Same Sex Marriage

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't see anywhere creating marriage for gays. It's just marriage equality, across the board. There's room for all adult couples of any orientation under this tent (or chuppah) without crowding anyone else.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't see anywhere creating marriage for gays. It's just marriage equality, across the board. There's room for all adult couples of any orientation under this tent (or chuppah) without crowding anyone else.

Right, this is why I tell people it isn't an equal rights issue. The rights are equal. It is a completely new right that people, regardless of sexual preference, will be able to utilize.

And with that being said. That opens up the system to abuse. If it meant getting paid more and getting a tax break from the government, I'd have no problem marrying a male friend of mine, even though I am straight.

That is why marriage shouldn't be the qualifier. It should be children. Because that is the intended purpose behind those marriage benefits to begin with.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It is not a completely new right. This is a favorite "illogic" talking point of social conservatives; it's doublespeak. Marriage equality is the correction of a deep flaw in the application of a right.

The only way to view marriage equality as an entirely new right is to claim that the new right is to marry someone of the same gender. Marrying someone of the opposite gender has not ever been a sensible or fair option for people who are not heterosexual. In other words, what exists is a special right favoring heterosexuals, which is completely unconstitutional. Nowhere in our founding documents does it say that the government can exclude an entire class of citizens based on a characteristic that they did not choose and cannot change. There has been no rational basis up to this point for not granting marriage recognition to all adult couples, when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to choose a life partner is among the most fundamental of all rights.

The point of marriage, from the government's standpoint, is to form a legal partnership. That's it. It's not to encourage procreation, it's not to encourage a certain type of "framework" for raising offspring, it's not to reduce the spread of disease. It's really no different than granting and recognizing an incorporation or a business partnership. In our system of government most business charters are granted at the state level, including marriage, but recognized with benefits and responsibilities at both the state and federal levels.

One analogy would be the government allowing freedom of religion, but only the construction of Christian churches. You could argue that changing the definition of church to allow the construction of synagogues and mosques is the granting of a "new" right, insofar as Christians are now free to build all the mosques they want -- even though they are useless to their religion. Bullshit. The original application of the law was deeply flawed, and no new right was granted with the acknowledgment that synagogues and mosques should have been included in the first place if the constituted dictated both freedom of of belief and the exercise thereof (e.g., building your appropriate house of worship).

There is no way marriage apartheid is going to be upheld.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I should add that for almost 20 years now I've been arguing that government should get out of the marriage business altogether -- that includes any recognition of ecclesiastic marriage -- or should only offer civil unions to all adult couples, if it wants to protect couples in instances like immigration or testifying against each other in court. I see no reason for income tax inequality.
 

twoton

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
7,865
Media
1
Likes
8,302
Points
268
Location
Mid Atlantic
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
So I wonder--could an unmarried woman enter into a civil union/civil marriage with her unmarried brother so that he could be a beneficiary of her employer health plan?
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It is not a completely new right. This is a favorite "illogic" talking point of social conservatives; it's doublespeak. Marriage equality is the correction of a deep flaw in the application of a right.

The only way to view marriage equality as an entirely new right is to claim that the new right is to marry someone of the same gender. Marrying someone of the opposite gender has not ever been a sensible or fair option for people who are not heterosexual. In other words, what exists is a special right favoring heterosexuals, which is completely unconstitutional. Nowhere in our founding documents does it say that the government can exclude an entire class of citizens based on a characteristic that they did not choose and cannot change. There has been no rational basis up to this point for not granting marriage recognition to all adult couples, when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to choose a life partner is among the most fundamental of all rights.

The point of marriage, from the government's standpoint, is to form a legal partnership. That's it. It's not to encourage procreation, it's not to encourage a certain type of "framework" for raising offspring, it's not to reduce the spread of disease. It's really no different than granting and recognizing an incorporation or a business partnership. In our system of government most business charters are granted at the state level, including marriage, but recognized with benefits and responsibilities at both the state and federal levels.

One analogy would be the government allowing freedom of religion, but only the construction of Christian churches. You could argue that changing the definition of church to allow the construction of synagogues and mosques is the granting of a "new" right, insofar as Christians are now free to build all the mosques they want -- even though they are useless to their religion. Bullshit. The original application of the law was deeply flawed, and no new right was granted with the acknowledgment that synagogues and mosques should have been included in the first place if the constituted dictated both freedom of of belief and the exercise thereof (e.g., building your appropriate house of worship).

There is no way marriage apartheid is going to be upheld.


You are under this assumption that the government is taking something away from people. When in reality they are just not extending a benefit, a benefit which they are under no obligation to give.

As I've said, the government could completely remove all marriage laws and say marriages are no longer a legal contract and they no longer exist within the American legal system. They can do that.

So yes, people have the right to get married, but they do not have the right for it to be recognized by the government. That is why the laws as they stand are perfectly constitutional.

If your local Church/Synagogue/Mosque wants to perform their religious marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple they are well within their right to. But the government is under no obligation to extend benefits to them.


And marriage is a religious institution that predates modern government. And all cultures and religions have one thing in common with a marriage. Sexual access rights, which simply put, meant legitimate children.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You are under this assumption that the government is taking something away from people. When in reality they are just not extending a benefit, a benefit which they are under no obligation to give.

As I've said, the government could completely remove all marriage laws and say marriages are no longer a legal contract and they no longer exist within the American legal system. They can do that.

Yes, the government can take away marriage recognition from everyone. But it cannot offer it to just some.

You're quite correct that the federal government doesn't register marriages, so it has no obligation to recognize them. States may be under an obligation to offer marriage, depending on their own constitutions. However, when either a state or the federal government chooses to recognize and reward a relationship, it cannot do so in a discriminatory manner unless there is a compelling reason. None exists for why our federal government recognizes partnerships, in this case marriage, of opposite gender individuals and not same gender individuals. There is no equitable reason the federal government does not recognize all marriages from MA, CT, NY, VT, NH, CA and DC. It either has to recognize all marriages from those states or none. Arguably, it also has to treat legally registered CUs and DPs the same as marriage.

As I mentioned before, the federal government is not in the business of encouraging procreation; churches may be. But in the interest of recognizing the very real nature of human beings to seek security and love in the bonds of matrimony, the the courts have instructed government to treat couples as one person for certain constitutional rights, such as the right against self-incrimination. The intimacy of the bond justifies such protection -- but it cannot be selectively applied.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Although I wouldn't mind the government getting out of defining marriage, I'm aware that's not politically viable. I thought the different treatment of heterosexual vs. homosexual relationships to be appalling, and I'm all for gay marriage.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, the government can take away marriage recognition from everyone. But it cannot offer it to just some.

You're quite correct that the federal government doesn't register marriages, so it has no obligation to recognize them. States may be under an obligation to offer marriage, depending on their own constitutions. However, when either a state or the federal government chooses to recognize and reward a relationship, it cannot do so in a discriminatory manner unless there is a compelling reason. None exists for why our federal government recognizes partnerships, in this case marriage, of opposite gender individuals and not same gender individuals. There is no equitable reason the federal government does not recognize all marriages from MA, CT, NY, VT, NH, CA and DC. It either has to recognize all marriages from those states or none. Arguably, it also has to treat legally registered CUs and DPs the same as marriage.

As I mentioned before, the federal government is not in the business of encouraging procreation; churches may be. But in the interest of recognizing the very real nature of human beings to seek security and love in the bonds of matrimony, the the courts have instructed government to treat couples as one person for certain constitutional rights, such as the right against self-incrimination. The intimacy of the bond justifies such protection -- but it cannot be selectively applied.

Yes. It is a legal fact that if the government is under no obligation to give a benefit so they can define who gets it.

There are several examples.

Medicare/Medicaid - These benefits are denied to people with an income too high or an age too low.

Federal Education grants/loans/scholarships - These are also denied to students whose family income is too high.

Marriage licensees also have age restrictions, some states have restrictions on who when it comes to family.

There is a court case, the name escapes me right now, were a student was awarded a scholarship that was to be used for a certain school in a certain discipline. He wanted to use it for his seminary. The government said he couldn't use the scholarship for that so he took it to court saying they were violating his first amendment right to the freedom of religion. The court basically said, you are not entitled to this money, the government doesn't have to do give it to you at all so they can set the requirements as they see fit.

So yes, if the government isn't obligated to give it, they can set the standards for it. Hint: The government isn't obligated to give citizens much of anything. The Constitution is a list of things they can't take away.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Just to tack on a few more examples.

One must have completed medical school to receive a medical license.

One must have completed law school and passed the bar to practice law.

To drive a vehicle on public roads one must be a certain age, take instruction, and pass a test. A blind person, for example, cannot receive a drivers license.
 

zephyr808

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
630
Media
5
Likes
378
Points
308
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Maybe this is an over-simplification, but for me it boils down to what marriage really is: a legal contract between two consenting adults. Period. Many, I would actually say most, marriages have some religious tie-ins, but that is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Two complete strangers could meet and decide to get married, whether or not they love each other (or even KNOW each other), whether or not they give a damn about each other or anyone else, so long as one is male and one is female. A marriage performed at city hall counts just as much as any other marriage, even William and Kate. And the government denying gay people the right to marry the person he or she chooses is not equal protection under the law. That basic argument, along with an increasingly tolerant and diverse society, is what did in interracial marriage bans a few decades back, and I think we are witnessing a similar journey for marriage equality as we speak.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Maybe this is an over-simplification, but for me it boils down to what marriage really is: a legal contract between two consenting adults. Period. Many, I would actually say most, marriages have some religious tie-ins, but that is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Two complete strangers could meet and decide to get married, whether or not they love each other (or even KNOW each other), whether or not they give a damn about each other or anyone else, so long as one is male and one is female. A marriage performed at city hall counts just as much as any other marriage, even William and Kate. And the government denying gay people the right to marry the person he or she chooses is not equal protection under the law. That basic argument, along with an increasingly tolerant and diverse society, is what did in interracial marriage bans a few decades back, and I think we are witnessing a similar journey for marriage equality as we speak.


It is a bit simple, but not too much.

Secular marriages exist because of religious marriages. All cultures and religions have some kind of marriage. As I've said before, the concept of marriage has been around longer than organized government. But secular societies have identified benefits of marriage.

Procreation
Certainty of paternity
stable family life
etc.

Because of this the Federal government gives over 1,000 benefits to married couples.

Now the REAL questions don't have a whole lot to do with gay or not.

They are:

Is the government obligated to recognize marriage and give these marriage benefits?
Do same-sex couples benefit society in a way that warrants marriage benefits?
And the biggest, if marriage is a right, to what extent can it be restricted IE polygamy, underage, animals, inanimate objects, etc..if at all?

There are a also few other things such as what falls under discrimination.

For instance, are people defined by how they feel/think or their actions?

This is important in defining homosexuality as genetic and unchanging or a choice.

For instance, I pose the hypothetical question, if someone who is attracted to men, but not women, but only engages in sexual activity with women, considered to be gay? What about vice versa?

And there in lies the problem.

If people are defined by how they feel or think, someone who thinks or wants to kill someone should be defined as a murderer, even though they haven't committed the actual act. (Don't jump on me thinking I'm comparing gay to murder, it is just an easy parallel to pose the question. )

So say in future job applications, as they do now with race or sex, ask about ones sexual preference. To what extent can an employer prove someones homosexuality if they do become a protected 'class' that falls under discrimination or affirmative actions laws?

These are real legal quandaries that will pop up that people don't even consider.
 

zephyr808

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
630
Media
5
Likes
378
Points
308
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You didn't read the rest of the thread. Marriage has never been a right.

I did read the thread, travis, and thought it was interesting enough to reply. OP asked what our thoughts were about gay marriage, and I merely provided mine.

Jingoist has some valid points that I will look at again when my eyes are more than 1/4 open :sleeping1: It does seem to me that a parallel can be made between gay marriage laws today and interracial marriage bans years ago, and that younger adults are increasingly tolerant about the issue. Which bodes well for those of us in favor of marriage equality.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Whatever the reasons were in 1607 Jamestown or 1776 Philadelphia, it's clear today that government's legitimate interests in marriage are not procreation or paternity. Unmarried couples have children routinely, and a marriage certificate is in no way dispositive that you are the biological father of your wife's child. In the past governments have considered race and endogamy as legitimate social considerations for marriage, but by all current judicial yardsticks these do not withstand scrutiny. Nor should an innate characteristic like sexual orientation.

The recognition of marriages is a two-way street, not merely for the benefit of government or society. As the courts have repeatedly emphasized, such recognition is also very much for the private parties involved; they have an inherent right to association and selection of partner. And if a legitimate basis for the federal government recognizing legal relationships is the stability of the family, this applies similarly in the argument for marriage equality. Two gay men or lesbian women in a committed couple relationship are as much a family as a man and a woman in a committed couple relationship.

Now there is convincing emerging evidence that regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners, married life leads to better overall health. Surely this is a valid objective of government when enumerating the reasons for recognizing legal domestic relationships (marriage or otherwise).

The US tangle with marriage can be traced back to Great Britain and its intermingling of church and state. Many other countries that don't have an Anglo tradition do not have the same confounding of ecclesiastic and civil marriage. England and Wales didn't recognize the concept of civil marriage unti 1837, long after the United States came into existence. In France or Germany, for example, a couple is not officially married if all they have is a church wedding. Priests and ministers are not deputized by the state to confer civil marriage status; for this, one has to go down to city hall and follow the proper procedures to be married by the state. Since the US has never had an official state church, it never made sense for governments to recognize religious marriage.

At English common law, marriage has always been recognized as a voluntary contract between two people, traditionally a man and a woman. The state is not technically a party to the contract, and therefore has no justification for stipulating the reasons for marriage. It can place restrictions to protect minors and public health, but beyond that it needs to show increasingly compelling reasons for interfering with the conferral or recognition of marriage.

As others have already noted in this thread, marriage equality without regard to the gender of the partners is already achieving legal recognition. The only question is how nasty and difficult those who disagree with it intend to make the journey to equality. To what end?
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
I am for the right for people to partner with whomever they choose. However, I feel that since the United States and State Governments are so very broke the first thing that they need to do is to take away all the legal and tax breaks afforded heterosexual married couples. Most people in heterosexual relationships good or bad do not really realize what the issues are. If we take away all the marriage rights from straights and make the whole thing an even playing field it would get really entertaining.

The Wife who now has to pay a ton of taxes when her husband dies. The Estate probate rules that rule that same wife as simply another person. If we really want to be evil we can even take away spousal rights on all medical insurance. Straights would have to cover their wives and children separately.

The insurance carriers would be jumping for sheer joy as their rates quadrupled and it would allow them to deny coverage to a spouse while keeping coverage for the other partner.

The odds of any of this happening is in fact NIL. The separation of church and State was placed in the rule book for good reason and we are seeing it right now. Those who want to mix the two together are cutting their own throats and they are too dumb to know it.

Another sad statement on the dumbing of society by people who have never learned that those who do not study the past are destined to repeat it.
 

august86

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Posts
286
Media
31
Likes
16
Points
53
Location
Ask...
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I am glad that I live in a country where this is not an issue. ;þ
So am I, but it's unfathomable that a "fairly new" country like the US still hasn't caught up to the needs of it's people.

The governor of Washington has just announced her support of a same sex marriage bill going before the state legislature. If enacted, it will make Washington the 7th state to legalize marriage equality.
:arms: Progress!

Right, this is why I tell people it isn't an equal rights issue. The rights are equal. It is a completely new right that people, regardless of sexual preference, will be able to utilize.

And with that being said. That opens up the system to abuse. If it meant getting paid more and getting a tax break from the government, I'd have no problem marrying a male friend of mine, even though I am straight.

That is why marriage shouldn't be the qualifier. It should be children. Because that is the intended purpose behind those marriage benefits to begin with.
So getting married is not a right that one can decide to undertake, but rather a benefit? (alert: the issue is getting lost in the language).
Next you're going to say: those blooming gays just want to take over our country! We must stop them!"

So I wonder--could an unmarried woman enter into a civil union/civil marriage with her unmarried brother so that he could be a beneficiary of her employer health plan?
Were you dropped on your head?! laws against incest will not just fall away.

Yes, the government can take away marriage recognition from everyone. But it cannot offer it to just some.

You're quite correct that the federal government doesn't register marriages, so it has no obligation to recognize them. States may be under an obligation to offer marriage, depending on their own constitutions. However, when either a state or the federal government chooses to recognize and reward a relationship, it cannot do so in a discriminatory manner unless there is a compelling reason. None exists for why our federal government recognizes partnerships, in this case marriage, of opposite gender individuals and not same gender individuals. There is no equitable reason the federal government does not recognize all marriages from MA, CT, NY, VT, NH, CA and DC. It either has to recognize all marriages from those states or none. Arguably, it also has to treat legally registered CUs and DPs the same as marriage.
<<this

I think it will eventually happen that gay marriage becomes legalized in a large number of states.
You hope...

Yes. It is a legal fact that if the government is under no obligation to give a benefit so they can define who gets it.

There are several examples.

Medicare/Medicaid - These benefits are denied to people with an income too high or an age too low. well, healthcare costs and insurance are a whole other discussion.

Federal Education grants/loans/scholarships - These are also denied to students whose family income is too high. for valid reason. many people out there were not fortunate enough to be part of the country's early capitalist practices, taking advantage of the land and it's fruit, and thus cannot afford the luxury of the best (or even a great) education. So why take that opportunity away from them for someone who can afford it.

Just to tack on a few more examples.
Point taken on all your examples, but there are logical reasons for those. I fail to see the correlation though... or is the intention to just belittle their plight by comparing it to a blind person wanting to drive?

You are being denied a basic benefit/privilege/right (call it what you will) that even the biggest (heterosexual) idiot can undertake.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
Just give the gays the right to marry at this point it will do more good than harm and if you personally don't want to marry a gay, don't. What purpose is it serving not to let people get married?
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Whatever the reasons were in 1607 Jamestown or 1776 Philadelphia, it's clear today that government's legitimate interests in marriage are not procreation or paternity. Unmarried couples have children routinely, and a marriage certificate is in no way dispositive that you are the biological father of your wife's child. In the past governments have considered race and endogamy as legitimate social considerations for marriage, but by all current judicial yardsticks these do not withstand scrutiny. Nor should an innate characteristic like sexual orientation.

The recognition of marriages is a two-way street, not merely for the benefit of government or society. As the courts have repeatedly emphasized, such recognition is also very much for the private parties involved; they have an inherent right to association and selection of partner. And if a legitimate basis for the federal government recognizing legal relationships is the stability of the family, this applies similarly in the argument for marriage equality. Two gay men or lesbian women in a committed couple relationship are as much a family as a man and a woman in a committed couple relationship.

Now there is convincing emerging evidence that regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners, married life leads to better overall health. Surely this is a valid objective of government when enumerating the reasons for recognizing legal domestic relationships (marriage or otherwise).

The US tangle with marriage can be traced back to Great Britain and its intermingling of church and state. Many other countries that don't have an Anglo tradition do not have the same confounding of ecclesiastic and civil marriage. England and Wales didn't recognize the concept of civil marriage unti 1837, long after the United States came into existence. In France or Germany, for example, a couple is not officially married if all they have is a church wedding. Priests and ministers are not deputized by the state to confer civil marriage status; for this, one has to go down to city hall and follow the proper procedures to be married by the state. Since the US has never had an official state church, it never made sense for governments to recognize religious marriage.

At English common law, marriage has always been recognized as a voluntary contract between two people, traditionally a man and a woman. The state is not technically a party to the contract, and therefore has no justification for stipulating the reasons for marriage. It can place restrictions to protect minors and public health, but beyond that it needs to show increasingly compelling reasons for interfering with the conferral or recognition of marriage.

As others have already noted in this thread, marriage equality without regard to the gender of the partners is already achieving legal recognition. The only question is how nasty and difficult those who disagree with it intend to make the journey to equality. To what end?

Right, I agree that is no longer the governmental interest in marriage. It doesn't guarantee any of those things anymore. But that doesn't change the fact that those reasons were the governments primary interest in recognizing marriage to begin with.

But the fact still remains, sure you have the right to get married. But you don't have the right to government recognition or benefits.