Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

I found an on-point article about states abolishing marriage altogether, though it is from 2010. I've found a bunch of articles, actually, and it would seem that the issue is not so settled as a fundamental right. Otherwise, it wouldn't seem law review articles in this much depth would be necessary. She focuses more on the "leveling down" if the decision was under equal protection grounds, but ultimately concludes that state abolition of marriage would be unconstitutional if a fundamental liberty interest was affected. For those interested.

Can States Abolish The Institution of Marriage?

Those 2010 articles completely overlook the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which seems to be the most relevant law on the subject.

 

[rockaction]

I found an on-point article about states abolishing marriage altogether, though it is from 2010. I've found a bunch of articles, actually, and it would seem that the issue is not so settled as a fundamental right. Otherwise, it wouldn't seem law review articles in this much depth would be necessary. She focuses more on the "leveling down" if the decision was under equal protection grounds, but ultimately concludes that state abolition of marriage would be unconstitutional if a fundamental liberty interest was affected. For those interested.

Can States Abolish The Institution of Marriage?

Those 2010 articles completely overlook the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which seems to be the most relevant law on the subject.

Damn it, it was an anticipatory article!

Okay, I get it. Read the decision.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm not seeing where Paul came out with a constitutional amendment to end all marriages, so I just checked other sources than the actual article. Politico reinforces that Paul wants to rethink federal government sanction of marriage. Reason states that he wants the federal government out of the marriage business. One astute writer answers my question: he states that Paul offers no solutions; rather, he simply states that government should get out of the marriage business.

I'm missing the amendment part of this, possibly.

The Supreme Court has held several times now that (government-recognized) marriage is a fundamental right.

"Getting the government out of the marriage business" would therefore require a constitutional amendment.

Not really. They can recognize marriages and just eliminate the benefits.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Having had some time to think about this, here's what I have to say. If the government wants to grant everyone the right to marry, go ahead. We are all equal, after all. Not to mention that there are some gay couples who wish to adopt, and would provide more stable homes than some straight couples will. I simply wish to make sure that everyone knows that God loves them. In fact, I'd love for all of us to get along somehow.

I think that is more likely today than it was a week ago.

To be fair, it was true then, as well. A lot of people claiming to be followers of Christ certainly don't act like it.

A lot of Christians justify being anti-gay by using some version of "love the sinner, hate the sin." But I can't find that anywhere in the Bible. Based on my reading of the Bible, it looks like God may hate sins, but He never commands us to go around hating other people's sins. He commands us to forgive other people's sins. He is judge, not us.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15.

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Matthew 7:3.

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' John 8:7.

As Jesus was finishing his sermon a stone came sailing from the back of the crowd, smiting the object of his sermon. Jesus mounted a crate to better look out over the crowd, slumped his shoulders in exasperation and was heard to sigh 'Awww Mom".

 

[jon_mx]

I am shocked no one has brought up the Bible verse which states, 'Jesus rode an ###.'

 

[Scoresman]

I am shocked no one has brought up the Bible verse which states, 'Jesus rode an ###.'

a velociraptor?

 

[rockaction]

I assume, given its position on Google, that this is a nice hot-button issue that people are drawing parallels to.

For fun. No need to draw analogies or try and extrapolate. Different times, different circumstances. The Russian Effort To Abolish Marriage.

 

[Christo]

Marriage already does exist within each state.

And Kennedy's opinion was pretty much straight substantive due process. He gave pretty short shrift to equal protection.

Smart man.

 

[rockaction]

Marriage already does exist within each state.

And Kennedy's opinion was pretty much straight substantive due process. He gave pretty short shrift to equal protection.

Smart man.

Why is this so?

Really just asking.

 

[Christo]

Marriage already does exist within each state.

And Kennedy's opinion was pretty much straight substantive due process. He gave pretty short shrift to equal protection.

Smart man.

Why is this so?

Really just asking.

I think it's a crappy argument on this issue.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Equal protection is a crappy argument?

Laws that authorize granting marriage licenses to male-female couples but not male-male couples are discriminatory on their face, and nobody seems to be able to articulate even a rational basis for the discrimination.

 

[pollardsvision]

Equal protection is a crappy argument?

Laws that authorize granting marriage licenses to male-female couples but not male-male couples are discriminatory on their face, and nobody seems to be able to articulate even a rational basis for the discrimination.

"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" not rational enough for you?

 

[bcdjr1]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

I understand why the government wants to incentive marriage. I just don't think the government should be giving preferential treatment to certain classes of people. Why should a person who cannot find a marriage partner be discriminated against?

The argument of the government wouldn't be that they're being discriminated against, but rather they are rewarding the behavior that is approved. Like why there are subsidies for recycling programs, or purchasing electric vehicles. The idea is to get more people to behave in certain ways. Positive reinforcement behavioral modification.

 

[jon_mx]

Equal protection is a crappy argument?

Laws that authorize granting marriage licenses to male-female couples but not male-male couples are discriminatory on their face, and nobody seems to be able to articulate even a rational basis for the discrimination.

"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" not rational enough for you?

The parts do not fit.

 

[The Commish]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

So your argument is that people should have fought the utterly impossible fight to eliminate government recognition of marriage rather than the winnable one for equal rights?

That seems like it would be a pretty stupid strategy. "Hey guys, instead of working to break through this wall with an array of carefully selected tools, wouldn't it just be better if we just bang our heads against it for the rest of eternity?"

 

[rockaction]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

So your argument is that people should have fought the utterly impossible fight to eliminate government recognition of marriage rather than the winnable one for equal rights?

That seems like it would be a pretty stupid strategy. "Hey guys, instead of working to break through this wall with an array of carefully selected tools, wouldn't it just be better if we just bang our heads against it for the rest of eternity?"

Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum argued this very point from the left. Pretty smart people.

eta* And good morning, Tobias.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

So your argument is that people should have fought the utterly impossible fight to eliminate government recognition of marriage rather than the winnable one for equal rights?

That seems like it would be a pretty stupid strategy. "Hey guys, instead of working to break through this wall with an array of carefully selected tools, wouldn't it just be better if we just bang our heads against it for the rest of eternity?"

Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum argued this very point from the left. Pretty smart people.

eta* And good morning, Tobias.

And to you, sir.

I haven't read their arguments but I suspect that they are arguing theory, not practice. It's a fine idea, one I might agree with, but it's a waste of time because it will never ever happen. It's basically like telling advocates of gun control that they should stop litigating around the fringes of the second amendment and just work to have it repealed.

If this is important to you, by all means fight for it. But I don't know why someone can't simultaneously fight for same-sex marriage rights in the world we live in and also for abolishing state-authorized marriages for their great-great-great grandchildren, if that's what they care about. I also don't know why this only comes up in the context of same-sex marriage, where it's raised constantly. If people really cared about it as much as they claim to, why does it seem they almost never bring it up in discussions about overhauling the tax code, or in discussions of health care?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Even if we removed the word "marriage" from the law, we would still want to have some civil institution identical to marriage in its place. My wife and I shouldn't have to go to an attorney and have a contract drawn up authorizing us to make medical decisions for the other -- that should be automatic. If we were too lazy to do a will, the default outcome should be that she inherits my stuff and vice versa. If she gave up her career so I could pursue mine, and then I dumped her for one of the many hot 20 year-olds who are constantly throwing themselves at me, I should have an obligation to support her in the future. And the tax code needs to have some way to handle household income vs. individual income, which doesn't work unless you have a "married filing jointly" option.

So what exactly is the proposal here? We're going to do a find-and-replace for "marriage" and "civil unions" throughout the US Code? That's stupid. It's just a word.

 

[matuski]

Equal protection is a crappy argument?

Laws that authorize granting marriage licenses to male-female couples but not male-male couples are discriminatory on their face, and nobody seems to be able to articulate even a rational basis for the discrimination.

"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" not rational enough for you?

The parts do not fit.

Then you must acquit.

 

[rockaction]

Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum argued this very point from the left. Pretty smart people.

eta* And good morning, Tobias.

And to you, sir.

I haven't read their arguments but I suspect that they are arguing theory, not practice. It's a fine idea, one I might agree with, but it's a waste of time because it will never ever happen. It's basically like telling advocates of gun control that they should stop litigating around the fringes of the second amendment and just work to have it repealed.

If this is important to you, by all means fight for it. But I don't know why someone can't simultaneously fight for same-sex marriage rights in the world we live in and also for abolishing state-authorized marriages for their great-great-great grandchildren, if that's what they care about. I also don't know why this only comes up in the context of same-sex marriage, where it's raised constantly. If people really cared about it as much as they claim to, why does it seem they almost never bring it up in discussions about overhauling the tax code, or in discussions of health care?

This is quite possible. I thought it was their mid-aughts strategy to secure rights for all domestic arrangements, especially when it didn't seem like gay marriage was coming to fruition.

If the latter part of your post is gently suggesting that people care about eradicating marriage when the discussion turns to same-sex marriage as a way of avoiding public "bigotry," I'd suggest you're correct, unless those people tend to believe in all sorts of lifestyles being viewed equally under the law. Distinct views about government involvement with family arrangements generally only happen among those on the libertarian right and civil libertarian left.

 

[matuski]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

What difference does it make what you call it? It is 100% necessary for the government to recognize the couple - "marriage" or not.

Taxes, medical decisions, legal considerations, and on and on.

eta - IK put it more eloquently than I did.. so what he said.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Even if we removed the word "marriage" from the law, we would still want to have some civil institution identical to marriage in its place. My wife and I shouldn't have to go to an attorney and have a contract drawn up authorizing us to make medical decisions for the other -- that should be automatic. If we were too lazy to do a will, the default outcome should be that she inherits my stuff and vice versa. If she gave up her career so I could pursue mine, and then I dumped her for one of the many hot 20 year-olds who are constantly throwing themselves at me, I should have an obligation to support her in the future. And the tax code needs to have some way to handle household income vs. individual income, which doesn't work unless you have a "married filing jointly" option.

So what exactly is the proposal here? We're going to do a find-and-replace for "marriage" and "civil unions" throughout the US Code? That's stupid. It's just a word.

Exactly.

 

[The Commish]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

So your argument is that people should have fought the utterly impossible fight to eliminate government recognition of marriage rather than the winnable one for equal rights?

That seems like it would be a pretty stupid strategy. "Hey guys, instead of working to break through this wall with an array of carefully selected tools, wouldn't it just be better if we just bang our heads against it for the rest of eternity?"

It's not impossible It's not "too hard". If you don't buy that, fine. Remove the rights from marital status. That's clean and straight forward and certainly not "too hard". Gov't doesn't need to be in the marriage business.

 

[rockaction]

Even if we removed the word "marriage" from the law, we would still want to have some civil institution identical to marriage in its place. My wife and I shouldn't have to go to an attorney and have a contract drawn up authorizing us to make medical decisions for the other -- that should be automatic. If we were too lazy to do a will, the default outcome should be that she inherits my stuff and vice versa. If she gave up her career so I could pursue mine, and then I dumped her for one of the many hot 20 year-olds who are constantly throwing themselves at me, I should have an obligation to support her in the future. And the tax code needs to have some way to handle household income vs. individual income, which doesn't work unless you have a "married filing jointly" option.

So what exactly is the proposal here? We're going to do a find-and-replace for "marriage" and "civil unions" throughout the US Code? That's stupid. It's just a word.

I think that the utility concerns that flow from the recognition of marriage make it difficult to undo for pragmatic and practical reasons. In theory, I like the idea of "the state getting out of marriage," but it doesn't seem very workable. And aside from the constitutional questions about its abolition, it hardly seems worth the expenditure of political time and energy.

 

[The Commish]

Even if we removed the word "marriage" from the law, we would still want to have some civil institution identical to marriage in its place. My wife and I shouldn't have to go to an attorney and have a contract drawn up authorizing us to make medical decisions for the other -- that should be automatic. If we were too lazy to do a will, the default outcome should be that she inherits my stuff and vice versa. If she gave up her career so I could pursue mine, and then I dumped her for one of the many hot 20 year-olds who are constantly throwing themselves at me, I should have an obligation to support her in the future. And the tax code needs to have some way to handle household income vs. individual income, which doesn't work unless you have a "married filing jointly" option.

So what exactly is the proposal here? We're going to do a find-and-replace for "marriage" and "civil unions" throughout the US Code? That's stupid. It's just a word.

Guess this is where I'm different. We have documents for all occasions and scenarios so they are easy to execute should something happen to us. It cost us about $500 to get it all done, but now I have the piece of mind that if something were to happen to me, my family is taken care of and things go exactly where I want them to go. Same for my wife. I've seen what relying on the "default outcome" does (can do). I don't want that to be a possibility for my family.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

So your argument is that people should have fought the utterly impossible fight to eliminate government recognition of marriage rather than the winnable one for equal rights?

That seems like it would be a pretty stupid strategy. "Hey guys, instead of working to break through this wall with an array of carefully selected tools, wouldn't it just be better if we just bang our heads against it for the rest of eternity?"

It's not impossible It's not "too hard". If you don't buy that, fine. Remove the rights from marital status. That's clean and straight forward and certainly not "too hard". Gov't doesn't need to be in the marriage business.

Has any state government succeeded in doing it? Any national government anywhere on earth? Any government in the history of mankind? Has anyone ever even had their effort approved by a legislature? If not, that seems like it would be awfully hard to do.

And if government isn't in the marriage business, how do you suggest dealing with the problems Ivan raises (inheritances, power of attorney, tax designations) if not for some sort of government designation that people are coupled?

And again- why does this only come up in the context of gay marriage? If this is about government oversight generally rather than an opposition to including same sex couples, why don't we hear these protests during tax season, or when the tax code is being amended, or if there's a story about someone having to make a difficult decision regarding medical care?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Even if we removed the word "marriage" from the law, we would still want to have some civil institution identical to marriage in its place. My wife and I shouldn't have to go to an attorney and have a contract drawn up authorizing us to make medical decisions for the other -- that should be automatic. If we were too lazy to do a will, the default outcome should be that she inherits my stuff and vice versa. If she gave up her career so I could pursue mine, and then I dumped her for one of the many hot 20 year-olds who are constantly throwing themselves at me, I should have an obligation to support her in the future. And the tax code needs to have some way to handle household income vs. individual income, which doesn't work unless you have a "married filing jointly" option.

So what exactly is the proposal here? We're going to do a find-and-replace for "marriage" and "civil unions" throughout the US Code? That's stupid. It's just a word.

Guess this is where I'm different. We have documents for all occasions and scenarios so they are easy to execute should something happen to us. It cost us about $500 to get it all done, but now I have the piece of mind that if something were to happen to me, my family is taken care of and things go exactly where I want them to go. Same for my wife. I've seen what relying on the "default outcome" does (can do). I don't want that to be a possibility for my family.

So now you're mandating that everyone spend $500 and consult with a lawyer regarding their will and power of attorney? Are we going to subsidize it for people that can't afford it? I assume so, because if not then you haven't really solved the problem.

Boy, this seems like a heavy-handed move- especially since I thought the idea was to remove government from people's personal lives.

 

[CBusAlex]

"I'm sorry sir, I know you've raised these children since they were toddlers, but if I were to award you custody after their mother's death, that would be an improper government recognition of your marriage to her. So, off to foster care they go. It's really the only fair thing to do, I'm sure you understand."

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Even if we removed the word "marriage" from the law, we would still want to have some civil institution identical to marriage in its place. My wife and I shouldn't have to go to an attorney and have a contract drawn up authorizing us to make medical decisions for the other -- that should be automatic. If we were too lazy to do a will, the default outcome should be that she inherits my stuff and vice versa. If she gave up her career so I could pursue mine, and then I dumped her for one of the many hot 20 year-olds who are constantly throwing themselves at me, I should have an obligation to support her in the future. And the tax code needs to have some way to handle household income vs. individual income, which doesn't work unless you have a "married filing jointly" option.

So what exactly is the proposal here? We're going to do a find-and-replace for "marriage" and "civil unions" throughout the US Code? That's stupid. It's just a word.

Guess this is where I'm different. We have documents for all occasions and scenarios so they are easy to execute should something happen to us. It cost us about $500 to get it all done, but now I have the piece of mind that if something were to happen to me, my family is taken care of and things go exactly where I want them to go. Same for my wife. I've seen what relying on the "default outcome" does (can do). I don't want that to be a possibility for my family.

This isn't just about your family. Some people won't jump through the hoops that you have. We need sensible policies when something happens to those people.

 

[Politician Spock]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

In the completely logical sense I completely agree with this.

Unfortunately too much hate has been thrown into the mix over decades (actually centuries) by the "Bible has no flaws" crowd for this issue to be a purely logical discussion. What we have now is a result of emotion influencing law. Until Christians stop hating gays, it will never be a purely logical discussion.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've help the same position as Rand for the last decade or so. Why does the government recognize marriage in the first place? Why should married person receive tax benefits/penalties that non-married persons are not subject to?

The idea is to encourage people to get married and have kids (further tax incentives). It's in the government's best interest to increase it's population. For the most part it increases their world influence and revenue streams, as well as potential pool of military personnel.

Where are you getting this? Seems made up. We've discussed sublimeone's question like a zillion times in this threads and others, so it doesn't really seem worth doing again. Recognizing married couples as married for tax reasons makes sense.

Sorry, the federal gov't doesn't have to use "marriage" to recognize anything. This is all achievable without ever uttering the word "marriage" One of the billion facebook posts out there hit it on the head. Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages. Something I too have stated here hundreds of times. Typically I get the, "but that's too hard to do" sorts of responses.

Or the "I'm not religious and I'm still married. Deal with it" response.

 

[D_House]

I don't believe there is an obligation for people to have their marriages recognized by the government. If you don't file at the courthouse or whatever and don't apply for the marriage license, then government is effectively removed from your marriage.

 

[Doug B]

I haven't read their arguments but I suspect that they are arguing theory, not practice. It's a fine idea, one I might agree with, but it's a waste of time because it will never ever happen.

On this point specifically: What were the prospects of homosexual marriage ca. 1965?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I haven't read their arguments but I suspect that they are arguing theory, not practice. It's a fine idea, one I might agree with, but it's a waste of time because it will never ever happen.

On this point specifically: What were the prospects of homosexual marriage ca. 1965?

Beats me, and I see what you're saying, but I seriously doubt it will translate. There was no practical reason to reject same-sex marriage, all that was needed was to sway public opinion. I guess one could say the same is possible here, but it seems very different for a couple reasons. First, there are practical reasons for state recognition of partnerships- the sort of stuff Ivan listed. You'll notice that he posted that like 90 minutes ago and none of the posters who advocate this sort of change has come up with a solution to those problems. Second, rejecting state recognition of marriage is not a civil rights issue where some people have a strong interest in a change of policy, so IMO it's unlikely to ignite the same passion for the cause (see eg the fact that nobody ever brings it up outside the context of same-sex marriage debates).

 

[The Commish]

Has any state government succeeded in doing it? Any national government anywhere on earth? Any government in the history of mankind? Has anyone ever even had their effort approved by a legislature? If not, that seems like it would be awfully hard to do.

And if government isn't in the marriage business, how do you suggest dealing with the problems Ivan raises (inheritances, power of attorney, tax designations) if not for some sort of government designation that people are coupled?

And again- why does this only come up in the context of gay marriage? If this is about government oversight generally rather than an opposition to including same sex couples, why don't we hear these protests during tax season, or when the tax code is being amended, or if there's a story about someone having to make a difficult decision regarding medical care?

Succeeded in doing what? Removing marriage from their laws? I'm not aware of a state that's tried or been compelled to do so. I suggest people take personal responsibility in these matters. I know that's a novel thought, but I really have zero sympathy for those that aren't personally accountable. Don't have the money to pay for it? That's a legit point to be made. Our government likes to give subsidies. They could use some of the money saved by not having to deal with marriage related tax issues and personnel. While in school (back in the olden days) I remember learning that thousands of IRS agents were employed simply to address marriage related topics of our tax code. At the time I remember thinking it was a waste and I'm confident that group hasn't gotten smaller.

There are countless topics that come up where many believe the solution is to remove government from the equation all together. To suggest this is the only topic where "less government" is brought up as an option is rather silly. WIthout thinking too hard, I'm pretty sure we can come up with several instances where life decisions are being complicated by gov't involvement. I'd be willing to make a wager that over half the solutions for any sort of significant tax reform would have a "less government" segment of the population banging their drum.

 

[The Commish]

Perhaps the reason "it's too hard" or "it'll never happen" don't really resonate with me is because in just about every case I've heard the excuses used, they figured out a way to make it happen. Gay marriage is a perfect example of this. As is expanding healthcare.

 

[squistion]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538

The GOP's gay marriage stance is a big turn-off to voters who might otherwise support them. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-may-regret-its-lasting-battle-against-gay-marriage/

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

Voters say gay marriage isn't so important. But there's evidence it affects the GOP brand like few other issues. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-may-regret-its-lasting-battle-against-gay-marriage/

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Jon Stewart.

 

[D_House]

Perhaps the reason "it's too hard" or "it'll never happen" don't really resonate with me is because in just about every case I've heard the excuses used, they figured out a way to make it happen. Gay marriage is a perfect example of this. As is expanding healthcare.

Do you think there is much support for your idea nationwide? I personally don't want to concede the contractual benefits afforded me by my gov't recognized marriage.Also, earlier you said: "Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages."

I disagree, I think that the push for government recognition of gay marriage was exactly the intended fight of those involved as they wanted to gain the rights and privileges associated with gov't recognition of their marriages. Thus, I'm struggling to see the connection with that movement and your proposed push for removal of government recognition of any marriages. They are actually in opposition IMO.

 

[Doug B]

Perhaps the reason "it's too hard" or "it'll never happen" don't really resonate with me is because in just about every case I've heard the excuses used, they figured out a way to make it happen. Gay marriage is a perfect example of this. As is expanding healthcare.

I think the bigger hurdle, as Tobias pointed out, is achieving the critical mass of people who want this. A lot of unfathomable things can happen if society reaches consensus and drives an issue. But without that consensus, the status quo reigns.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Has any state government succeeded in doing it? Any national government anywhere on earth? Any government in the history of mankind? Has anyone ever even had their effort approved by a legislature? If not, that seems like it would be awfully hard to do.

And if government isn't in the marriage business, how do you suggest dealing with the problems Ivan raises (inheritances, power of attorney, tax designations) if not for some sort of government designation that people are coupled?

And again- why does this only come up in the context of gay marriage? If this is about government oversight generally rather than an opposition to including same sex couples, why don't we hear these protests during tax season, or when the tax code is being amended, or if there's a story about someone having to make a difficult decision regarding medical care?

Succeeded in doing what? Removing marriage from their laws? I'm not aware of a state that's tried or been compelled to do so. I suggest people take personal responsibility in these matters. I know that's a novel thought, but I really have zero sympathy for those that aren't personally accountable. Don't have the money to pay for it? That's a legit point to be made. Our government likes to give subsidies. They could use some of the money saved by not having to deal with marriage related tax issues and personnel. While in school (back in the olden days) I remember learning that thousands of IRS agents were employed simply to address marriage related topics of our tax code. At the time I remember thinking it was a waste and I'm confident that group hasn't gotten smaller.

There are countless topics that come up where many believe the solution is to remove government from the equation all together. To suggest this is the only topic where "less government" is brought up as an option is rather silly. WIthout thinking too hard, I'm pretty sure we can come up with several instances where life decisions are being complicated by gov't involvement. I'd be willing to make a wager that over half the solutions for any sort of significant tax reform would have a "less government" segment of the population banging their drum.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Can you show me the math on these savings? If you remove marriage from the equation you would make things vastly more complicated for the IRS, not simpler. No more joint filings equals many more returns, of course, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. Can you claim non-children as dependents to work around this problem? If so, how do we decide who is a legitimate dependent and who is not? Can you adopt your partner as another possible workaround? If so are people now violating incest laws by having sex with their adopted child? If not how would you administer this restriction? A staff of IRS employees peering into windows to make sure you're not sharing a bed with your adopted child? Doesn't sound like small government to me.

And simply saying "people should have more personal responsibility" is not any kind of answer, because as much as you'd like them to many people will not, and the law needs to have a way to deal with it, and every time they didn't it would be a disaster. Lengthy, messy legal proceedings every time someone dies without a will and has a partner of some kind, especially if they're raising a family, or every time someone is in a coma and near death. A massive expansion of the judiciary doesn't sound like small government to me.

And how about encouraging more people to meet with lawyers to resolve these problems? Who is eligible for subsidies? $500 a pop can add up awfully quickly, not to mention the administrative costs of the subsidy program. Would you set up government-funded offices of attorneys in poverty-stricken communities and/or fund transportation to attorneys? That really doesn't sound like small government to me.

Unless you can answer those questions, it sure sounds like you're talking about a massive expansion of government, not a shrinking of government. You can't just call it a small-government solution and snap your fingers and make it so. And that's before we even get to exactly what "problem" you're trying to solve, which I'm still not sure of.

 

[rockaction]

Jon Stewart.

People are born monogamous?

eta* Meaning the argument went like this

Bringing up polygamy as an extension of gay marriage is wrong, because unlike the natural, gay expression that culminates in marriage because of being born that way (and therefore gay marriage being legitimate) people aren't born polyamorous.

That's a new one from the left.

end eta

Leave the clown nose off, Jon. Nice work.

I shall expect to see odes to monogamy now that the left has achieved its goal of same-sex marriage, the social aspects of which will obviously trump all data about the biological sense of things.

ROFL. ROFL about social stabilization of the family coming from the left.

Excellent work. It's like I haven't been alive the past thirty years.

 

[roadkill1292]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538

The GOP's gay marriage stance is a big turn-off to voters who might otherwise support them. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-may-regret-its-lasting-battle-against-gay-marriage/

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

Voters say gay marriage isn't so important. But there's evidence it affects the GOP brand like few other issues. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-may-regret-its-lasting-battle-against-gay-marriage/

As Ari Fleischer was quoted as saying in the Washington Post, “When a young voter sees a Republican coming, many of them roll their eyes and wonder why they can’t get with modern life.”

Republicans can draw their lines in the sand all they want but sooner or later they will either have to accept the reality of SSM or have a plan to convince young voters to change their minds on this issue. Uh, good luck widdat.

 

[Henry Ford]

Jon Stewart.

People are born monogamous?

eta* Meaning the argument went like this

Bringing up polygamy as an extension of gay marriage is wrong, because unlike the natural, gay expression that culminates in marriage because of being born that way (and therefore gay marriage being legitimate) people aren't born polyamorous.

That's a new one from the left.

end eta

Leave the clown nose off, Jon. Nice work.

I shall expect to see odes to monogamy now that the left has achieved its goal of same-sex marriage, the social aspects of which will obviously trump all data about the biological sense of things.

ROFL. ROFL about social stabilization of the family coming from the left.

Excellent work. It's like I haven't been alive the past thirty years.

That's an interesting argument. You're suggesting that the left is anti-social stabilization of the family?

 

[rockaction]

If your argument rests on gay marriage being natural because people are born that way, then it follows that polygamy happens out of polyamory. Considering we've been hearing for about thirty years that people aren't monogamous, it now seems odd that gay monogamous marriages are normal, whereas polygamous arrangements aren't.

Which would also seem odd given that early marriage decisions of our nation -- and of many others -- concerned the legality of polygamy and not the legality of gay monogamous ones. Seems like an odd argument to make.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Jon Stewart.

People are born monogamous?

eta* Meaning the argument went like this

Bringing up polygamy as an extension of gay marriage is wrong, because unlike the natural, gay expression that culminates in marriage because of being born that way (and therefore gay marriage being legitimate) people aren't born polyamorous.

That's a new one from the left.

end eta

Leave the clown nose off, Jon. Nice work.

I shall expect to see odes to monogamy now that the left has achieved its goal of same-sex marriage, the social aspects of which will obviously trump all data about the biological sense of things.

ROFL. ROFL about social stabilization of the family coming from the left.

Excellent work. It's like I haven't been alive the past thirty years.

Stewart didn't make that argument up, it's in Kennedy's opinion.

 

[rockaction]

Jon Stewart.

People are born monogamous?

eta* Meaning the argument went like this

Bringing up polygamy as an extension of gay marriage is wrong, because unlike the natural, gay expression that culminates in marriage because of being born that way (and therefore gay marriage being legitimate) people aren't born polyamorous.

That's a new one from the left.

end eta

Leave the clown nose off, Jon. Nice work.

I shall expect to see odes to monogamy now that the left has achieved its goal of same-sex marriage, the social aspects of which will obviously trump all data about the biological sense of things.

ROFL. ROFL about social stabilization of the family coming from the left.

Excellent work. It's like I haven't been alive the past thirty years.

That's an interesting argument. You're suggesting that the left is anti-social stabilization of the family?

Considering no-fault divorce laws and welfare payments to unmarried mothers have their roots deeply embedded in the left's notions of social justice and liberation, why...yes.

 

[rockaction]

Jon Stewart.

People are born monogamous?

eta* Meaning the argument went like this

Bringing up polygamy as an extension of gay marriage is wrong, because unlike the natural, gay expression that culminates in marriage because of being born that way (and therefore gay marriage being legitimate) people aren't born polyamorous.

That's a new one from the left.

end eta

Leave the clown nose off, Jon. Nice work.

I shall expect to see odes to monogamy now that the left has achieved its goal of same-sex marriage, the social aspects of which will obviously trump all data about the biological sense of things.

ROFL. ROFL about social stabilization of the family coming from the left.

Excellent work. It's like I haven't been alive the past thirty years.

Stewart didn't make that argument up, it's in Kennedy's opinion.

It's irrelevant to my point and Stewart's point, but I'll have to now read it again (I did so last night, especially looking for issues of a fundamental right to marriage.)

 

[The Commish]

Perhaps the reason "it's too hard" or "it'll never happen" don't really resonate with me is because in just about every case I've heard the excuses used, they figured out a way to make it happen. Gay marriage is a perfect example of this. As is expanding healthcare.

Do you think there is much support for your idea nationwide? I personally don't want to concede the contractual benefits afforded me by my gov't recognized marriage.Also, earlier you said: "Eventually, people are going to realize that the wrong fight was being fought. It shouldn't be about gov't recognition of "gay marriage" it should be about removing the gov't from our marriages."

I disagree, I think that the push for government recognition of gay marriage was exactly the intended fight of those involved as they wanted to gain the rights and privileges associated with gov't recognition of their marriages. Thus, I'm struggling to see the connection with that movement and your proposed push for removal of government recognition of any marriages. They are actually in opposition IMO.

Probably not People are lazy. They want the path of least resistance. That's clearly reflected in Washington. I'm ok with that. I do wonder how quickly the "rights" part of this (which this was mostly about....as it should have been) would have been resolved had they taken that approach. We'll never know. I DO know that any time I talk with "staunch" opponents of gay marriage, that they do agree with the equal rights part. I don't think there's a valid argument against that part honestly and when discussed in a vacuum, they "get it" when it comes to this ruling. It's when they are focused on the "marriage" part of this that they lose their minds.