationships too. Really?