DescentBB

Xamindar wrote:I'm not worried about whether the judge was gay or straight, or whether gays should be allowed to marry or not at this point. What I'm worried about is the fact that a judge overturned a law that was VOTED IN BY THE PUBLIC.

Just because the public wants something does not make it constitutional.

Plus, this is a republic, not a democracy, so lay off the populism.

null0010 wrote:Personally, I think marriage should have nothing to do with government. The government should call it something else so as to drop the religious overtones. All it is, in a legal sense, is a special way to look at taxes and such.

That way, anyone can get special tax benefits with anyone, and people who think that gay marriage is wrong but for some reason support it as long as it has a different name will be happy, too.

Here's what I said to a friend elsewhere:

Why is it up to the government to "license" our personal relationships anyway? The whole prop 8 thing just exposes that as a stupid idea -- depending on the whims of the voters and/or judges, our relationships can go from unlicensed to licensed and back again.

IMO, it's up to you and your partner(s) to decide if you want to spend your lives together, or just some part of your lives together, without government or voters having any say in it whatsoever. And it's up to you, your partner(s), and your community to decide what to call your relationship. You shouldn't need government's approval or society's approval.

Meanwhile, the government should recognize and provide contracts for (but not license) "domestic partnerships" -- basically, any two or more people who want to share certain legal rights, responsibilities, and liabilities. It shouldn't matter if those people are romantically or sexually involved; if they want to contractually share those rights, responsibilities, and liabilities, they should be able to. Married couples could do it; so could a guy and his elderly grandma who lives with him; so could a group of four women who happen to be sexually involved with each other. It's not the government's business to worry about why people want to have joint legal status, it's just their business to recognize it.

You know all that “how people spend their personal lives” stuff sounds real cool and all, but have you ever thought about all of the ramifications of switching to such a system?

First and formost…married people would only be married in the eyes of the church that married them, and if you say well…the state will recognise marriages by the church…you are right back to square one.

So sure gay people could go and find some church to get married in, but most people would have no legal reason to acknowledge that marriage. No employer would have to give benefits to the spouse of a gay employee. And if you say state…square one.

Next…inheritance…when you die your “stuff” will go to the state, not your spouse. Again if you say state…

And it goes on and on…and if you say the state will…in regards to any thing involved in getting married…you are right back to square one…proving why marriage is a “legal” status in the first place.

…………………………..

“Married couples could do it; so could a guy and his elderly grandma who lives with him; so could a group of four women who happen to be sexually involved with each other. It's not the government's business to worry about why people want to have joint legal status, it's just their business to recognize it.”

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha (picturing four fat women)

Yes, it is the governments JOB to worry about WHY people want to have “joint legal status”…beause if the government recognizes it SO DO YOU. As an employer..I can verify that.

Spidey wrote:if you say the state will…in regards to any thing involved in getting married…you are right back to square one…proving why marriage is a “legal” status in the first place.

The state can make a "domestic partnership" contract. Shift the rights, responsibilities, and liabilities currently tied to marriage over to DP's. The state doesn't have to recognize marriages at all.

So if you want to be married and also have all of those rights, you simply enter into both a "marriage" and a "domestic partnership" at the exact same time. If you want to be married but limit your liability, enter into a "marriage" and a "limited domestic partnership". If you don't want to be married but do want those rights, just enter a "domestic partnership".

There's no reason for the state to license our personal relationships, only to recognize our choices to share legal status.

EDIT:

The way we do health insurance in this country is a load of crap anyway. "OMG this would complicate things for business owners having to provide insurance" is not a good counterargument to this, it's just a good argument for why we should put insurance choices in the hands of individuals.

So marriages become meaningless, domestic partnerships now have the legal status, and these can include 4 women in a sexual relationship.

Just what does “only to recognize our choices to share legal status” mean, the state is always going to place limits on what it will or not recognize. (it has too, it speaks for all of us)

The current limit is a man and a woman…and that is how it should be, and is the only DP I will ever acknowelege, I don’t care what you or the state says.

It would be much better the other way around, letting marriage have the legal status, and let the four freaky lesbians have the informal status.

But hey…if you want it ass backwards..what can I say, except that I’m grateful people like you are not in charge.

Spidey wrote:So marriages become meaningless

Only from a legal perspective. They still hold social and religious importance, and IMO that importance becomes stronger as the government becomes less involved.

the state is always going to place limits on what it will or not recognize... The current limit is a man and a woman…and that is how it should be

The only people who should be able to share legal rights are a man and a woman?

So if I end up taking care of my elderly grandpa and he ends up in the hospital, I can't get visitation rights because we're both male? Or if two brothers live together and share all their stuff like in the movie Second Hand Lions, they should be treated differently under tax and property laws than a man and his wife who live together and share all their stuff? Or, talking more generally about "marriage" vs "domestic partnerships", if a widow doesn't want to go through the social pressure of remarriage but wants to share her life with a widower she met at the retirement home, she should be denied the ability to share various legal rights?

IMO, that's silly. The question of shared legal rights should be separated from the questions of romance, sex, and the social construct of marriage.

Lothar wrote:So if I end up taking care of my elderly grandpa and he ends up in the hospital, I can't get visitation rights because we're both male?

You already have visitation rights with your family members, and custody is also settled law. You’re missing the basis for having shared legal rights in the first place…it’s not arbitrary.

Lothar wrote:Or if two brothers live together and share all their stuff like in the movie Second Hand Lions, they should be treated differently under tax and property laws than a man and his wife who live together and share all their stuff?

Yes

Lothar wrote:if a widow doesn't want to go through the social pressure of remarriage but wants to share her life with a widower she met at the retirement home, she should be denied the ability to share various legal rights?

No, she could get married at the justice of the peace.


Why don’t you go out and ask some married couples (without loading the question) if they would like to give up their legal rights as a married couple, and have to go and get a domestic partnership, that carries the same weight as 4 lesbians.

If your marriage becomes meaningless because the government doesn't call it a marriage anymore, you seriously need to re-evaluate your love and commitment towards your spouse.

Now, who wants to contractually share us some rights, responsibilities, and liabilities?

Spidey wrote:You’re missing the basis for having shared legal rights in the first place…it’s not arbitrary.

No. But it's been defined in an overly restrictive way. The basis for shared legal rights is shared life, responsibilities, and obligations. Marriage is one form this can take. It's not the only one.

Lothar wrote:if a widow doesn't want to go through the social pressure of remarriage...

she could get married at the justice of the peace.

And risk have family members angry at her for remarrying. It happens more often than you'd think, which is why some states already make "domestic partnerships" available not only to same-sex couples but also to couples where one member is over a particular age (I think it's 65 in Washington).

Point being: there are a lot of reasons why people might want to enter into a contract with the same provisions we currently tie to marriage, but either they don't want to call it marriage, or others don't want to call it marriage.

I can't think of any good reason not to allow people of the same sex, or the elderly, or more than 2 people, to enter into such a contract. I can think of good reasons not to call it marriage, but not good reasons to deny the ability to have shared legal rights, responsibilities, and liabilities.

Why don’t you go out and ask some married couples (without loading the question) if they would like to give up their legal rights as a married couple, and have to go and get a domestic partnership, that carries the same weight as 4 lesbians.

Not loading the question at all, are you? :roll:

One of the wonderful things about our laws is that you can't un-give people the rights they currently enjoy. People who are already married wouldn't need to go out and get a new contract to keep the shared rights they already have; the already existing government records for marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. would simply be reclassified under a single heading.

The contract now carries the exact same weight as it did before, we've just put a new title on it. Oh noes, the horror!

I’m really sorry, but a lot of what you are saying really doesn’t make any sense to me. There are already provisions in the law for things like joint ownership of property and such.

I can’t see a domestic partnership being any less traumatic to granny or the family than a marriage.

And I’m having a hard time figuring out why marriage has to take the fall, in order to make provisions for other types of legal groups. (names not withstanding)

Also having no limit on which groups can get these rights is a big problem with me…not that they can get rights…but what it may require of me. (and, I’m not even referring to insurance…sigh…)

Just one example for the hell of it…

Every time somebody gets a tax break, for being married (or such) …more of the burden of paying for the government gets passed on to a “single” person.

It really does sound like a “get the government out of marriage” tantrum, with a lot of stuff thrown in to justify it.

Spidey wrote:Why don’t you go out and ask some married couples (without loading the question) if they would like to give up their legal rights as a married couple, and have to go and get a domestic partnership, that carries the same weight as 4 lesbians.

Um dude.. I hope you know that Lothar is married, and is pretty qualified to answer that question on his own?

LOL

Spidey wrote:I can’t see a domestic partnership being any less traumatic to granny or the family than a marriage.

Go talk to some old people who've done it. Yeah, seniors are among the "other types of legal groups" you dare not name.

And I’m having a hard time figuring out why marriage has to take the fall

Marriage isn't taking a fall. It's being freed from the shackles of judicial, legislative, and political interference.

Every time somebody gets a tax break

So, objections thus far are insurance, which we do wrong, and taxes, which we do wrong. How about we fix those systems in their own right, instead of using their brokenness as an excuse to mis-handle domestic partnerships.

Spidey wrote:...
Every time somebody gets a tax break, for being married (or such) …more of the burden of paying for the government gets passed on to a “single” person.

It really does sound like a “get the government out of marriage” tantrum, with a lot of stuff thrown in to justify it.

Your example actually works against your argument because there is no tax break for being married there is actually a penalty for being married.

A couple, not married, pays less in tax than another couple with the exact same set of circumstances with the one exception that the second couple are married.
Thus the often heard phrase "the marriage tax penalty" that politicians want to either eliminate or reinstate depending on which side of the trough they feed from.

Huh?

You never heard of married filing separately vs. married filing a joint return.

http://taxation.lawyers.com/tax-plannin ... eturn.html

…………………………….

No Lothar, the objections go way beyond that…taxes was the one “example” I gave and you created the insurance straw man. I never said anything about insurance, you made that assumption, based on this.

“Yes, it is the governments JOB to worry about WHY people want to have “joint legal status”…beause if the government recognizes it SO DO YOU. As an employer..I can verify that.”

It’s just too damn boring to have to constantly defend what I really said…so I’m just going to wish you luck on all that.

The divorce courts are overburdened as it is.

flip wrote:The divorce courts are overburdened as it is.

Tell that to my ex-wife!

Spidey wrote:the objections go way beyond that…taxes was the one “example” I gave and you created the insurance straw man.

If you have further objections, quit dancing around them and just give them outright. If you can't be bothered to explain your objections, I can't be bothered to treat your objections as valid.

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriage in California as Case Continues

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

and by the 9th Circuit no less. I'm shocked

CUDA wrote:

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriage in California as Case Continues

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

and by the 9th Circuit no less. I'm shocked

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... continues/

article wrote:Same-sex weddings in California are on hold indefinitely after a federal appeals court blocked the unions Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

(emphasis mine)

it doesn't matter whether you're Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, Presbyterian, yellow, green, black or blue.. you can get married.

but if you're gay.. then it's completely constitutional to block that.

Doesn't anyone beside me see the GIGANTIC hypocrisy in this?

/me pukes.

No, because marriage was invented by heterosexuals to provide a function in the heterosexual community.

If a marriage is a union between a man and a woman, which part of that don’t you understand?

Spidey wrote:marriage was invented by heterosexuals

and gay marriage was invented by gays

And you know, I don’t really have a problem with that, but why can’t they play nice and call it something else?

You know. All I ever hear from gays is “accept my gayness” fine…stop trying to be just like everyone else.

You’re gay…get over it.

Why can't you play nice and let them use a pre-existing word? It's not like, if you do, it will somehow invalidate marriage.

Because that word already has a specific meaning…

But language evolves, doesn't it?

null0010 wrote:But language evolves, doesn't it?

I guess it does. Gay used to mean "happy" but now it means "man who loves men".

Yes language evolves, and I suppose the concept behind “marriage” could “evolve” as well.

Lets try this, a little thought experiment…

Ok lets say straight people concede, and relent to marriage being between any two people…ok so that’s where we are…marriage is now universal.

Now, straight people invent a new institution for a union between a man & a woman, give it new function and a new name.

What do you think would happen next? (be honest)

I'd call it \"pro-life\" but that's just my opinion.

I’d call it “gay boogers”…so after the gays usurp it you would hear….

I now pronounce you gay boogers.

J/K

Spidey wrote: What do you think would happen next? (be honest)

They would then demand they be allowed to change the meaning of the new word in the name of equality or somesuch nonsense.

I really don't think gays want the identical nomenclature so much as they want the recognition that they have the same kind of relationship in spite of the mismatched set of plumbing.

Lets put an end to everyone wanting the rights to the 'words' by making it equally unattractive and just start calling it:

one penis one vagina marriage
two penis marriage
two vagina marriage
and
'undetermined marriage' for the really freaky so I don't have to think about that

Will Robinson wrote: one penis one vagina marriage

LOL Kindergarden Cop

Boy's have a penis, Girls have a Vagina

Then if you have both a penis and a vagina you could marry your self.

or if your a Unic you could not get married at all

Will Robinson wrote:I really don't think gays want the identical nomenclature so much as they want the recognition that they have the same kind of relationship in spite of the mismatched set of plumbing.

That's why my solution, while giving both sides exactly what they say they want, actually pisses everyone off.

The government gets out of the marriage business entirely. The "sanctity of marriage" is protected; you don't have to recognize any marriage you or your religious organization or social circle don't want to. And everyone gets all of the legal rights that are appropriate for a family relationship. That's everything both sides *say* they want!

But gays don't get recognized as "the same", nor discriminated against, and those are things many on the two sides actually *do* want but won't admit.

Lothar, you are married…well no longer in my eyes. So just for the record how do you wish me to address your relationship with Drakona? (if the need should ever arise)

Spidey wrote:Lothar, you are married…well no longer in my eyes.

So let me get this straight. You, Spidey, do not recognize any marriage not controlled by the US government? That sure leaves out a LOT of marriages in the world.

Spidey wrote:Lothar, you are married…well no longer in my eyes.

If we enter into a legal agreement where my marital status matters, use whatever terminology is legally appropriate.

Otherwise, I don't need your validation. If you wish to refer to me and Drakona as separate individuals without acknowledging any connection between us, have fun with that.

Lothar wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I really don't think gays want the identical nomenclature so much as they want the recognition that they have the same kind of relationship in spite of the mismatched set of plumbing.

That's why my solution, while giving both sides exactly what they say they want, actually pisses everyone off.

The government gets out of the marriage business entirely. The "sanctity of marriage" is protected; you don't have to recognize any marriage you or your religious organization or social circle don't want to. And everyone gets all of the legal rights that are appropriate for a family relationship. That's everything both sides *say* they want!

But gays don't get recognized as "the same", nor discriminated against, and those are things many on the two sides actually *do* want but won't admit.

I agree whole heartedly and think it is the only logical solution. the 'recognition' is really like respect in this case and you can't legislate respect, it is earned and sometimes it will be withheld purely on personal preference be it fear, bigotry, xenophobia or simply hanging on to tradition.

The United States is all about protecting the opportunity to pursue happiness not about guaranteeing results. We can't guarantee results because many pursuits involve winners and losers so a guarantee of happiness is also a guarantee of unhappiness or rejection for others.

Getting the government out of the marriage business protects the pursuit of marriage for all and the culture will assign the value to it.