Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
California Gay Marriage Redux
Columnist Ron Hart on gay marriage in California and the liberal and conservative responses to same:
If your hate of gays is religious based, then you need to examine the part of the Constitution that gives you your rights to pursue your beliefs. You are free to choose your religion. You are free to practice it as you see fit as long as it does not harm others. What is not sensible is for any one group to codify its particular religious beliefs into law. It is certainly the right for a church to forbid such gay activity in the church (or in the case of the Catholic Church to make them priests), but it is not its right to impose its interpretation of the Bible as civil law.
Liberals have to stop trying to legislate from the bench. Conservatives, who used to be about liberty and individual responsibility until they lost their way, have to put their personal and religious feelings aside. Back when it appealed to me, the GOP was for less government intrusion and more freedom. Both Parties need to rethink what they have become.
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 9:19AM|#
But we're a democracy, which means government is around to prevent people from doing things society doesn't like.
|7.2.08 @ 9:20AM|#
"Both Parties need to rethink what they have become."
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Thanks, I needed a laugh this
morning.
|7.2.08 @ 9:23AM|#
I really don't like Ron Hart's writing. It's fully of cheap shot
jokes and over the top punditry. And then there's this:
And if the gays start losing half their stuff and a house in divorce
"the gays"? Might as well just say "those fags" and get it over
with.
Naga Sadow|7.2.08 @ 9:34AM|#
MP,
Maybe Ron Hart was Army or Marine. Their ability to use extremely
un-PC language is legendary.
|7.2.08 @ 9:40AM|#
For what it's worth, I vote in favor of cheap-shot jokes and over-the-top punditry, no matter the target.
:-/|7.2.08 @ 9:43AM|#
Might as well just say "those fags" and get it over
with.
Both Parties need to rethink what they have become.
Add the libertarian party to his list, if the PCers here are any
indication.
|7.2.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Hart is very smart and funny. Sorry the language is not PC enough for you guys. I guess you find PJ O'Rourke a bit too blue too?
|7.2.08 @ 9:56AM|#
My impression of this Ron Hart person is that he sticks to the low-hanging fruits.
|7.2.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Conservatives, who used to be about liberty and individual
responsibility until they lost their way...
Until they decided that an easy way to garner votes is to pander to
the James Dobson crowd.
|7.2.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Hart takes on both sides here and his point is valid. The courts and government should stay out of this and just let the turd burglars alone. We got enough problems. You have to admit, if you have any sense of humor, that Hart is Dennis Miller like in his tone. I dig it.
Fluffy|7.2.08 @ 10:00AM|#
"Liberals have to stop legislating from the bench."
The legislative branch had its crack at the gay marriage issue back
when the Congress voted on the 14th Amendment and back when the
various state legislatures ratified the 14th Amendment.
The CA ruling is based on their state constitution, so I'll leave
that to one side for the moment - but, in general, the whole
"legislating from the bench" complaint fails to recognize that any
litigation that appeals to one of the Amendments is based on
legislative action in the broadest sense.
Mike|7.2.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Liberals have to stop trying to legislate from the
bench.
Sigh. Do we have to go through this *again*? Judging a law to be
unconstitutional is not legislating -- it's doing
what the judicial branch is supposed to do. You can't argue that
anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional in one breath and then
turn around and say that declaring them so is "legilating from the
bench". False balance is idiotic.
Charlotte|7.2.08 @ 10:02AM|#
There will always be people against equality. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable
by all Americans if they choose an agreement between two
individuals that the government has no business with.
Abdul|7.2.08 @ 10:12AM|#
What is not sensible is for any one group to codify its
particular religious beliefs into law... it is not its right to
impose its interpretation of the Bible as civil law
This is some nonsense. Gay marriage is illegal in lots of countries
that have little biblical tradition or are mostly atheist. It's
perfectly valid for people to outlaw some practice--whether gay
marriage or bearing false witness--because they believe the conduct
to be both morally wrong as revealed in sacred texts and at the
same time because they believe it's morally wrong as discerned by
natural reason.
I'm not advocating that gay marriage is morally wrong as discerned
by natural reason, but it's dishonest to say that all opposition to
gay marriage is just an attempt to impose some biblical view as
law.
|7.2.08 @ 10:14AM|#
When I was in elementary school, there was one kid who used to
start fights, and if it turned out that the fight was gong poorly
for him, would wait until he got one punch in, and then back off
and say "We shouldn't be fighting."
People who make an anti-gay-marriage argument based on their horror
at the government recognizing marriage remind me of that kid.
tarran|7.2.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable
by all Americans if they choose an agreement between
two individuals that the government has no business
with.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable
by all Americans if they choose an agreement between
two individuals beings that the government has no
business with, other than enforcement of the agreement.
ed|7.2.08 @ 10:19AM|#
an agreement between two individuals that the government has
no business with
Well, you can't have it both ways. Gays (rightly) expect the same
civil rights as nongays when it comes to marriage. You can't have
civil rights without a civil authority. If they want a rules-free
marriage, they can simply live together as many people do and
forego the government imprimatur.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 10:21AM|#
ed,
What part of the government staying out of it are you arguing
about?
I am all for any person willing their property to anybody and the
government enforcing that will. What are you for?
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 10:21AM|#
People who make an anti-gay-marriage argument based on their horror at the government recognizing marriage remind me of that kid.
Are you claiming that I'm making an anti-gay-marriage argument?
tim|7.2.08 @ 10:22AM|#
"And if the gays start losing half their stuff and a house in
divorce"
Well some of us are smart enough not to live in california and
experienced enough with legal issues (since the laws are so screwed
up) to have properly written up partnership contracts.
ed|7.2.08 @ 10:23AM|#
I'm saying you can't complain about government involvement in your marriage if you want that same government to protect your civil and property rights.
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 10:24AM|#
I'm saying you can't complain about government involvement in your marriage if you want that same government to protect your civil and property rights.
Do you need government involvement in any other contract to be sure that they'll enforce it?
Episiarch|7.2.08 @ 10:26AM|#
I'm saying you can't complain about government involvement
in your marriage if you want that same government to protect your
civil and property rights.
O Rly?
If you write up a contract as opposed to "marriage", it would
explicitly define who gets what, and all the government would have
to do (and only if there was a problem) to protect your civil and
property rights is make sure each person gets the stuff specified
in the contract.
Just like any other contract.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 10:27AM|#
It is interesting that the pro-marriage crowd has no problem
telling me that I can get married "whenever I want", even though I
never want a paperwork marriage again.
Somehow, that is an argument for them to have the government sort
out everybody's belongings after they die, but when pressed on the
details they are clueless. (like the people who toss out "no fault
divorce", honestly thinking that it replaced all the fault-based
divorce actions)
All I want is my stuff to go to who I say, not the government, not
some chick who said we dated long enough for a "common law"
arrangement, not some long-term roommate, maybe not even a blood
relative.
What is so freaking hard to understand about that?
|7.2.08 @ 10:27AM|#
I don't think it's at all inconsistent to say both that you think gay marriage should be legal the way that marriage is currently handled in the US and that you think the government should eliminate marriage benefits, and in that regard get out of the marriage business. A marriage would therefore become just a certain class of contract between two people, and would hold with it no tax benefits or anything requiring those of us who are not married to participate in their marriage.
|7.2.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Yes, Nigel, I am. It's the rebuttable assumption I work
with.
Having never, ever seen that argument made in any other context
except in opposition to extending the benefits of marriage to
willing gay couples, I assume that it is being employed that way,
unless I see evidence of the person making it having argued against
the government recognition of marriage prior to this issue.
ed|7.2.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Just like any other contract.
And who will enforce that contract if not the
government?
Are you setting up your own fiefdom, Guy?
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Having never, ever seen that argument made in any other context except in opposition to extending the benefits of marriage to willing gay couples, I assume that it is being employed that way, unless I see evidence of the person making it having argued against the government recognition of marriage prior to this issue.
Well, I'm not. I'm making a small-government argument. If government insists on granting marriages, anybody should be able to get one, but the gay marriage argument demonstrates the incapability of government to satisfy everyone's needs when it does everything. Hence, it's a convenient starting point to argue against government involvement in marriage.
Episiarch|7.2.08 @ 10:39AM|#
And who will enforce that contract if not the
government?
Just because the government can enforce a contract does
not give them the ability to interfere with the terms of
the contract.
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Just because the government can enforce a contract does not give them the ability to interfere with the terms of the contract.
Ed's got to be trolling. There's no way he's this stupid.
|7.2.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Hear, fucking hear for fluffy's comments. Congress passed this Amendment saying laws have to apply equally to citizens. The current marriage laws do not. The Court struck down the laws passed by a legislature that conflict with the Amendment passed by the legislature. Saying that any striking of a law enacted by a legislature is wrong puts any supporter of the recent Heller decision in a bit of a pickle...
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 10:43AM|#
JFC ed, try
reading
what I wrote
instead of making up stupid questions that support YOUR
nonsense.
And who will enforce that contract if not the
government?
How many times must I specify the government before you drop your
ignorance?
Are you setting up your own fiefdom, Guy?
Nope, not outside of my home anyway. Have a problem with that one
too?
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Ed's got to be trolling. There's no way he's this
stupid.
Yes he can be. ed is the new joe.
|7.2.08 @ 10:45AM|#
I'll take your word for it, Nigel.
The test, of course, is whether you consider the "marriage should
be a private contract" argument to be a point in favor of
maintaining discriminatory marriage laws for this transitional
period, before the state (or at least, its practice of recognizing
marriage) withers away.
|7.2.08 @ 10:45AM|#
"It is interesting that the pro-marriage crowd has no problem
telling me that I can get married "whenever I want", even though I
never want a paperwork marriage again."
And the women of the world rejoice...
|7.2.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Whoops, looks like Tuff Gai of Teh Internetz is not-reading my
comments again. That guy not-reads better than anyone I've ever
encountered.
There, there, ed. We can't all have the raw intellectual firepower
that has earned Guy Montag his reputation.
|7.2.08 @ 10:47AM|#
"And who will enforce that contract if not the
government?"
The government will enforce contracts because private enforcement
tends to get messy and causes problems, not because contracts are
inherently a governmental arrangement.
|7.2.08 @ 10:48AM|#
IF the state is going to administer marriages, THEN should they
be available to both hetero and homo-sexuals alike?
Let's answer that question, and then let's talk about "no
government involvement in marriage" (except of course for
enforcement, curiously the "coercion" part of the deal)
Episiarch|7.2.08 @ 10:49AM|#
MNG, for you:
"You don't wanna beat me or screw me?!? What kind of marriage is
this? Bring a book."
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 10:49AM|#
The test, of course, is whether you consider the "marriage should be a private contract" argument to be a point in favor of maintaining discriminatory marriage laws for this transitional period, before the state (or at least, its practice of recognizing marriage) withers away.
No, I'd prefer the state recognizing gay marriage to the current situation, but I don't want the state having more than an enforcement interest in marriage contracts in the first place.
|7.2.08 @ 10:51AM|#
"Whoops, looks like Tuff Gai of Teh Internetz is not-reading my
comments again. That guy not-reads better than anyone I've ever
encountered."
Does anyone else who loves Bradbury see the hilarious irony of a
guy who's handle is Guy Montag deciding he will filter out and not
read people whose comments he dislikes?
Episiarch|7.2.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Does anyone else who loves Bradbury see the hilarious irony
of a guy who's handle is Guy Montag deciding he will filter out and
not read people whose comments he dislikes?
You make an excellent point.
|7.2.08 @ 10:54AM|#
For the people who want the government out of the marriage business, except for the enforcement part, can you specify what parts of the "business" you want them out of and why those parts are more egregious than the enforcement part? Just curious.
|7.2.08 @ 10:56AM|#
except of course for enforcement, curiously the "coercion"
part of the deal
Why is that curious?
|7.2.08 @ 10:56AM|#
If gay marriage had been legal then I wonder if Mr. Jellinek and Mr. Noblet could have been happy and stopped living the farce they did...
Episiarch|7.2.08 @ 10:58AM|#
I also miss Onyx Blackman.
"All of our hard work has finally paid off."
Fluffy|7.2.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Having never, ever seen that argument made in any other
context except in opposition to extending the benefits of marriage
to willing gay couples, I assume that it is being employed that
way
Whoa, slow down, joe.
Whenever I see this argument advanced, it's usually a "civil unions
for everyone" argument. And I don't only read libertarian
sites.
I actually very, very rarely encounter it as an argument against
equal rights for gays, and I wonder where you do.
I think you're confusing it with the "no special rights for gays"
argument, which is a much different animal.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Epi,
You make an excellent point.
It is an excellent point for one to read people who make sense and
ignore those who prove to be nothing but trolls?
Fluffy|7.2.08 @ 11:07AM|#
For the people who want the government out of the marriage
business, except for the enforcement part, can you specify what
parts of the "business" you want them out of and why those parts
are more egregious than the enforcement part?
Well, MNG, historically there was almost no distinction between
marriage as a civil institution and marriage as a religious
institution in western societies. But there didn't HAVE to be,
because the distinction between civil and religious authority was
tenuous in any event.
But here in the US with our tradition of religious pluralism we
tried to separate the two. And the problem is that denying gays the
right to civil marriage obviously violates equal protection, but
granting access to civil marriage to gays freaks out religious
minorities because it uses the word "marriage".
To be magnanimous and preserve marriage as a religious institution
as it was historically understood, we should simply eliminate civil
marriage and institute civil unions for all couples, straight and
gay. There's no real reason for the civil institution to be called
"marriage" anyway. Call it jaberwocky for all I care. That way we
remove the equal protection issue by "getting the government out of
marriage".
|7.2.08 @ 11:15AM|#
For the people who want the government out of the marriage
business, except for the enforcement part, can you specify what
parts of the "business" you want them out of and why those parts
are more egregious than the enforcement part?
What is egregious about enforcement of a contract? If I took a loan
from you and refused to pay it back, or were late on all my
payments, would you prefer not to have legal recourse? I accept.
Give me $500,000 please.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Reinmoose,
It seems this "argument" is just spirling into a "but why"
emulation of third graders, on the part of those who do not bother
reading what thos on our side of this write.
|7.2.08 @ 11:20AM|#
It is an excellent point for one to read people who make
sense and ignore those who prove to be nothing but
trolls?
Given how incapable you are of sticking to your promise of ignoring
me, that's quite a statement.
If not for the fact that you are a blithering idiot, I'd be honored
by your charactization of me as someone who makes sense.
|7.2.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Fluffy,
If marriage is to be a religious institution only, with no civil
meaning, how can atheists get married?
No more City Clerk marriages? Ships' captains? Just a priest, or
nothing?
|7.2.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Rienmoose-What I mean is that the enforcement is the part where the government gets to, well, use force on someone. I'm not saying its not justified, mind you, but I understand many libertarians to not like this government using force on folks and to be very loathe to want to see it happen (I don't think libertarians NEVER want to see it happen). And so to be very angry that the government has this ceremony and this designation "marriage" strikes me as a small thing for government to be doing as opposed to the enforcement of contracts, which seems like big government in comparison.
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 11:28AM|#
If marriage is to be a religious institution only, with no civil meaning, how can atheists get married?
They
can
sign
a
contract.
NOT HARD.
|7.2.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Is it the legal rights and obligations that the government recognizes and enforces that is the "business" of marriage that you guys are talking about? Like the tax exemptions (or penalties) or the eligibility for certain government programs or the legality of certain preferences (for example in adoption or legal custody)? These strike me as pretty intangible things. Or is it simply the fact of hte government "recognizing" this contract in a ceremony with a particular name? Because that strikes me as small and petty potatoes.
Fenevad|7.2.08 @ 11:29AM|#
And the problem is that denying gays the right to civil marriage obviously violates equal protection
Actually it doesn't obviously do so in the sense that a gay could
still enter in marriage with someone of the opposite sex. It's only
obvious if we hold that people have a right to a certain sexual
practice in marriage. There are plenty of gays who have, for
whatever reason, been married and availed themselves of marriage
laws (Cole Porter, to pick one famous example). I'm not arguing
here about extending or not extending marriage to gas, but rather
pointing out that the state defining marriage as between opposite
sexes does not deprive anyone of the benefit of that law. It may
deprive them of the benefit under terms of their choosing, but it
is nonetheless available.
Again, I'm not arguing for the status quo, but just pointing out
that equal protection as an argument for a broader definition of
marriage is not cut and dried.
|7.2.08 @ 11:32AM|#
MNG -
Thank you for admitting that you're just trying to catch someone
being a hypocrite. That's what I suspected you were up to.
Libertarians are much more friendly to explicit contracts than they
are to social contracts - but you already knew that. Up above you
used a different definition for "coerce" than we typically use and
then tried to use that to call us all hypocrites. Go away if that's
all you're trying to do, rather than have a real discussion on
something.
Geesh|7.2.08 @ 11:32AM|#
I don't see the confusion - the distinction is a religious
ceremony or a civil one. All those that are "married" in a
religious ceremony can qualify for civil union status. All others
just get civil union status.
In a nutshell - everyone would need civil union status, but those
that need the religious angle can do so and say they are
"married".
Eventually the question wouldn't be "are you married?" It would
change to "Are you unioned?" If yes, the follow-up would be "were
you married in a church too?"
|7.2.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Like the tax exemptions (or penalties) or the eligibility
for certain government programs...?
Please don't admit that you didn't already know this was the
correct answer. You've been around here long enough to know.
|7.2.08 @ 11:34AM|#
"They
can
sign
a
contract.
NOT HARD."
I think it is a bit harder than that (Guy Montag's aversion and
celebration of non-nuanced thinking to the contrary, but then that
might be my thick skull talking).
Are you just talking, a la Guy, about a contract governing estate
distribution, power of attorney type issues and such? Because most
people think of marriage as a bit more than that complex of legal
arrangements. The marriage itself is a contract. And if the
government is going to recognize and enforce these contracts, then
what is so much more egregious about them "ceremonializing" them?
And if they are going to accept and enforce these contracts, then
will they do so when two homosexuals enter into one?
joe|7.2.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Nigel,
And
They
Wouldn't
Be
Married.
They'd have a contract about dividing up goods, not a marriage. Do
priests set up a contract about dividing up goods?
No, Nigel, they do not. Because, you see, when people go into a
church to get married, they aren't looking for merely the
establishment of a contract for dividing up goods. They're looking
to enter a thing called "marriage."
And when people who aren't religious go into the City Clerk's
office, to have their marriage recognized and recorded, they aren't
looking merely for a contract to divide up their goods, either. If
they were, they would have just had a lawyer draw up a
contract.
Lemme give you a little head's up: you don't need to talk down to
me. I'm not an idiot. If you think that the basis of a disagreement
we're having is about my not understanding something as childishly
simple as, say, "People who want a contract can sign a contract,"
you're probably wrong.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 11:37AM|#
I don't vote in VA, I just work here, but there was something
within the past couple of years trying to prevent people of the
same sex from "contracting" marriage situaions. At least that is
the way it was described by some groups, ranging from the
reasonable to the dramatically hysterical.
Certainly something that I am against.
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 11:38AM|#
Joe, what do you think stops them from calling that contract a marriage contract? Why do you need somebody besides yourself and your partner(s) to tell you what you may call your relationship?
|7.2.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Fenevald,
The relationship between two married people extends beyond their
sexual habits.
A gay person in a sham marriage to someone of the opposite sex
isn't just missing out on having the type of sex they prefer with
their spouse. They are missing out on the possibility of ever
having a genuine emotional and spiritual union, as well.
|7.2.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Reinmoose-I actually really don't know what the fuck the debate
is all about. Read my last couple of posts.
Of course I suspect that you don't like "tax exemptions (or
penalties) or the eligibility for certain government programs...?"
but that's because I assume you are against the taxes and the
government programs in the FIRST place. Is a libertarian then
necessarily against the rights, obligations, preferences and
penalties that are applied within the system of programs and
taxation ONCE it is already there? That's a seperate question and
the answer interests me.
In addition "legally recognized marriages" (that is, by the
government) matter in family law and other issues in ways that have
little to do with post New Deal or hell post Progressive government
programs and taxation systems.
Phowl|7.2.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Why do you need somebody besides yourself and your
partner(s) to tell you what you may call your
relationship?
Because
when
you
do
so
you
get
Government
benefits.
NOT HARD
|7.2.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Nigel,
The same thing that stops me from calling my Aunt Tess an oak tree:
the fact that the concept "oak tree," like "marriage," has an
actual, pre-existing meaning.
Marriage is an institution that precedes us. People who wish to be
married wish to join that institution, and to be recognized as
having joined it.
What's to stop me from saying I'm a Catholic priest, and writing up
a document saying I've received the sacrament of Holy Orders from
the Roman Catholic Church? Nothing, nothing whatsoever. I could do
that this afternoon if I wanted to.
But it would be meaningless - meaningless to every Catholic, and
also meaningless to me.
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 11:43AM|#
And you shouldn't get those government benefits, but I didn't think that's what we were arguing about.
|7.2.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Let me give you an example. Someone dies intestate. Under common
law if the person was in a marriage then his property will be
distributed differently than if he was not.
Custody matters and seperation agreements often involve issues in
which a civilly recognized marriage is important. If people just
had these religious ceremonies or contracts between each other for
a wide variety of things then how would courts work this kind of
thing out?
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Joe, if the government recognized gay marriages fundies still wouldn't agree that they were legitimately married.
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 11:45AM|#
If people just had these religious ceremonies or contracts between each other for a wide variety of things then how would courts work this kind of thing out?
Possibly by following the terms of the contract.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 11:45AM|#
They're looking to enter a thing called
"marriage."
Please define marriage. That's not snark by the way.
|7.2.08 @ 11:45AM|#
"get
Government
benefits."
As a married person let me assure you that you get a hell of a lot
of obligations and penalties too. I doubt this is a goody grab.
Phowl|7.2.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Definitely not a goody grab, but if there are benefits out there
(even if there shouldn't be), then gay people deserve to get them
like everyone else.
Civil Unions would entitle everyone to the "benefits." Marriages
would entitle some to claim religiosity.
|7.2.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Nigel Watt,
So?
Most of society would. More of society would. The government would.
Their neighbors would. And, as for those fundies, even if they
didn't recognize it as a 'real marriage,' they'd recognize that
something happened involving the two of them forming a union,
committing to each other, officially being a household, and
otherwise committing to a certain role in society, that wasn't
there before.
"Oh, great, so they got fake-married. Well, I guess that means that
new fella isn't going to be moving out any time soon." Like
that.
But, more importantly, they would have gone through a ceremony
involving God, themselves, each other, and society, with each party
playing its part. And they, the married gay couple, would know it
and feel it, and it would be real in their lives.
|7.2.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Nigel
I'm not sure you are following me.
In your world A contracts with X for power of attorney in the event
of A's incapacity. He even contracts to will certain property to X
(among other people). A has a son. A dies in a car crash.
Who gets custody of A's son? X? A's parents or siblings?
Before you say "whoever he contracted to" you should realize that
people historically and currently often do not, as an empirical
matter (and possibly cannot as a conceptual and empirical matter)
enter into contracts that tie up every possible eventuality (hence
for example the entire law of intestacy).
If there was a recognized marriage between A and X the government
(in brokering the various claims from private parties that would
follow A's death, a function I doubt you want them to drop) could
more easily settle this matter, no?
|7.2.08 @ 11:50AM|#
kinnath,
No. This is not snark, either.
If you have a point, please make it.
Homey don't play that.
|7.2.08 @ 11:53AM|#
MNG -
Social engineering in any way is non-libertarian. I don't know how
hard it is to get this, but we keep saying it, so let me see if I
can get this a little clearer:
1. As things currently stand, when 2 people get married they enter
a lifetime contract that includes all sorts of rights and
responsibilities of one party to the other party. These include,
but are not limited to, hospital visitation rights, common property
definitions, and power of attorney issues. They also, currently,
qualify for government programs because they have entered this
contract, and have benefits/penalties with regards to taxes.
2. Libertarians want to do away with the government programs and
benefits in general. Additional problems come from the government
treating two people who entered a specific contract (that
currently, only one amand and one woman can enter) differently than
they would treat two people who did not enter a contract (or could
not, legally, such as two men or two women).
3. Many of us have already said, above, that gays should be allowed
to marry under the current terms and receive all applicable
benefits/penalties that a "traditional" marriage would arealdy
receive. We particularly believe this because of those extra
benefits that you qualify for because of your legal status - an
equal protection issue.
4. This does not change that, long term, we would like to eliminate
the government programs that married couples qualify for in the
first place, both from a monetary/economic standpoint, and as it
creates an unnecessary distinction between married people and
single people, also an equal protection issue.
Is that clear?
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 11:54AM|#
OK, I see the fundamental difference here, joe. You think government represents society.
|7.2.08 @ 11:56AM|#
As an atheist, I'm only married because:
1) The set of legal rights that come with it.
2) It was a great excuse for a party.
I don't see why, if "marriage" was to become an institution of
religion only, why atheists wouldn't migrate eventually to always
having "civil unions". I'd have entered into a legal "civil union"
if such an option was available. I couldn't give a darn about the
word "marriage". I'm happy to turn that over to the fundies. Let
them have their stupid word.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 11:57AM|#
"Marriage" is a huge body of convoluted laws that define the
rights and responsibilities of spouses in the eyes of the
government. A spouse automatically goes to the head of the line in
terms of "next of kin" for decision making when you're
incapacitated. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each
other. Tax status; inheritance rights; so on; so forth; blah blah
blah
Any attempt to produce a civil union that has all the same legal
characteristics as "marriage" without being "marriage" is doomed to
failure.
There is no legitimate social justification to prevent to people of
the same gender from being married in the eyes of the law.
Preventing a large segment of the population from hyperventillating
due to religious concerns is not a legitimate social
justification.
|7.2.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Kinnath
I agree with joe a bit about any point you have to make.
But if I have to define marriage I do so as "a public declaration
and recognition of love and committment that carries with it moral
and legal rights and obligations."
The legal part can, in theory (though as I note above empirically
it would be unlikely that people would enter into contracts that
cover all the eventualities that the law has evolved or decided to
be covered by the legally accepted consequences of marriage) be
covered by a system of contracts. The moral, declaration, and
recognition functions are in part fulfilled by legal recognition by
the State.
|7.2.08 @ 11:59AM|#
No, Nigel, I just recognize that there is something called
society, that government plays a role in.
I recognize that there is something external to the two individuals
who marry, and that the language "before God and Man" is included
in marriage ceremonies for a reason.
"Represents" is your word. The verbs I've used were "recognize" and
"record." The government serves a function for society. Many
functions, actually. One of them is to serve as an official arbiter
of when people have gotten married.
|7.2.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Reinmoose
These government programs you want to eliminate, does it include
the numerous common law obligations and benefits that only married
people get in family law, the law of wills, the law of
partnerships, corporations, etc and etc like I have been FUCKING
TALKING ABOUT FOR THE PAST SEVERAL POSTS? Are libertarians against
all those common law distinctions that courts USE to ENFORCE and
INTERPRET many contracts and decide many non-monetary
non-governmental issues? You seem to not be getting it. I hope THAT
was clear, eh?
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 12:02PM|#
the fact that the concept "oak tree," like "marriage,"
has an actual, pre-existing meaning.
kinnath,
No. This is not snark, either.
If you have a point, please make it.
Homey don't play that.
You talk like marriage has a well understood, commonly accepted
definition.
I disagree. The very fact that there is a huge controversy over
"gay marriage" disproves that the fact that everyone knows what
"marriage" is.
I was merely asking what your definition of
marriage was so that I could understand what point
you were trying to make. It was a moment of
weakness, so don't bother to follow up.
Nigel Watt|7.2.08 @ 12:03PM|#
The government serves a function for society. Many functions, actually.
Most of which it shouldn't.
Fluffy|7.2.08 @ 12:03PM|#
If marriage is to be a religious institution only, with no
civil meaning, how can atheists get married?
Joe, come on, demonstrate some imagination.
Once we remove the word "marriage" from the civil institution, my
cat Sigmund can marry me and my hypothetical partner if I
want.
Remember that we would be removing the word "marriage" from the
civil institution in a milieu of religious pluralism. If I'm an
atheist, I can rent out the country club and get other atheists to
have an "Atheist Marriage Ceremony" for me.
|7.2.08 @ 12:04PM|#
MP,
That's fine, but the argument I was responding to was not "there
should be civil unions for atheists who don't want to get married
in a church," but "there should be no civil unions."
To argue that marriage should be only a religious event, and that
all civil affairs should be taken care of via a private contract no
different than a job offer/acceptance is to argue that there should
be no markers and no recognition for anyone but the two people who
got hitched to indicate that they are anything more than room
mates.
|7.2.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Reinmoose
Like the example I gave Nigel above.
You want the government to give up, say, presumption that if A and
X are married and A's son's mother is out of the picture that X
gets custody.
You want that gone because of some libertarian principle? I'd love
to hear which one.
Like joe said above, don't assume that because someone thinks you
don't have it all worked out that they must not know or understand
what the fuck libertarians hold on certain matters. We've all read
Hayek and Mises here...
IANAL|7.2.08 @ 12:06PM|#
If I have a three million dollar estate, and I die, it passes
entirely tax free to my spouse.
If I have a three million dollar estate, and I die, 2 million can
pass tax free to my same-sex partner, but the remaining 1 million
is taxed at the current estate tax rate.
|7.2.08 @ 12:08PM|#
fluffy
Are'nt you a law student?
What do you think about how courts would apply all the legal
doctrines that take a civilly approved marriage into account in
deciding matters, many that have little or nothing to do with
government benefits but instead defining the rights and obligations
between private parties without any civilly approved and recognized
marriages?
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Kinnath
I agree with joe a bit about any point you have to make.
Gee, I wasn't actually trying to make a point, I was just asking
for information. Apparently, that's not enough to justify posting
in a public forum.
But if I have to define marriage I do so as "a public
declaration and recognition of love and committment that carries
with it moral and legal rights and obligations."
Thanks for adding your input. Wonderful definition; however, it
tends to blend public and private concerns under a single banner.
Perhaps that's part of the problem ;-)
|7.2.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Or better asked, do you think that AS A LIBERTARIAN you must be opposed to all those presumptions and doctrines?
Fluffy|7.2.08 @ 12:10PM|#
MNG -
I think your sidebar discussion trying to get into the minutaie of
what will and won't be in a libertarian civil union contract is
unnecessary.
Why can't we just keep the existing definition of the marriage
contract and just change the name?
You talk like marriage has a well understood, commonly accepted
definition.
Well, it has a historical meaning, and while I'm not willing to let
that historical meaning control the civil institution, I also think
it would be unnecessarily rude to steal the word for our revised
civil institution.
It's as if we had historically had the practice of requiring a
state license to hold a bar mitzvah, and then non-Jews sued using
equal protection to demand the right to get that license. The
smart, and polite, thing to do would be to say, "Boy, were we
dumbasses to license getting a bar mitzvah!" and change the name.
It would not be smart or polite to let me pay $10 and get a bar
mitzvah license, then hold a ceremony where I eat a lot of pork and
dress up as Yassir Arafat, and call that my bar mitzvah.
|7.2.08 @ 12:11PM|#
kinnath
Sorry, should have taken your question at face value unless I had
reason to think otherwise.
And yes I think that is part of the problem!
|7.2.08 @ 12:12PM|#
The very fact that there is a huge controversy over "gay
marriage" disproves that the fact that everyone knows what
"marriage" is.
No, it demonstrates that there is a point of disagreement involving
one element of the definition. The fact that everyone on both sides
of the issue agree on every other aspect of marriage except that
particular, demonstrates very plainly that everyone knows what
marriage is.
If I put a gun to your head, kinnath, made you listen to couple
give five minute speeches about their backgrounds and the legal and
religious ceremonies they've been through, and demanded that you
tell me if each one is a marriage, you would be able to confidently
give me an answer in about 99/100 cases.
What you're doing here is the equivalent of noticing that two
neighborhoods are next to each other in a city, and saying that
there can't really be a Foggy Bottom neighborhood and an East End
neighborhood, because there are some addresses along Pennsylvania
Avenue that can be said to belong to both. Well, there is a Foggy
Boggom neighborhood, and there is an East End neighborhood, and
that fact that the boundary between the two can be a subject of
debate doesn't change that.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 12:13PM|#
kinnath
Sorry, should have taken your question at face value unless I had
reason to think otherwise.
I thought the phrase "this is not snark" was a hint ;-)
|7.2.08 @ 12:14PM|#
fluffy
Well if it is just the name, I mean the mere word "marriage"
(meaning these civil unions would carry all the common law and
statutory rights, obligations, presumptions, etc. that "marriage"
used to), then I say, why do we have to give up even that word,
with its nice cultural and historical significance for many people,
just because of the feelings of fundies. If we gave up everything
for fundies feelings....Jeebus...
Oh, and would these civil unions be ceremonialized? Because that is
what many people who get married want as a big part of the
marriage. If the answer is yes, then the fundies are going to have
their feelings outraged just as much I imagine....
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 12:16PM|#
No, it demonstrates that there is a point of disagreement
involving one element of the definition.
I think it goes far beyond one single element. But that's just an
opion.
The fact that everyone on both sides of the issue agree on
every other aspect of marriage except that particular, demonstrates
very plainly that everyone knows what marriage is.
Since, I didn't agree with the first statement, the second is
moot.
|7.2.08 @ 12:16PM|#
kinnath said:
Any attempt to produce a civil union that has all the same legal characteristics as "marriage" without being "marriage" is doomed to failure.
Huh? Have you read the various civil union statutes? They're pretty
straightforward.
Take VT, for example:
(a) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.
Why is that doomed to fail?
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 12:17PM|#
IANAL,
If I have a three million dollar estate, and I die, it passes
entirely tax free to my spouse.
If I have a three million dollar estate, and I die, 2 million can
pass tax free to my same-sex partner, but the remaining 1 million
is taxed at the current estate tax rate.
Not sure on your numbers, but the concept is correct for the
current situation AFAIK. It is wholly unfair to anybody who has
decided not o be in the "who you can do" files of some State
government.
It demonstrates yet another loophole in favor of the government
that they can drive an armored car through to take property.
|7.2.08 @ 12:17PM|#
They're looking to enter a thing called "marriage."
What's weird is that at this point I started hearing the word
"marriage" like the minister said it in The Princess
Pride.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 12:20PM|#
(a) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same
benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they
derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common
law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in
a marriage.
After a hundred years or so of litigation, we'll know one way or
the other for sure ;-)
|7.2.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy said:
Because that is what many people who get married want as a big part of the marriage. If the answer is yes, then the fundies are going to have their feelings outraged just as much I imagine.
So what? Their whole basis for their argument is that they don't
like "marriage" to extend beyond "man with woman". When you rip
that out of their hands, what argument are they left with? Let them
have their word.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 12:24PM|#
On a side note, what precipitated the feud between Guy and
joe?
I got tired of reading his nonsense that anybody who soes not take
his Socialistic worldview has some sort of mental defect. Not just
directed at me either.
Same with MNG, but more recent.
|7.2.08 @ 12:25PM|#
MP,
The problem with that theory is that the fundies don't just want to
be able to call their religious unions "marriages." They also want
the government to recognize those unions; and ALSO, and here's the
rub, to recognize that their marriages are better and more real
than the unions of gay people.
It's that third bit that's the rub. If you described the legal
aspect of all such unions as "civil unions," the fundies would
whine about their marriages being called by the same thing as those
of gay people, and start demanding that the government call theirs
"First Class Civil Unions" and everyone else's "Second Class Civil
Unions."
And that's assuming that they are willing to recognize a difference
between what their church does and what the government does.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Let's see:
A VT civil union means that:
Two guys joined in a civil union can file "married, jointly" on
their 1040, right?
One of the guys takes a job transfer to a company in southern MO.
This employer will automatically allow the guy to enroll the other
guy as his spouse for company-sponsored benefits, right?
On vacation at the Grand Canyon, there is a car accident and one of
the guys is severely hurt. The doctors at the emergency room are
going to let the other guy make medical decisions for the
incapacitated guy, right?
So on, so forth, blah blah blan
|7.2.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Uh, yeah, Guy. That's why I keep calling you a mental defect;
because I say that about everybody who isn't a liberal.
You can tell this is true, by how inspiring the rest of the
libertarians find your intellect.
|7.2.08 @ 12:38PM|#
MNG -
I don't understand where you got:
"You want the government to give up, say, presumption that if A and
X are married and A's son's mother is out of the picture that X
gets custody.
You want that gone because of some libertarian principle? I'd love
to hear which one."
How do you include "common law obligations" under "government
programs" and not the legal/contractual side of marriage?
|7.2.08 @ 12:38PM|#
kinnath said:
One of the guys takes a job transfer to a company in southern MO. This employer will automatically allow the guy to enroll the other guy as his spouse for company-sponsored benefits, right?
Listen, don't start arguing that civil unions aren't tenable at
all and then start arguing that there are issues under
Federalism. Those are two wholly separate topics.
joe said:
It's that third bit that's the rub. If you described the legal aspect of all such unions as "civil unions," the fundies would whine about their marriages being called by the same thing as those of gay people, and start demanding that the government call theirs "First Class Civil Unions" and everyone else's "Second Class Civil Unions."
I reject your premonition. That hasn't happened in any states that
have passed Civil Union laws. In fact, what has happend is that the
homosexual groups in states with Civil Unions continue to argue
over the word "marriage", even those there's not one iota of legal
benefit to be achieved by changing state law once a state has
established Civil Unions. It is the gay rights side that continues
to codify themselves as second class citizens. The fundies aren't
clamoring for anything in those states.
|7.2.08 @ 12:44PM|#
all the same benefits, protections and
responsibilities
It's easier to stick your hand in somebody else's pocket if you
first dress up in the frilly frock of "human dignity."
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Listen, don't start arguing that civil unions aren't tenable
at all and then start arguing that there are issues under
Federalism. Those are two wholly separate topics.
Any attempt to produce a civil union that has all the same
legal characteristics as "marriage" without being "marriage" is
doomed to failure.
Sorry, I'm an engineer, not a laywer so "doomed to failure" has a
very broad scope does encompass everything that can go wrong
including "issues with Federalism".
It also includes points that joe has made in the past regarding the
inevitable lawsuits that claiming "civil unions" instead of
"marriage" is a modern form of "seperate, but unequal".
zoltan|7.2.08 @ 12:45PM|#
fluffy
Well if it is just the name, I mean the mere word "marriage"
(meaning these civil unions would carry all the common law and
statutory rights, obligations, presumptions, etc. that "marriage"
used to), then I say, why do we have to give up even that word,
with its nice cultural and historical significance for many people,
just because of the feelings of fundies. If we gave up everything
for fundies feelings....Jeebus...
Oh, and would these civil unions be ceremonialized? Because that is
what many people who get married want as a big part of the
marriage. If the answer is yes, then the fundies are going to have
their feelings outraged just as much I imagine....
It doesn't seem like you read what Fluffy wrote; his dismissal of
the term 'marriage' is not in the interest of fundamentalists'
feelings, but to respect the historical precedent of what it was
and has been from what I understand. So regardless of what a
marginal group of people believe marriage should be and how it
should be called, the argument is against giving the term a new
definition than its previous one.
And why shouldn't a union contract be ceremonialized? You don't
need the recognition or approval of the government to rent a venue,
pay the caterer and florist, and buy a dress or suit. How does the
government figure into the ceremony? If you're referring to a
religious one, then it absolutely shouldn't be interfering into
that anyway. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the term
'ceremonialized'; what do you mean by it?
|7.2.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Oh, and would these civil unions be
ceremonialized?
Holy Shit! You got the government to pay for your wedding, MNG?
What kind of form did you have to fill out for that?
Fluffy|7.2.08 @ 12:47PM|#
why do we have to give up even that word, with its nice
cultural and historical significance for many people, just because
of the feelings of fundies.
To be fair, they were using it first.
There's a pretty straight line from various Mediterranean religious
traditions surrounding "marriage" to the medieval Jewish, Catholic
and Muslim instititions of "marriage" to the modern western
tradition.
We're burdened with an archaic institution that predates both the
separation of church and state, and our modern rigorous
understanding of equal protection. We've partially broken with that
tradition, and I think we just have to go the rest of the way and
get rid of a term that is loaded with pre-existing meanings that
should not have any place in government.
Oh, and would these civil unions be ceremonialized? Because
that is what many people who get married want as a big part of the
marriage. If the answer is yes, then the fundies are going to have
their feelings outraged just as much I imagine....
Right, but their outrage will have no legal component and no
connection to a neutral civil institution.
If you described the legal aspect of all such unions as "civil
unions," the fundies would whine about their marriages being called
by the same thing as those of gay people, and start demanding that
the government call theirs "First Class Civil Unions" and everyone
else's "Second Class Civil Unions."
Right, but then they'd be trying to create something new instead of
defend something that already exists [which I think would pretty
effectively neuter them]. They also would have much less of a
symbolic grievance.
|7.2.08 @ 12:50PM|#
It also includes points that joe has made in the past
regarding the inevitable lawsuits that claiming "civil unions"
instead of "marriage" is a modern form of "seperate, but
unequal".
BZZZZZ. Wrong.
If the government only recognizes civil unions, and only churches
have the authority to name marriages, then it is the churches who
are discriminating. They are allowed to.
I suppose you also think that we should tell churches that they are
to treat everyone as though they are going to heaven.
Fluffy|7.2.08 @ 12:52PM|#
I reject your premonition. That hasn't happened in any
states that have passed Civil Union laws. In fact, what has happend
is that the homosexual groups in states with Civil Unions continue
to argue over the word "marriage", even those there's not one iota
of legal benefit to be achieved by changing state law once a state
has established Civil Unions. It is the gay rights side that
continues to codify themselves as second class citizens. The
fundies aren't clamoring for anything in those states.
OK, here I have to disagree.
The reason I want the word "marriage" gone from the civil
institution is because the gay activists are absolutely, positively
correct when they say that maintaining side-by-side institutions
differing even in only their name is an offense against equal
protection.
It violates equal protection for the same reason its advocates want
it to exist. Why bother to have the two side-by-side institutions,
if there is not some perceived value to maintaining the "marriage"
version for heterosexuals only? If they're really and truly exactly
the same, then heterosexuals shouldn't mind if they are all called
"civil unions".
Rhywun|7.2.08 @ 12:52PM|#
"Redux" indeed. I'm worn out from the last three times we all feuded over gay marriage. Moving along...
|7.2.08 @ 12:54PM|#
kinnath said:
Sorry, I'm an engineer, not a laywer so "doomed to failure" has a very broad scope does encompass everything that can go wrong including "issues with Federalism".
"Doomed to failure" means that it can't possibly succeed. The
Federalism issue is addressable. The fact that it hasn't been
addressed yet does not doom Civil Unions.
joe|7.2.08 @ 12:59PM|#
kinnath,
I reject your premonition. That hasn't happened in any states
that have passed Civil Union laws. That's becasue those states
DIDN'T eliminate the term "marriage" from their laws, and call all
marriages "civil unions." What they did instead was continue to
reserve the term "marriage" for those unions the fundies
like.
It is the gay rights side that continues to codify themselves
as second class citizens. Nope, it is the law itself, which
codified "marriage" for straight people, and "civil unions" for gay
people.
|7.2.08 @ 12:59PM|#
fluffy said:
if there is not some perceived value to maintaining the "marriage" version for heterosexuals only?
Perceived value is irrelevant. Does the law, which is supposed to
be blind to "perceived value", treat a civil union differently than
a marriage? No.
It may be redundant, but I don't see how that influences an Equal
Protection argument.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 1:03PM|#
It may be redundant, but I don't see how that influences an
Equal Protection argument.
It doesn't in the slightest. It just upsets the wordgame crowd.
|7.2.08 @ 1:08PM|#
And don't try to bring up Brown. Brown's whole basis was the
impact that separate facilities had on the social/mental
development of children:
A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.
We're talking about adults in the Civil Unions vs. Marriage issue.
I don't think there's any argument that can be made that Civil
Unions retard the development of gay couples to co-exist in society
of straight couples.
|7.2.08 @ 1:13PM|#
MP,
If the government reserved the term "marriage" for Christians, and
proclaimed that Jews could record their civil unions, would you
make the same argument.
BTW, the "wordgame crowd" are those who strive to invent new words
so they can avoid calling the marriages of people they don't like
by the obvious term.
|7.2.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Please define marriage. That's not snark by the
way.
Well, I can tell you what one isn't, no matter how many times the
word has been used - in what state does the law define marriage as
a "contract"?
Further, what kind of contract creates obligations on the part of
3rd parties that aren't signatories?
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 1:14PM|#
MP,
I hope you are excluding the wildly melodramatic hysterical types
on both sides of the discussion.
|7.2.08 @ 1:18PM|#
BTW, the "wordgame crowd" are those who strive to invent new
words so they can avoid calling the marriages of people they don't
like by the obvious term.
I agree - I prefer to be in denial that my best friend is getting
married to a woman who doesn't respect him. I'd prefer to call it
getting whipped.
|7.2.08 @ 1:18PM|#
BTW, MP, while I support gay marriage over civil unions as a political issue, for the reasons the gay-marriage activists describe, I am still undecided about whether the problem rises to the level of an equal-protection violation. I think yours is a fine argument, and it's a close call, legally.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Pig Mannix,
Well, I can tell you what one isn't, no matter how many times
the word has been used - in what state does the law define marriage
as a "contract"?
Washing
State appears to be one and I stopped looking after I found
this. YGMV
|7.2.08 @ 1:24PM|#
P.M.,
There are definitely contractual elements to a marriage. Your
second point - that there are other elements that are different
from a contract - is the important thing.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 1:26PM|#
kinnath,
I reject your premonition. That hasn't happened in any
states that have passed Civil Union laws. That's becasue
those states DIDN'T eliminate the term "marriage" from their laws,
. . .
that wasn't me joe.
|7.2.08 @ 1:29PM|#
joe said:
If the government reserved the term "marriage" for Christians, and proclaimed that Jews could record their civil unions, would you make the same argument.
Yes. But I'd never make that argument because I'd be making a 1st
Amendment argument against such an arrangement.
I'll turn your hypothetical back to you. If polygamy was legalized,
and they came up with the phrase Civil Family Units, would you be
making the same argument? Note that legally, CFUs would have to be
different than Marriage/Civil Unions, because multi-party rights
are potentially differently constructed than two-party rights.
Guy Montag|7.2.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Ya know, if all these goofballs* would quit running to the
government to get on the marriage list, they would not be getting
so much attention from the government.
*the Poly crowd
Prox|7.2.08 @ 1:50PM|#
"The fundies aren't clamoring for anything in those
states."
That's meant to be a joke, right? Or are you just unbelievably
ignorant? A petition just failed in Maine under the insane CCL, not
only for a marriage amendment, but to have every law that
recognized sexual orientation removed from the books: adoption,
discrimination, DP's, every single mention.
And that is happening in a lot of states, as always. Fundies want
gays entirely inside the closet, reformed, or more preferably, dead
or in prison. That really hasn't changed much, except in the
numbers signed on to their cause.
|7.2.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Prox said:
A petition just failed in Maine under the insane CCL
The petition didn't simply "fail". They were only able
to get 5,000 signatories out of the 55,000 required. I suspect
that there are more than 5,000 people covered by the churches in
the Maine CCL. If you can't get your own membership to sign off on
something, then apparently there isn't much support even among
fundamentalists.
My intent was to express that there's no effort of any significance
being undertaken in Civil Union states (particularly VT, NH, CT,
& NJ) to rise up and reject the existing legislation.
And if there is and I'm simply not aware of it, well, mea
culpa.
|7.2.08 @ 2:37PM|#
"On a side note, what precipitated the feud between Guy and
joe?"
Art
Many libertarians hate liberals because they conclude that the
policies supported by liberals will not only not promote the
liberal's stated goals of maximized opportunity and protection of
individual rights, but that those policies will horribly undermine
both.
Other people are libertarians because they conclude that the
policies supported by liberals WILL actually promote the liberal's
stated goals of maximized opportunity and protection of individual
rights, and they don't want to see that.
Guy is an example of the latter. He's an authoritarian libertarian:
someone who sees in the government a tool for the out-groups he
despises to erode the favored positions he and the groups he is a
member of may enjoy under the undisturbed (by government)
conditions created by past inequities. Most libertarians are afraid
the government is going to fuck things up, but Guy's kind is really
afraid they will actually accomplish what they set out to do.
And, like most authoritarians, Guy not only does not seek out
dissenting viewpoints, he shuns them and hates them.
|7.2.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Sorry, kinnath.
MP,
If polygamy was legalized, I would make the argument that the term
"marriage" should be reserved only for the first union, and the
subsequent "wives" would have to make due with some other
legalistic term. That's because I don't consider those "marriages"
to be real marriages, and I wouldn't want to see them recognized as
such. This probably isn't the answer you wanted, though.
Also, while there's no effort of any significance being
undertaken in Civil Union states (particularly VT, NH, CT, &
NJ) to rise up and reject the existing legislation. may or not
be true, every civil union state has also kept its marriage laws on
the books, so the anti-gay crowd's reaction to having their
marriages downgraded to civil unions and/or the marriages of gay
couples described in the same legal terms as those of straight
couples cannot be judged.
However, here in Massachusetts, the anti-gay forces most certainly
did rise up against the use of the term "marriage" to describe gay
marriages, and got tens of thousands of signatures to put it on the
ballot. Fortunately, they couldn't even get 25% of the legislature
to go along, so the question didn't appear.
|7.2.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Interesting. So the reason Guy and joe dislike one another is
because neither one of them is a "true" libertarian. Well, maybe we
should all share a drink! ;)
Incidentally, I would seem to have more in common with both Guy and
joe than they would seem to have in common with one another. I will
say that they are both more "opinionated" than I am. So what does
it all mean to me? I can't hold a grudge on the internet.
Telly|7.2.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Oh good god...here we go with polygamy again. Eight out of ten topics here end up with damn polygamy getting dragged into it. Even posts about the cost of gas get polygamized because some yahoo starts in with whining about buying gas for a family, and before you know it another yahoo starts in about having ten wives and 100 kids and, then it ends up a big ass polygamy debate.
|7.2.08 @ 3:12PM|#
joe said:
If polygamy was legalized, I would make the argument that the term "marriage" should be reserved only for the first union, and the subsequent "wives" would have to make due with some other legalistic term. That's because I don't consider those "marriages" to be real marriages, and I wouldn't want to see them recognized as such. This probably isn't the answer you wanted, though.
(I wrote this, so I feel like posting it. But I don't really feel
like egging you on into a polygamy debate. It's a fact that there's
always someone (me this time) who will take the "gay marriage"
debate down the slippery slope of polygamy. It just seems like such
a logical endpoint that it's hard not to.)
Do you not find that to be a hypocritical stance? Especially
considering that polygamists have used the word "marriage" far,
far, longer than homosexuals? Why grant one group the coverage of
the legal usage of a word, while denying it to another group which,
incidentally, has a significantly deeper historical tradition?
|7.2.08 @ 3:19PM|#
MP,
I don't feel like a hypocrite, because there are objective
differences between how polygamous arrangements function, and how a
marriage functions.
You can make a propeller out of wood, iron, steel, or aluminum, and
it's still a propeller. If, however, it doesnt' go 'round and
round, because it isn't mounted to a central pivot point that
transfers circular movement to the blades, but is instead mounted
at the fout ends of the blades, so that it can only move by
flapping back and forth, it's not a propeller.
Although, I'll grant you that polygamists have been using the word
marriage for a long time. My argument has nothing to do with this,
though. There is a very long legal tradition of using the words
"property" and "ownership" to describe the relationship a
slaveowner has with his slave. I don't care. Screw that noise.
|7.2.08 @ 3:21PM|#
The interesting thing about this recent Polygamy and Gay Marriage editorial is that it appears to be written by a rightward editorialist, but the slippery slope argument made is laced with libertarianism. And it's interesting that the author never comes out and states that the slippery slope issue is a bad thing (which, IMHO, it's not).
|7.2.08 @ 3:28PM|#
I agree with the argument, made by some, that we should seperate
the religious/social institution of marriage, and the legal
benefits conventionally associated with it. And I see the benefit
of calling the legal status "civil union" for all couples straight
or gay. (Under this system, a legally-certified clergyman could
make a couple religiously married and legally "civil-unioned" at
the same time, which is alot like what they do now.)
And I "get" (not sure if I agree or not) the argument that there
should be no special tax or insurance benefits, available only to
those who enter such civil-unions.
But what about the benefit of, say, naturalization?
If I married a foreign citizen who wanted to move to the US, she
would have an easier time getting a green card, etc, than if I
hadn't married her.
We can easily imagine a legal regime where the same thing is
possible for gay couples. And we can easily change the name to
"civil-union" instead of "marriage" for all couples (straight and
gay). But would there be any easier path to naturalization under
what Reinmoose is proposing?
We could get rid of the legal recognition of couples
altogether. The law could simply answer all questions of default
inheritence, next of kin, etc the way it now answers them for
single people - deviating only where there is a specific
contract/will/etc. But that would entail the loss of the
naturalization benefit.
|7.2.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Actually, I take that back. If they legalized polygamy, I 1)
wouldn't care, and 2) wouldn't care what they called it.
But that's because I don't actually care if some small subset of
the population wants to live like that.
I don't think my feelings on the matter change my point, though: if
someone DID consider it important to stigmatize polygamous unions,
it is very likely that they WOULD insist that the government not
recognize them as marriages, and if that battle was lost, they
probably WOULD want to deny them the use of the term.
Seriously, MP, why do you think that the VT and CT legislatures,
which were considering gay marriage laws, decided to go the civil
unions route in the first place?
short, fat bastard|7.2.08 @ 3:55PM|#
But Adam and Eve only produced Cain and Able (and one those did make it very far). So who did Cain fuck?
Kolohe|7.2.08 @ 4:06PM|#
It's Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Eve and Mary and Jane and
Theresa.
I would be more inclined to buy movies from the second
company.
Actually, while they're at it, they should just leave Adam out of
it.
|7.2.08 @ 4:09PM|#
joe said:
Seriously, MP, why do you think that the VT and CT legislatures, which were considering gay marriage laws, decided to go the civil unions route in the first place?
I misread your original statement and I retract my rejection of
your premonition. What I was really trying to reject was the idea
that fundamentalists would agitate to any noticeable degree once
civil unions were given equal footing to "Marriage". But that
wasn't the argument you were making in that
comment.
To answer your question, "Civil Union" is clearly a legislative
compromise, and is thus why those laws gained support. A lesson
apparently lost on the MA and CA judiciaries.
And I stand my assertion that "Civil Union" only stigmatizes those
who elect to feel stigmatized by it. By law and by application,
there is no differentiation between a legal "Civil Union" and a
legal "Marriage".
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 4:15PM|#
By law and by application, there is no differentiation
between a legal "Civil Union" and a legal "Marriage".
Then why have two separate names for the same thing?
|7.2.08 @ 4:18PM|#
But Adam and Eve only produced Cain and Able (and one those did make it very far). So who did Cain fuck?
Remember the part where Cain is like "but if they see me they'll
kill me" and God's all like "I'll put this mark on you so nobody'll
kill you" and then he has to wander the Earth? There were other
nations (people) already WTF?*
*Reading this as a kid steered me away from a literal translation
of the Bible.
Kolohe, yeah, me too. And if Belladonna or Jada Fire are involved,
hubba hubba.*
*I'm such a perv.
|7.2.08 @ 4:23PM|#
I used to have boss named Adam, and this being Massachusetts, he
married his partner, Steve.
MO, And I stand my assertion that "Civil Union" only
stigmatizes those who elect to feel stigmatized by it.
I suppose I could say that any of George Carlin's seven words only
insult people who "elect" ot feel insulted by them, but that would
be pretty silly.
For one thing, they guy who yells "fucker" at somebody is most
certainly insulting him - just as the people agitating for keeping
"civil unions" the legal term instead of marriage for gay marriages
intend to deny them that term in order to stigmatize them, or avoid
removing the stigma. In fact, as they'll tell you themselves,
that's why they're doing it.
Second, everybody knows what "fucker" means, and that it's an
insult. This incluces the person saying it, the person being called
it, and everybody else in the room. Similarly, everyone knows what
"marriage" means (even you, kinnath!), and knows what it means for
a couple to be married. Or not.
I think you're on solid ground when you say that the stigmatization
is less than the harm done to black children in a segregated school
system, but that's a different matter than saying it doesn't exist
at all.
|7.2.08 @ 4:25PM|#
I think more Bible stories should be related like that.
And then God's all like "Consider my servant Job..."
And then Satan's all, "Nuh-uh."
And God's all, like, "Yah!"
And then Satan's all, "No way."
And God's all, like, "YVWH!"
|7.2.08 @ 4:27PM|#
MP -
I think as libertarians we are used to dealing with the conflict of
"the perfect being the enemy of the good." Maybe other political
viewpoints aren't used to dealing with that as much?
|7.2.08 @ 4:30PM|#
joe,
The sad part is, I actually think that's a good idea. I think the
Pope would kick my ass if I told him that, though.*
*Not literally. How weird would the Pope punching a fellow in his
jaw be?
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 4:38PM|#
And God's all, like, "YVWH!"
Ok, I now admit that joe adds some value to these discussions.
|7.2.08 @ 4:43PM|#
kinnath said:
Then why have two separate names for the same thing?
Didn't I answer this? It's a legislative compromise to allow people
who have an anachronistic view of how the word "Marriage" should be
defined to retain that definition, while granting full legal rights
to couples outside of that definition.
joe said:
Similarly, everyone knows what "marriage" means (even you, kinnath!), and knows what it means for a couple to be married.
If it was such a universally accepted definition, why does the
debate over "marriage" exist? Apparently, you think this is an
effort solely to stigmatize homosexuals.
Thing is joe, I guess I really don't give a shat if someone feels
stigmatized when they are granted the full legal rights they are
seeking. And I'm not sure why I should care about hurt feelings.
There are so many other vulgar state uses of force that this
constant whiny pooh-poohing over feeling bad about not being able
to use the word "marriage" just bugs the shit out of me.
Anyhow, I do wonder why states chose to offer Civil Unions
exclusively to homosexuals. Why can't Atheists (for example) enter
into Civil Unions? Can't I claim to be stigmatized by being forced
to label my relationship as a "Marriage"?
Fenevad|7.2.08 @ 4:53PM|#
A gay person in a sham marriage to someone of the opposite sex isn't just missing out on having the type of sex they prefer with their spouse. They are missing out on the possibility of ever having a genuine emotional and spiritual union, as well.
Joe, the problem with this statement is that the government cannot
and should not be in the business of trying to guarantee a "genuine
emotional and spiritual union". Indeed marriage law could not take
that into account as anything beyond a rhetorical goal.
I was just pointing out that equal protection is a weak argument
here because everyone equally has the right to engage in the
behavior considered under the law (marriage). Whether it is
fulfilling or mind-numbingly dull is beside the point. No one is
denied the benefit of the law because they are gay: they
can still get married to someone of the opposite sex for whatever
reason they want to. (Indeed, the same can be said of any marriage:
I'm sure there are hetero couples who have gotten married for tax
reasons or to get a break on health care.) Gay individuals may be
denied the benefit because the law doesn't allow what they want in
particular. Whether that's right or not is a separate issue from
whether equal protection applies as a legal principle here. Despite
the rationale used by judges in some of the cases, it is not
self-evident that it does since nothing precludes anyone from
taking advantage of the law.
Again, I am not stating my position on the issue, but rather
looking at the logic of the particular claim.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Then why have two separate names for the same
thing?
Didn't I answer this? It's a legislative compromise to allow
people who have an anachronistic view of how the word "Marriage"
should be defined to retain that definition, while granting full
legal rights to couples outside of that definition.
This is an excuse, not a sound legal justification.
Similarly, everyone knows what "marriage" means (even
you, kinnath!), and knows what it means for a couple to be
married.
Anyhow, I do wonder why states chose to offer Civil Unions
exclusively to homosexuals. Why can't Atheists (for example) enter
into Civil Unions?
I was "married" by a Justice of the Peace 32 years ago in a "civil"
service not a "religious" service. Gays have been "married" in
"religious" services by some forward thinking ministers (not
without controversy within those sects the ministers represent).
Legally, I am married, those gay couples are not.
joe, please define marriage for me. This is not the trival question
you make it out to be.
|7.2.08 @ 5:01PM|#
kinnath said:
This is an excuse, not a sound legal justification.
Why does there need to be a "sound legal justification"? Are you
walking down the "rational basis" path? Because if so, I don't see
a basis to your claim.
|7.2.08 @ 5:08PM|#
MP,
If it was such a universally accepted definition, why does the
debate over "marriage" exist?
It's a debate over who should be allowed to marry whom. Everybody
understands perfectly well what awaits gay couples who tie the
knot.
Thing is joe, I guess I really don't give a shat if someone
feels stigmatized when they are granted the full legal rights they
are seeking. And I'm not sure why I should care about hurt
feelings. I'll just point out that the "hurt feelings" are
being created not as an unavoidable side effect of the government
going about its business, but deliberately, through an affirmative
act by the government conducted purely for that purpose. There is
no other reason to have a civil union/marriage distinction, except
for the purpose of stigmatizing gay people and declaring their
unions to be inferior.
Anyhow, I do wonder why states chose to offer Civil Unions
exclusively to homosexuals. I'm sure sure about this, but I
think that at least one state allows straight couples to be
civil-unioned.
Fenevald,
Joe, the problem with this statement is that the government
cannot and should not be in the business of trying to guarantee a
"genuine emotional and spiritual union". No one is asking them
to. No one is asking anything of the government at all, excpet that
it not go out of its way to work against that end by
discriminating.
The Right is not to "happiness," but to "the pursuit of happiness."
It's up to those gay people to pursue their own happiness; the
government just shouldn't get in the way.
The benefit of marriage law IS inextricably bound with allowing
people who can do so to have meaningful unions with their chosen.
The Loving vs. Virginia case explains this well.
And you plainly know what marriage is just fine, kinnath. Well
enough to state who is and is not married, both legally and before
God.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 5:15PM|#
And you plainly know what marriage is just fine, kinnath.
Well enough to state who is and is not married, both legally and
before God.
Well, I haven't burned my one marriage in the Catholic Church, so I
should be able to divorce my current wife (legally), then marry and
new one in a Catholic service (then I could finally be married
legally and before God).
|7.2.08 @ 5:30PM|#
joe said:
A gay person in a sham marriage to someone of the opposite sex isn't just missing out on having the type of sex they prefer with their spouse. They are missing out on the possibility of ever having a genuine emotional and spiritual union, as well.
Wow. I missed that comment the first time. State sanctioned legal
contracts are the basis for emotional and spiritual unions? Are you
kidding?
Fenevad said:
No one is denied the benefit of the law because they are gay: they can still get married to someone of the opposite sex for whatever reason they want to.
Oh man. Where to being with THAT one.
joe said:
There is no other reason to have a civil union/marriage distinction, except for the purpose of stigmatizing gay people and declaring their unions to be inferior.
Superior/inferior is your own judgment. Seeking to preserve the definition of marriage as M/F does not necessarily infer a superiority angle. That's your projection. It may also be the projection of some of the social conservatives. But do you think that the voters who authorized Civil Unions were doing that because they felt it was an inferior status? That's one heck of an assumption to make.
kinnath|7.2.08 @ 5:31PM|#
So when the next congress passes card check and Obama signs it into law, will gay couples be able to join civil unions without a secret ballot first?
|7.2.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Damn boys, this Hart guy got you going. Where is the humor and sharp insight that he started all of this with---? No one can stir it up like gay sex!!
MJ|7.2.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Ron Hart is a sophmoric ass with only the shallowest
understanding of what's motivating either side on this issue and
what they are trying to accomplish with their tactics.
"What I do not understand about those that are religious and are
adamant about gays not marrying is the following, if God made
everyone, then how can you spend your time condemning gays because
He made them?"
Who is Mr. Hart's theological inspiration? Gaius Baltar?
The religion I'm most familar with (Catholicism) condemns the act
of homosexual sex, not homosexuals for being homosexual. It
considers the condition of homosexuality to be a temptation to sin,
one of many innate conditions that may be a temptation to sin. It
is giving in to temptation the church condemns, not that you have
the temptation.
Now I do't expect Hart or many others around here to like that
position any better, but what Hart wrote is a gross
mischaracterization.
MJ|7.2.08 @ 9:34PM|#
"Most of society would. More of society would. The government
would. Their neighbors would. And, as for those fundies, even if
they didn't recognize it as a 'real marriage,' they'd recognize
that something happened involving the two of them forming a union,
committing to each other, officially being a household, and
otherwise committing to a certain role in society, that wasn't
there before."-joe
joe's reason for supporting homosexual marraiges is because he
expects it will force people who disagree to change their minds on
it. In other words, joe's for it because he wishes to impose his
values on others. Perhaps not all of you ae for it for similar
reasons, but given that people like joe do exist, is it any wonder
that the "fundies" feel justified in pushing back?
joe, the problem is that a gay couple cannot commit to the "certain
role in society" that married heterosexual couples fill. With each
other, they do not have the capability of fulfilling that role.
Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to deny them the term that
describes that role.
Fluffy|7.2.08 @ 10:51PM|#
Didn't I answer this? It's a legislative compromise to allow
people who have an anachronistic view of how the word "Marriage"
should be defined to retain that definition, while granting full
legal rights to couples outside of that definition.
Superior/inferior is your own judgment. Seeking to preserve the
definition of marriage as M/F does not necessarily infer a
superiority angle. That's your projection. It may also be the
projection of some of the social conservatives. But do you think
that the voters who authorized Civil Unions were doing that because
they felt it was an inferior status? That's one heck of an
assumption to make.
Dude, don't you see how these two statements of yours blatantly
contradict each other?
If the legislative compromise worked because it allowed some people
to think they were voting for something that wasn't actually
marriage, then some number ofthe legislators who voted for it
absolutely, positively authorized it that way because they thought
it was inferior.
Thing is joe, I guess I really don't give a shat if someone
feels stigmatized when they are granted the full legal rights they
are seeking.
This would mean that if the law said that white people got
"marriage licenses", and black people got "stupid ass nigger
fucking and living together licenses", but the underlying legal
relationship was the same in each case, that this would be
acceptable to you. Is that what you're trying to say?
No one is denied the benefit of the law because they are gay:
they can still get married to someone of the opposite sex for
whatever reason they want to.
Come on, no one is this stupid.
That means that laws that say you can't marry outside your race are
OK, because you can always just marry someone the same color as
you. Or a law saying Jews can't marry Christians is OK, because
they can always just marry other Jews instead.
Go get a swastika tattoo or something and stop wasting our
time.
joe, the problem is that a gay couple cannot commit to the
"certain role in society" that married heterosexual couples fill.
With each other, they do not have the capability of fulfilling that
role. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to deny them the term
that describes that role.
BZZZT! Assumes facts not in evidence. The reason people have the
right to get married is not because it "fills a certain role in
society". Fuck society. People don't possess individual rights, and
people aren't equal before the law, because of their "roles in
society". Therefore I don't give a shit if gays fill some stupid
ass Biblical "role" you think the family has or not.
MJ|7.3.08 @ 6:39AM|#
"The reason people have the right to get married is not because
it "fills a certain role in society". "
If marriage does not define a certain role in society then why does
marriage exist at all? You seem to be saying that the institution
of marriage sprang up to serve no purpose at all.
If a given two people are capable of fulfilling that role, and a
second couple are not capable, how is not calling the latter
couple's relationship by the same name as the former's a violation
of rights? Their situation is not the same.
You dismissing facts and logic out of hand because they are
inconvenient to your case. But in doing so, you leave the word
"marriage", a hollow, meaningless shell, devoid of substance.
MJ|7.3.08 @ 6:43AM|#
I have not used any religious based argument to justify my thoughts on this issue. Dismissing what I am saying as "Biblical" is a cheap, lazy, idiot's approach to not dealing with an argumnet you do not like.
|7.3.08 @ 9:42AM|#
MP,
State sanctioned legal contracts are the basis for emotional
and spiritual unions? Are you kidding? Marriage pre-dates the
state; the state simply recognizes it. Marriage is the bsis for
emotional and spiritual unions. No, I'm not kidding.
Superior/inferior is your own judgment. Seeking to preserve the
definition of marriage as M/F does not necessarily infer a
superiority angle. That's your projection. It may also be the
projection of some of the social conservatives. But do you think
that the voters who authorized Civil Unions were doing that because
they felt it was an inferior status? That's one heck of an
assumption to make.
The legislative history on this is quite clear, as your own
statement about the "legislative compromise" makes clear. The
people arguing against calling gay marriages "marriage" have made
no bones about their intent. You can keep writing that it's all in
my head, but that won't make the floor speeches disappear from the
public record.
If marriage does not define a certain role in society then why
does marriage exist at all? The happiness of benefits of the
couple and their family. As the decision in Loving vs. Virginia
explains, being able to marry your intended is integral to the
pursuit of happiness, and to liberty.
The important issue here is not the role marriage plays in society,
but the role society plays in marriage.
MJ,
I don't think you are familiar with the actual definitions of the
terms "force" and "impose." But it is interesting that, having made
the argument that government recognition of a marriage somehow
amounts to "force" and "imposing" something on somebody, you then
turn around are argue about when it is, and is not, appropriate for
the government to "force" and "impose" a certain model of what it a
marriage on everyone else. If we are to take your argument
seriously, you are saying that the government should force people
to recognize marriages, but only when you deem it to be "for the
common good," and not because the couple itself has chosen to form
a family. That's pretty disgraceful.
If a given two people are capable of fulfilling that role, and
a second couple are not capable, how is not calling the latter
couple's relationship by the same name as the former's a violation
of rights?
Because your rights are not based on society, or the role your
actions play in society. Your rights are God-given. I hold this
truth to be self-evident; how about you?
|7.3.08 @ 9:51AM|#
If the government's laying down a market that this gay couple is
legally married constituted "force," the "imposition of values,"
then why is the government performing exactly the same act when a
straight couple gets married any different?
In fact, I am the one arguing that the government's recognition of
marriages should NOT work to impose a set of values regarding the
validity of different marriages here, MJ. YOU are the one arguing
that it should, and whining because it isn't imposing your values
as vigorously as it should.
So no, you don't get to wiggle the "force," "impose your values"
finger in my face. If anything, I get to do it to you.
|7.3.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Marriage has only become an issue (a "civil right?") because
government benefits and protections have been attached to it.
I personally don't care whether someone wants to marry their
lawnmower or their dead grandfather. If there are no government
benefits attached, what does it matter? Marry once, twice, three
times; marry simultaneously.
Most people get married in a religious ceremony; they ought to be
divorced under the same jurisdiction.
If we want to have "civil" marriages, OK; but the only right
attached to it should be the right to buy a vanity license plate
that says something like, "Married- Happily!" It would be a good
source of income for the Justices of the Peace and the States.
|7.5.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Herr Stein is correct. I would give my money to my lawnmower--
as it has been more loyal than my wife.
Hart has a take on this thing that is clearly sharp, witty and
thoughtful. As for the dumb ass MJ, you really need to get a sense
of humor.
Hart Rocks!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245