DescentBB

Lothar,

Validation & recognition are two different things…you never needed “my” validation. (one is the acknowlegment of the other in this context)

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

Fine, then jump over a broom and call yourself married, why do you need a piece of paper to be happy. Contrary to what you and Lothar believe, gay people don’t want their marriages only recognized by other gay people.

Spidey wrote:Lothar,

Validation & recognition are two different things…you never needed “my” validation. (one is the acknowlegment of the other in this context)

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

Fine, then jump over a broom and call yourself married, why do you need a piece of paper to be happy. Contrary to what you and Lothar believe, gay people don’t want their marriages only recognized by other gay people.

What is it that gay people want that you think they shouldn't have?

For me that answer would be they want the government to force other people to include gays in whatever ritual/tradition/process they use to define and recognize marriage.

And to that I would say they don't have a right to force that to happen nor does the government have the authority to make it a law.

So Lothar's solution satisfies my concerns. What is left unresolved for you? Is there something else, something I'm not seeing that you believe they want and shouldn't get?

Contrary to what you and Lothar believe, gay people don’t want their marriages only recognized by other gay people.

Many churches don't recognize casual divorce as valid. In the eyes of those churches, MANY heterosexual couples are NOT actually married because their previous divorce was not for reasons the church considers valid.

What effect does this have? None, unless you happen to belong to one of those churches. And not much even then.

If we get the government out of the marriage business, then the only "recognition" that a homosexual marriage will have under the law is that of a legal relationship. A contract that governs inheritance, property sharing, insurance, and the like. None of these issues in any way threaten the RELIGIOUS definition of marriage. As Lothar pointed out, the "domestic partnership" is a LEGAL relationship, just a contract, that would not require any sexual angle at all.

Now you are absolutely correct that many homosexuals want everyone to recognize their marriages as "legitimate" in a social/ethical way. They have no more right to that kind of recognition than heterosexual couples have a right to require every church to recognize their divorces as valid.

Getting the government out of the marriage business is CLEARLY the best for everyone on all sides of this debate. There are no down sides, only up.

Kilarin wrote:Getting the government out of the marriage business is CLEARLY the best for everyone on all sides of this debate. There are no down sides, only up.

This is where your wrong. Marriage is a legal contract. the Government is totally involved and need to be for the legal aspects. legal names are changed. assets are merged, children come into play. in some marriages one spouse does not work and is dependant on the other for support. and after death again assets come into play, along with the taxes paid during and for the estate. the Government has to be involved since it is their job to regulate and judicate contracts.

Cuda, the courts adjudicate contracts. You're thinking of the legislative branch.

I think what Kilarin is saying is that the executive branch shouldn't be involved in the structure of marriage anymore than what's absolutely necessary.

Ferno wrote:I think what Kilarin is saying is that the executive branch shouldn't be involved in the structure of marriage anymore than what's absolutely necessary.

Exactly.

The government should be involved in a legal contract. Call it a "domestic partnership agreement" or whatever you wish. It's a legal contract with clearly defined terms. That IS a government issue. Any consenting adults should be able to enter into such a contract.

Who has an ethical right to be "married" is NOT a legal issue, its a religious one. Please note that even Christians have strong disagreements on this topic. Some churches have very strict limits on divorce. Some churches don't recognize marriages outside of their faith. Some churches approve of same sex marriages. These are RELIGIOUS points, all quite separate from the legal issues of joint property, inheritance, and child support/custody.

Leave the legal side to the government, and the religious side to churches and individuals.

Kilarin wrote:Who has an ethical right to be "married" is NOT a legal issue, its a religious one.

Tell that to the Mormons.

In 1862, Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all US territories. The LDS Church believed that their religiously-based practice of plural marriage was protected by the United States Constitution, however, the unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States declared that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that "laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

The Government has the right to interfere with the Practice of homosexual marriage. this is probably why "IF" prop 8 is upheld, why it was.


edit: I'd like to also clarify that I am not against Gay Unions. but your stance on the issue is does not pass Constituional muster

CUDA wrote:

Kilarin wrote:Who has an ethical right to be "married" is NOT a legal issue, its a religious one.

Tell that to the Mormons.

CUDA wrote:the unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States declared that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that "laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

Which was, in my opinion, a TERRIBLE supreme court decision and a clear case of religious discrimination.

I am VERY opposed to polygamy, but I'm quite satisfied to make my argument on religious and practical terms instead of trying to let the government enforce it.

The inconsistency is incredible. If a guy decides to live with 8 women and procreate with all of them and raise children that way, its all perfectly fine and legal, just so long as he doesn't get MARRIED to more than one of them. The only practical difference is fewer legal protections for the wives.

There was a young fellow from Lyme
Who married three wives at a time.
When asked, why the third?
He replied, Ones absurd!
And bigamy, sir, is a crime.

Spidey wrote:Validation & recognition are two different things…

... and I need neither from you, unless we're entering into a legal arrangement wherein my relationship status is relevant.

Contrary to what you and Lothar believe, gay people don’t want their marriages only recognized by other gay people.

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.

Seems I already addressed that. Read more carefully please.

you contradict your self.

You wrote:The government should be involved in a legal contract. Call it a "domestic partnership agreement" or whatever you wish. It's a legal contract with clearly defined terms. That IS a government issue. Any consenting adults should be able to enter into such a contract

but when the Government did get involved you wrote

Kilarin wrote:Which was, in my opinion, a TERRIBLE supreme court decision and a clear case of religious discrimination.

your opinion doesnt matter. this was the interpretation of the SCOTUS.

but if you read here

and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

the Government did not interfere with a religious belief but a practice. to expound on this. there is a Church here in Oregon that does not believe in going to a doctor but instead relying on faith healing. is the Government interfering with their religious faith by trying those parents of children that have died? or are they instead interfering with their practices.

CUDA wrote:you contradict your self.

I don't think its contradictory to say that the government should be involved in enforcing legal contracts AND that those contracts should be available for any capable adult to enter in to.
Its the same as saying that the government should be involved in enforcing lease agreements, and that the government should not be making rules that stops, for example, people of different races from entering into a lease contract.

CUDA wrote:your opinion doesnt matter. this was the interpretation of the SCOTUS.

My opinion DOES matter when we live in a constitutional republic. We elect the people who appoint the members of the SCOTUS.
And the SCOTUS has made LOTS of horrible decisions. Take Dread Scott, for example. The 2005 eminent domain decision. Or this years decision that companies can buy politicians.

Kilarin, Lothar…when you go on vacation, and you want to stay at my hotel, you will need to rent two rooms (a legal contract)…one for you and one for your girlfriend. And don’t go running to the government, remember…they’re out of the loop.

And I know the answer will be…“we will go stay somewhere else” and that is your right. Just one small example of the possible down side, that Kilarin doesn’t seem to believe exist.

For Kilarin…

If the government is no longer involved in licensing marriage, please tell me just who is going to do the vetting?

And, what organizations will have the legal right to marry people? And who will decide that?

For Lothar…

After the government makes all these new “partnerships” legal, where does the legal foundation/precedent come from to enforce them.

your dancing all over the place.

CONGRESS Passed legislation in 1878 that said they can regulate who gets married. IT IS LAW

The SCOTUS upheld that LAW as Constitutional in 1878. and that law has not been overturned.

Marriage is not a religious issue it is a Government Issue. the Government has legal right to deceide who get married and who doesnt. Prop 8 is an extension on the state level to the 1878 legislation regulating marriage.
The law was passed forbidding gays to marry in California. that being said I dont know all the details of the law and am not a Consitutional Scholar. but it appears that the state is with-in its legal rights to regulate Marriage.

which act is that cuda?

Spidey wrote:Kilarin, Lothar…when you go on vacation, and you want to stay at my hotel, you will need to rent two rooms (a legal contract)…one for you and one for your girlfriend. And don’t go running to the government, remember…they’re out of the loop...

Does the government currently support your policy to deny rent to those you choose based on arbitrary criteria?
Do you want them to be able to enforce those kind of policies?

Spidey wrote:Kilarin, Lothar…when you go on vacation, and you want to stay at my hotel, you will need to rent two rooms (a legal contract)…one for you and one for your girlfriend. And don’t go running to the government, remember…they’re out of the loop.

Not sure about Kilarin, but I don't think Drakona would cotton to the idea of Lothar renting rooms for a girl friend at some hotel.

fliptw wrote:which act is that cuda?

funny dont remember saying anything about an "act" in any of my posts

the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act only banned bigamy, and only then in federally administered territories.

Provide reference to the legislation you refer to in your post prior to mine cuda.

Will Robinson wrote:

Spidey wrote:Kilarin, Lothar…when you go on vacation, and you want to stay at my hotel, you will need to rent two rooms (a legal contract)…one for you and one for your girlfriend. And don’t go running to the government, remember…they’re out of the loop...

Does the government currently support your policy to deny rent to those you choose based on arbitrary criteria?
Do you want them to be able to enforce those kind of policies?

No, I seriously doubt that the government supports denial to anybody based on arbitrary criteria. I have simply chosen not to rent the suites reserved for married couples to them, and have offered them separate rooms instead. Therefore there is no grounds for “denying” anything.

fliptw wrote:the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act only banned bigamy, and only then in federally administered territories.

Provide reference to the legislation you refer to in your post prior to mine cuda.

In 1862, Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all US territories. The LDS Church believed that their religiously-based practice of plural marriage was protected by the United States Constitution, however, the unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States declared that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that "laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

I WAS refering to the Morrill Bigamy act. read the last section of the ruling. the Government has the power to regulate marriage not based on religion but on the practices of the people.


also regarding the territories only

United States territory is any extent of region under the jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States, including all waters (around islands or continental tracts)

so it included states as they are under the juristiction of the Federal Government

no, the opinion held that government can regulate actions of religions; not that Congress granted itself power to regulate marriage.

That would make the numerous proposals for constitutional amendments concerning protection of marriage kind of moot otherwise, on account of the 10th amendment.

fliptw wrote:no, the opinion held that government can regulate actions of religions; not that Congress granted itself power to regulate marriage.

They told the Mormons that they could not have polygamous marriages. while they may have intended to regulate the Mormon religion they did infact regulate the act of marriage. they said WE the Government has the right to deciede who is allowed to marry

Spidey wrote:when you go on vacation, and you want to stay at my hotel, you will need to rent two rooms (a legal contract)…one for you and one for your girlfriend. And don’t go running to the government, remember…they’re out of the loop.

1) The fact that the government wouldn't recognize our MARRIAGE (and you don't have to either) doesn't mean they wouldn't recognize our JOINT LEGAL STATUS through a domestic partnership. What makes you think we wouldn't get both?

2) Is a hotel owner allowed to ask the marital status of people checking in to their rooms now? If we ask you for one room and you choose not to rent to us because we don't meet your standards for "married" (regardless of whether we have joint legal status), I suspect you'd run afoul of a whole bunch of other laws.

Why don't you try it with an already-existing hotel? A couple of businessmen ask for a room. "Sorry, I have to give you two separate rooms. Rooms for 2 are reserved for married couples." Go ahead, try it, I dare you.

3) if you manage to come up with a totally legal way to deny us access to a joint hotel room... good luck with that. If you can make money doing that, more power to you.

You're really intent on manufacturing scenarios where my solution doesn't work. Yet your objections keep coming up pitifully short. Maybe it's time to give up and admit my idea rocks.

just who is going to do the vetting?

And, what organizations will have the legal right to marry people?

If marriage is no longer a legal contract, what makes you think there would be only specific people/groups with the legal right to conduct marriages? Any group could vet potential marriages based on their own criteria. Any group could conduct them.

Meanwhile, domestic partnership contracts would be handled by the government.

After the government makes all these new “partnerships” legal, where does the legal foundation/precedent come from to enforce them.

The legal foundation and precedent already exist in various places: marriages, common-law marriages, domestic partnerships, civil unions, and generic contract law. We just universalize what presently exists piecemeal.

CUDA wrote:CONGRESS Passed legislation in 1878 that said they can regulate who gets married. IT IS LAW
The SCOTUS upheld that LAW as Constitutional in 1878. and that law has not been overturned.

No one is questioning that the government HAS been regulating marriage. We are questioning if they SHOULD.

To go back to a previous example, the Dread Scott decision was also a SCOTUS decision, and upheld the right of people to own other people as slaves, even if they were in a free state.

OBVIOUSLY the government currently authorizes marriages. The argument is whether we would be better off if they didn't.

Spidey wrote:If the government is no longer involved in licensing marriage, please tell me just who is going to do the vetting?

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the model we are suggesting. Currently if you wish to get married, you must have a license from the state. With that license comes certain legal rights and obligations. Many people also choose to have a church wedding.

What is being suggested here is a clearer separation of those two functions. If you want to get married, you first get a "Domestic Partnership" (or "Civil Union" or whatever they decide to call it) contract. After it is properly witnessed, notarized, and signed by both parties, you have a legal contract. That contract spells out certain rights and obligations the signers have to each other. LEGAL rights. Such things as joint property, right of attorney, inheritance, possibly child support/custody as well. I'm sure there will be different versions of the contract. That's the governments angle, and now the government and courts will be ready to enforce the contract on both parties.

Some couples will be satisfied with this and stop here. They will have the equivalent of a "Justice of the Peace" wedding. But many people who view marriage as a religious issue will insist upon a church wedding. Different churches will have different requirements for whether they will wed a couple. Episcopal churches will probably marry same sex couples. Catholic churches may refuse to marry anyone who has been previously divorced for any cause other than adultery.

So, there really won't be any difference from the current system when the average couple comes to your hotel.

Spidey wrote:Kilarin, Lothar…when you go on vacation, and you want to stay at my hotel, you will need to rent two rooms (a legal contract)…one for you and one for your girlfriend. And don’t go running to the government, remember…they’re out of the loop.

If your hotel refuses to let people who have not been married in a church stay in the same room, then you will have to also decide which church marriages you will recognize. Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim?

What IS the downside of the government regulating the legal aspects of marriage as a contract, without regard to who enters into that contract, while religious institutions and individuals continue to decide for themselves on the moral and ethical aspects of marriage?

There's a New York state law forbidding the refusal of renting an open hotel room for any reason.

Not sure about other states.

Kilarin wrote:

CUDA wrote:CONGRESS Passed legislation in 1878 that said they can regulate who gets married. IT IS LAW
The SCOTUS upheld that LAW as Constitutional in 1878. and that law has not been overturned.

No one is questioning that the government HAS been regulating marriage. We are questioning if they SHOULD.

To go back to a previous example, the Dread Scott decision was also a SCOTUS decision, and upheld the right of people to own other people as slaves, even if they were in a free state.

OBVIOUSLY the government currently authorizes marriages. The argument is whether we would be better off if they didn't.

I see no way around the Government involvement. the Gov wants to collect their taxes for allowing a marriage, they want to collect their taxes for being married, they want to collect their taxes for dying married.
the Government wants their taxes.
And this doesnt even begin to touch the other aspects of a marriage that you and I both stated and the obvious legal ramifications for those acts

Ok, I'm just going to throw this out for consideration ...

If they decide that marriage is permitted for male+female unions and also for male+male or female+female unions ... does that \"open the door\" to multiple partner unions? (male+female+female or male+male+female, also known as polygamy)

If marriage is permissible for any gender combination, what then would prevent marriage from being permissible for multiple partner unions?

they would have to.

or how about brother/sister marriage. or other types of incestuous marriages

TechPro wrote:If they decide that marriage is permitted for male+female unions and also for male+male or female+female unions ... does that "open the door" to multiple partner unions? (male+female+female or male+male+female, also known as polygamy)

Yep. Of course, you realize that these kinds of relationships already exist? The only difference would be that under a "domestic partnership" system that guy in Utah can put all of his wives and kids on his insurance policy. And can't just kick a wife out of the house without legal repercussions.

CUDA wrote:or how about brother/sister marriage. or other types of incestuous marriages

Again, yep. But then also again, as long as they are legally consenting age, I don't believe that it is against the law for a brother and sister to have sex. Only to get married. So I don't see that this would change much.

(and.... ICK!)

ok then what do we now do about the already skyrocketing cost of health care when you now have 5 or 6 or 10 wives and 30-40 kids on the policy? or what about the genetic dangers of having children in an incestuous marriage? should an insurance company have the right to deny coverage? not to mention the potential abuse of the welfare system because of now legalized polygamy

Keep in mind that the relationship I'm describing (domestic partnership) is:

- not \"marriage\"
- not required to be sexual

So yes, it could be brother/sister, or multiple people, as long as they wanted to share various legal rights and responsibilities. I don't see any reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be. Now, with multiple partners, you couldn't have one person add an extra \"partner\" without the consent of the others already in the relationship (as it could dilute their share in property, etc.)

Also keep in mind that plenty of people already have sexual relationships without having a legal relationship. IMO, allowing people in polygamous relationships to also share legal rights is actually an improvement over the current state of affairs, where wife #2 and later have very few legal protections.

CUDA wrote:ok then what do we now do about the already skyrocketing cost of health care... abuse of the welfare system

We should quit using the brokenness of the health care and welfare systems as an excuse to keep the marriage system broken. Fix them all instead of keeping them all broken for the sake of each other.

what about the genetic dangers of having children in an incestuous marriage?

There are genetic dangers of having children in an incestuous relationship, whether or not it qualifies as a "marriage" or "domestic partnership". The state granting legal rights to the couple doesn't somehow magically cause those dangers.

Null, do I have to read that entire thing, or can you point out the relevant parts.

Edit...

JFTR there is an entire industry devoted to renting suites to newlywed couples. I myself spent a week in such a place right up in the Pocono mountains, we had picture taking and social gatherings, as well as other social events, just for newlywed couples.

It’s quite legal, so I don’t know where you want to go with that one.

Lothar wrote:There are genetic dangers of having children in an incestuous relationship, whether or not it qualifies as a "marriage" or "domestic partnership". The state granting legal rights to the couple doesn't somehow magically cause those dangers.

Now that’s some really strange logic…no it doesn’t cause the danger, but it does encourage it, and vetting the “partnership” would discourage it.

.................

Kilarin wrote:If your hotel refuses to let people who have not been married in a church stay in the same room, then you will have to also decide which church marriages you will recognize. Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim?

That was my point…thanks.

I don't think Lothar's solution would change the way Spidey can or can not refuse a room to couple based on the type of marriage. I don't know every state law by any means but the way most do it is you have a right to refuse service to a type of person if you can show it isn't simply an arbitrary decision but instead it is a business decision. Example in many towns locals will rent a room and throw a party and trash the place....they pay cash so the innkeeper has no recourse so he can refuse to rent to locals...or cash patrons who refuse a deposit, etc.
But you'd have a hard time proving a couple with only a domestic partnership contract would be harmful for your business.
I think the rooms reserved for newlyweds would have to be available for newly joined couples regardless of which type of union they have. On the other hand a hotel that always rents to Catholic newlyweds, for example, would be able to retain that selective use for the room since that is a feature of their regular business model.

Spidey wrote:

Lothar wrote:LThere are genetic dangers of having children in an incestuous relationship, whether or not it qualifies as a "marriage" or "domestic partnership".

Now that’s some really strange logic…no it doesn’t cause the danger, but it does encourage it, and vetting the “partnership” would discourage it.

Scary path here. The genetic risks from incest are nothing compared to the genetic risk when two diabetics marry. How far do we go to encourage genetic purity?

But, as Lothar has been trying to point out. The "domestic partnership" agreement wouldn't really have anything to do with sex. A brother and sister that entered into one would be getting the right to share property, inherit, etc. I don't see how allowing an elder brother and sister who decided to share a house to enter into a contract like this would be encouraging incest.

It wouldn’t necessarily, but the point made was about incestuous relationships.

You do know that the law already has provisions for just that very thing, without the need for a “partnership”.

1. Joint ownership
2. Wills

..................

Oh by the way, when you get married, you can get a blood test and the state will warn you of any potential health risks, in fact most states used to require a blood test, but were given up on because most people are having pre/extra marital sex anyway…so there is very little bang for the buck, so to speak, in doing so anymore.

Will the church provide the same service?