Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal in Hawaii, Dozens of Couples Marry

ReasonReasonDozens of same-sex couples got married in Hawaii today after a law legalizing gay marriage came into effect at midnight.

Hawaii is the fifteenth state to legalize gay marriage.

From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Dozens of same-sex couples tied the knot in Hawaii early Monday as a new law allowing gay couples to marry went into effect at midnight.

Between 30 and 40 couples were being married at the Sheraton Waikiki Hotel in Honolulu starting just after midnight local time (0500 ET), a hotel employee, who asked not to be named, told Reuters.

Three hours later, the ceremonies were still being performed and no protesters had shown up, the employee said. Photos posted on social media sites depicted flowers and chandeliers, wedding dresses and Hawaiian shirts, and leis on celebrating guests.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I will get reasoners to say recognized instead of legal if it kills us all.

    Anywho, isn't Hawai'i like the bluest of blue states? Shouldn't they have been first?

  • ||

    They were the first state to try to legalize gay marriage and it set off a backlash in Hawaii, and kicked off the first wave of ballot initiatives (including CA Prop 22 in 2000) to prevent gay couples from stealing Christian babies to make wedding cakes in states across the country.

    Hawaii has seemed very odd in that it has gay bars that have been operating unmolested since the '60s, but the bars are still relegated to shady neighborhoods where you get to walk a gauntlet of drunken thugs when you leave them (at least on Oahu, I didn't hit the bars much in Maui).

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Your lips say legalize but your heart says recognize. And really, how can any gay-friendly state produce a shirt that looks like that?

  • ||

    how can any gay-friendly state produce a shirt that looks like that?

    You clearly haven't spent time around older lesbians...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -recognized instead of legal

    How about 'legal recognition?'

    I think it is fine to use the term 'legal.' What if a state decided to get rid of corporations by simply not recognizing them? You could still get together with your friends and pretend you are shareholders in a corporation, and you can convince others to pretend with you. Of course that will not help you in certain instances where the state refuses to recognize your corporation. If the state decided to reverse track on that decision and start recognizing the corporate form again would people quibble over reports saying corporations are 'legal' there now?

    Marriage strikes me as somewhat similar situation.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'll take legal recognition, definitely. But also I'll counter your "what if" with one of my favorites. What if they decided to hand out pedestrian licenses and benefits to go with them? Would it seem accurate to say they finally legalized walking?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And just to clarify, I only say this because reason is debating libertarian ideas and phrasing matters. In the context of smaller government and civil liberties, it seems more accurate after Lawrence v. Texas to couch same-sex rights arguments as some benefit you want the government to provide as opposed to some freedom you want the government to stop restricting.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I guess it goes to what is meant by marriage. Perhaps state recognition is part of what it means, at least as long as the state is treating married people differently in any way than single people. This seems to be true for corporations for example (to the extent they are not legally recognized they are not much of a corporation).

  • robc||

    I guess it goes to what is meant by marriage.

    This has been the whole crux of the debate from the beginning.

    For those of us who see marriage as ENTIRELY a religious ceremony, the state licensing marriages at all is a violation of both the 1st Amendment and Matthew 19:6.

    (The latter violation being the basis for the former)

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Fair enough. Along those lines, do you consider state recognition of certain parental rights and obligations, some of which are mandated in the Scriptures, to be a similar problem?

  • robc||

    do you consider state recognition of certain parental rights and obligations...to be a similar problem?

    Probably. I have no idea what you mean, but Im sure I do.

    There is a big difference though, the state isnt licensing parents. The state doesnt deny parental rights (except in certain cases, and I think reason has handled the abuse of that system pretty in depth).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is a good point about licensing.

    What I was thinking of is there are certain obligations parents must follow in law that are also mandated by Scriptures. A person could say, as you do with marriage, that the obligation is religious mandate first and foremost. Then for the state to 'recognize' it would seem to create the same problem you say you have here.

  • robc||

    You are still being vague and I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Im good with finding things in the bible, point me to a verse.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, for example, the Bible allows for (and mandates when appropriate) a parent to use corporal punishment in disciplining a child, and our government has long 'recognized' that parental privileges.

  • robc||

    Have they "recognized" it or just not made it illegal?

    Its not just parents, others can use corporal punishment on a child too. Although I wouldnt dare try it on someone else's kid.

    Sometime circa 1974, my Dad spanked a neighbor kid. She ran home and told her mother who called my Dad and thanked him and told him if she needed one to do it again.

    Today my Dad probably ends up in jail.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I would say they recognized it. When you take Torts or Criminal Law it is an actual defense to torts such as assault and crimes such as child abuse well recognized in case law (and sometimes in statute).

  • robc||

    Okay, I get what you are saying now.

    And its not the same thing as marriage.

    Parenting isnt a religious ceremony, even if there is advice and obligations in raising the children.

    To use Catholic terms, spanking isnt a sacrament. Marriage is.

    Im not Catholic, and my church doesnt consider marriage an ordinance (instead of 7 sacraments, with have 2 ordinances), but marriage is still a religious ceremony in a different way than child rearing.

  • sarcasmic||

    I pity all those homos who are in prison for committing the crime of entering into an illegal marriage.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I pity the retards with gray matter so scrambled they keep repeating this bullshit line.

  • sarcasmic||

    So you're saying R C is a retard? That's rich, since he's more intelligent than you or anyone in your family tree.

  • Zeb||

    But you're just quibbling over a word. You know damn well what people mean by "legalize gay marriage". For most people marriage is the government recognition. That may be a stupid way to look at it, but that is how it is.

    I also disagree with RC's formulation that something has to be illegal to be legalized. I think that legalize can also mean to bring into the legal system. I've encountered people who don't like the term "drug legalization" because of that definition. Whether that sort of legalization is generally desirable or beneficial is a legitimate thing to discuss. But it is silly to argue of the choice of words.

  • sarcasmic||

    I also disagree with RC's formulation that something has to be illegal to be legalized.

    He's only a lawyer with a degree from an Ivy League college. What does he know?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -He's only a lawyer with a degree from an Ivy League college. What does he know?

    I am betting you do not feel the same about another lawyer with a degree from an Ivy League college I can think of...

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm guessing RC actually earned his degree, unlike the other guy you're thinking of.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And what does your guess rest on?

    The assertion of a fellow on the internet?

  • sarcasmic||

    It's painfully obvious that the other guy didn't earn his degree.

  • ||

    Whether or not he earned it, he obviously didnt learn a damn thing while he was in college getting all lawyery.

    I'm assuming you're speaking of the constitutional lawyer in chief of course.

  • Zeb||

    This isn't a legal document. It is a news item written in everyday speech. Lawyers, no matter how clever, are not the final arbiters of the meaning of all words. Is there some special class in law school where you are let in to the one and only official definition of "legal" or something?

    This is some weak ass shit. You don't like gay marriage, I get it. But make an argument, don't just pick on people's word choice. You know what the fuck they mean.

  • R C Dean||

    I dunno. To me, you can only "legalize" something if it has been "illegal".

    So, where are the laws prohibiting gay marriage? Note: not licensing is not prohibiting, unless the licensing statute specifically says so.

    So, yeah, nobody is "legalizing" gay marriage because nowhere is there actually a law against it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Okay, they just didn't get access to the vast monetary and legal benefits associated. Which is basically the fucking same.

  • robc||

    What legal benefits? The marriage tax penalty?

  • ||

    Or you know, 5th amendment spousal immunity and not having loved ones deported.

  • robc||

    See below, mentioned one of those.

    If I have my way, both of those go away for straights too.

  • robc||

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Care to point out where the fuck in the 5th amendment spousal immunity exists?

    Its common law, I think, has no fucking constitutional background.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Considering the Founders expressly lived under and contemplated a common law system to which our nation's would apply to and work within that strikes me as pretty silly statement.

  • robc||

    Considering the Founders expressly lived under and contemplated a common law system to which our nation's would apply to and work within that strikes me as pretty silly statement.

    The common law is inferior to the Constitution. When they are in conflict, the Constitution wins out. In this case, the right to not testify against yourself is constitutional. Spousal immunity isnt. Its common law.

    jesse said it came from the 5th. That is false, it comes from elsewhere.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course it is inferior to the Constitution. It does not follow that the Constitution does not recognize and rely on the common law quite a bit, though.

  • SugarFree||

    Care to point out where the fuck in the 5th amendment spousal immunity exists?

    nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

    Spouses are treated as one person and compelling your wife to testify against you is the same as compelling you.

    I'm not saying it's good legal reasoning, but there it is.

  • robc||

    Spouses are treated as one person and compelling your wife to testify against you is the same as compelling you.

    This doesnt seem to be a universally applicable principle in law, thankfully.

    I'm not saying it's good legal reasoning, but there it is.

    Like I said, common law, not constitution. Im not saying common law is poor legal reasoning, just that bit of it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    When the 14th Amendment refers to 'rights and privileges' what do you think it refers to? No 'common law' rights or privileges?

  • SugarFree||

    Im not saying common law is poor legal reasoning, just that bit of it.

    It's does seem to be a nice bit of having your cake and eating it too. Not too many husbands are going to jail with their wives for crimes committed solely by the wife.

  • robc||

    "loved ones" != spouse

    as many married people can attest too. Zing!

  • Homple||

    Also divorce.

  • R C Dean||

    Aside from (a) tax treatment and (b) evidentiary privileges, there are no "benefits" of marriage that cannot be duplicated by contract.

    The spousal privilege is held by the witness, not the defendant. Not the way most people think it works.

    As for taxes, why don't we just fix the tax code?

    Obligatory disclaimer: I gots no problem with gay marriage. I just find most of the arguments that people make for it to be pitifully inadequate, if not misleading.

    And yes, I regard the phrase "legalize gay marriage" to be misleading.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -that cannot be duplicated by contract

    Is that not a 'goal post move?'

  • robc||

    Is that not a 'goal post move?'

    Not really. My point, not stated explicitly in this thread, is that any benefit that you can get from contract isnt a benefit from the marriage license. You can already get it, the state process just simplifies things (usually, in a poor way, as the state can change the contract at will -- which is a damn poor contract).

    The gift laws and the immunity from testimony are not things that can be contracted so are the exceptions.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That seems wrong to me, it could be a benefit that you do not have to go through the contracting process, no? Getting automatic things can be a benefit in itself.

  • robc||

    It saves a few bucks, so yeah. But since when did libertarians support that kind of shit?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    To take one of your recently rediscovered examples, I think it would be nice for everyone to be able to transfer unlimited funds to anyone else, what about you? Allowing gay couples as well as straight couples to get in on this would only expand the number of people who could do so.

  • robc||

    The way to do this is to end income taxation. Problem solved!

  • robc||

    To go into more detail, one of my long running points is that ends dont justify means.

    Achieve the ends you want, but do it by moral means, if possible, or dont do it at all.

    So, if we want to allow anyone to make an unlimited transfer, the way to do it is via the moral method of ending income taxation (which ends another immorality), not the immoral method of expanding the already immoral marriage licensing.

    There are two ways to achieve this end, 1 via a moral means, 1 via an immoral means. And my way makes it a more general principle anyway, so its even a better end result too.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Fair enough, but I think what you see as 'expanding' the immoral policy could be seen as 'further exempting people from the immoral policy.'

  • robc||

    further exempting people from the immoral policy

    ???

    The immoral policy is marriage licensing. Adding new people to the licensing regime is more immoral. No one is being exempted.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I was thinking that the (or at least another) immoral policy was restrictions on transfers.

  • robc||

    There isnt "per se" a restriction on transfers. Its just considered to be taxable income beyond a certain point.

    So the immoral policy is the income tax. Hence my opening up transfers by eliminating the income tax.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ah, I see!

    So the immoral thing is that they tax transfers for the non-exempted, and ending the tax would end the immoral thing.

    Of course, widening the number of people who are exempted could be seen as a good thing to. But if your point is that your solution is the more general and ultimate one I concede.

  • robc||

    But if your point is that your solution is the more general and ultimate one I concede.

    Why quibble over school policy when we can just fucking separate school and state and it stops being a fucking issue?

    Same argument.

  • sarcasmic||

    Getting automatic things can be a benefit in itself.

    Talk about moving the goalposts.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    How is that goalpost moving (take a look at my 2:49 response to RC before answering if you want to see an example of what that type of benefit would look like).

  • ||

    The spousal privilege is held by the witness, not the defendant.

    Well this is awkward then.

    Folks who were not primary defendants declined to testify, but were immunized for any role they may have played in the affair and were sent to solitary for declining to testify. If spouses are considered the same person for the purposes of the 5A, then a wife wouldn't undergo this but a partner would, no? I'd say that's a big difference.

    Standard disclaimer: I don't think the government should be able to coerce speech full stop, but I as long as it can I'd like to have as many avenues to defend myself from this coercion as possible, and this particular venue is readily available to you already.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Looking forward to the day when gay marriage becomes a boring issue. ...and it's starting to feel like that already.

    I was reading about how some actress had come out of the closet, recently, and I was wondering why I'd never heard about her before. Then I realized it was because no one cared. ...and then I realized that I didn't care.

    Maybe someday marijuana legalization will be a boring issue, too. It should be. All culture war issues should be as boring as they are. Wanna make something boring? Legalize it and most people will find the issue boring after a while.

  • ||

    Yeah, I share the same sentiment. I personally look forward to the day when the real issue debated is the legitimacy of state involvement in marriage, if that day ever comes. The rest of this is just kind of meh.

  • robc||

    Ive been trying for over 20 years, but apparently Im not "organized" enough for tonio.

  • DJF||

    More poor people being lured into a contract with the government concerning their most intimate of personnel relationships which the government can change whenever they want but the people can only change with the permission of government.

  • Rasilio||

    Fuck this gay marriage shit, I wanna know when they start filming Gay Divorce court and Gay Bridezilla's cause that's gonna be some real must see TV.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I believe that Gay marriage will be outlawed again in 2016 once the Republicans regain the White house and the Supreme Court is re-structured to 6-3, conservatives. Thanks Ruth.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. Right after they re-institute slavery and outlaw abortion.

  • Alice Bowie||

    We will see.

    I think that Republicans are going to pick up a significant amount of seats and probably will take over the senate.

    In addition, many people in America (me not one of them) are very much against Gay marriage and would support outlawing it.

  • sarcasmic||

    You do know the difference between something being illegal and something not being legally recognized? No, probably not.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Here it's a distinction without a difference.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. There's no difference between being being imprisoned and being denied access to legal benefits. They're basically the same thing.

  • robc||

    Im trying to figure out what legal benefits are being denied. About the only thing I can think of is the spousal ability to not testify in court.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

  • robc||

    How many of these would still exist in libertopia?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not know, what do you think?

  • robc||

    Well, as I dont think the state should recognize straight marriage either, I would say none.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is pretty circular.

  • Alice Bowie||

    There's a few,

    Your spouse, in the USA, is the only individual that you can transfer any funds, money, or other assets without a transfer or gift tax.

    In addition, a Gay spouse is next of kin.

  • robc||

    Your spouse, in the USA, is the only individual that you can transfer any funds, money, or other assets without a transfer or gift tax.

    Not true. Its the only individual you can transfer UNLIMITED funds/assets too, but you can transfer ~$14k per year per individual now.

    And a 1 time transfer of ~$5MM? Something like that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Its the only individual you can transfer UNLIMITED funds/assets too

    Well, did not you just identify one there?

  • robc||

    Well, did not you just identify one there?

    Yes, I did, but its off-topic in this subthread. As this subthread is about me nit-picking Alices misstatement of the law on transfers.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Im trying to figure out what legal benefits are being denied.

    That is you, supra, in this subthread.

    So in your quest you found one all on your own (strangely, one you likely knew about before you posed the question supra). Now what, more trolling?

  • robc||

    That is you, supra, in this subthread.

    Nope.

    This subthread branched FROM that subthread with Alice's post.

    So in your quest you found one all on your own (strangely, one you likely knew about before you posed the question supra).

    Nope again. When I asked the question, I literally couldnt think of any. I thought of the spousal immunity from testimony as I hit submit and a few others as pointed out.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Yes, so not recognizing a same-sex marriage as two spouses would get rid of the UNLIMITED thing.

    I did leave out the word UNLIMITED. I stand corrected.

  • robc||

    I did leave out the word UNLIMITED. I stand corrected.

    THIS IS THE FUCKING POINT OF THIS SUBTHREAD (for Bo's benefit), TO FORCE YOU TO ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Seems to me another point is you just learned there are at least two rights you know recognize that gays would get from having their marriages recognized, so you will not have to repeat this discussion on future threads.

  • robc||

    you will not have to repeat this discussion on future threads.

    Unless I forget them again.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Hopefully someone can bookmark this to remind you if that occurs.

  • ||

    There was the issue of family primacy on hospital visitation, although that was theoretically made moot by an Obama directive.

    Oh and according to my very conservative mother who sells life insurance it's really fucking difficult to set up insurance accounts. I don't remember the exact reason for that but it has to do with what a patchwork the legal recognition of spousal benefits/domestic partner benefits/no benefits is.

  • robc||

    really fucking difficult means doable.

    You would think the insurance companies would have streamlined this by now for the $$$.

  • ||

    really fucking difficult means doable.

    I'm not sure if that was true in all cases. My mother, who has been staunchly anti-gay marriage since it became an issue, got a slew of gay and lesbian clients and went into an enraged froth about how terrible the legal and financial framework is for gay couples and how we need to just recognize gay marriage and be done with it.

    She's spent an excessive amount of time on the phone with some of the major insurers and as far as I can tell she has been unable to get a clear answer and her clients are ending up with fairly McGuyvered solutions. Mind you the last time I checked in on this Prop 8 hadn't been overturned in CA, nor had the salient parts of DOMA. This is likely different now that gay marriage is legally recognized both on the Federal and local level for the jurisdiction she's working in.

  • Alice Bowie||

    There must be an Insurable interest.

    I can't simply take out life insurance on the local heroin junkie on the corner, right?

    However, Gays, when owning property together via JTWOS do have insurable interest.

  • R C Dean||

    There was the issue of family primacy on hospital visitation,

    I remember that one. The story being told by the gay rightsers was utter BS, start to finish.

    And even if it had been true, you can give anyone you want complete authority as your surrogate by filling out a form. Failure to take care of business is not a denial of anyone's rights.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So you would be fine with a law that required Republicans to get X licenses upon filling out a form, but Democrats get it without the form? After all, 'failure to take care of business is not a denial of anyone's rights.'

  • ||

    I remember that one. The story being told by the gay rightsers was utter BS, start to finish.

    I've seen some bullshit stories and some that seemed legitimate. The most recent one was definitely bullshit, but I haven't seen any evidence that the Florida one (in 2009 I think) was. If you have any evidence that it was bullshit, I'd be happy to read it over.

  • R C Dean||

    You do know the difference between something being illegal and something not being legally recognized?

    There is no difference if you believe that everything that is not specifically and explicitly permitted by the state is prohibited.

    So, anyone who says its a distinction without a difference has just given you an insight into their mindset.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course there might be a difference, but the important question seems to me to be whether that warrants the use of the term 'legalized.'

  • Cytotoxic||

    Just like during Bush I's reign of horror right? Oh wait you're just ventilating.

  • Rasilio||

    Your comment shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of how the Supreme Court works.

    Would it be technically possible for the Supreme Court to overturn a previous SC ruling like that? Sure. However no Supreme Court in History has ever directly overruled an existing precedent in such a manner nor are they likely to start.

    Further it is not in the Supreme Courts power to make Gay Marriage illegal, all they could do is make it possible for Congress to pass a law allowing states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states

  • Alice Bowie||

    Like I said, let's see.

    For the sake of gay people that insist on getting married and for liberty in general, I hope you are correct.

    BTW, I understand how the SCOTUS works.
    Given the right justices (perhaps two more Sam Alitos), I can see someone bringing up a challenge and it going all the way up, the assigned justice decide to consider considering it, the other justices agree to hear it, and later rule it unconstitutional on religious grounds.

  • Rasilio||

    Again, they cannot.

    They could rule public accomodation laws requiring people to service gay marriages unconstitutional.

    They could rule that States cannot be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in others states.

    They could even rule that the Federal government cannot constitutionally recognize gay marriages but there is no world in which they could they rule that a state which has legalized gay marriage cannot actually perform them

  • Alice Bowie||

    Everything you brought up effectively makes a gay marriage in one state nothing more than ceremonial.

    What gay people are looking for is to be treated equally and straight people in regards to marriage.

    Call it whatever you want, they are looking for fairness.

  • SugarFree||

    Are things prohibited by law not illegal? What's the difference?

    KY 402.020b Other prohibited marriages.
    (1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
    (a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of
    competent jurisdiction;
    (b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying
    has not been divorced;
    (c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized
    person or society;
    (d) Between members of the same sex;
  • sarcasmic||

    Show me someone who is in prison for entering into a same sex marriage and I'll shut up.

  • robc||

    or fined even.

  • SugarFree||

    So only actions that result in jail time are illegal/against the law?

    Why did Kentucky pass a law prohibiting gay marriage? They went out of their way in 1998 to change our legal statutes for no reason?

  • robc||

    Symbolic reasons.

  • SugarFree||

    So let us defend laws put in place out of sheer bigotry.

  • robc||

    Im not defending the law, Im saying it hasnt been used against anyone.

    No one has been denied marriage in the state of KY due to this law.

    They may have been denied a license, but not marriage.

  • sarcasmic||

    They may have been denied a license, but not marriage.

    But, but, but that's the same thing as being thrown in jail!!!!!

  • robc||

    Considering libertarians are supposed to hate state licensing, I dont understand the argument.

  • SugarFree||

    Considering libertarians are supposed to hate state licensing, I dont understand the argument.

    I fully support getting the government out of marriage, but there's no reason to go out of the way to discriminate against a particular group on the way there.

    In fact, letting gays and then polys, pets, and lamp posts get married might be the best path to get the state out of it all together.

  • robc||

    In fact, letting gays and then polys, pets, and lamp posts get married might be the best path to get the state out of it all together.

    Disagree.

    Strategically, the best way to get to gay marriage was if its opponents had listened to me 20 years ago and had ended state licensing altogether to avoid the inevitable path we are on.

    Its really hard to get something out of law, especially if it provides "benefits". Did letting blacks eat in "white" restaurants get rid of the concept of public accommodation? No, it made it worse.

    Rolling over for more government power over people does not reduce government power.

    Its as stupid as letting ACA fail instead of repealing it before it got started.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Its really hard to get something out of law, especially if it provides "benefits". Did letting blacks eat in "white" restaurants get rid of the concept of public accommodation? No, it made it worse.

    That is an interesting view. Following the logic there, I take it you would be fine with a government program that, say, subsidized college educations announcing it would no longer subsidize white males seeking that.

    After all, by cutting this one group out we get smaller government, no?

  • robc||

    I probably would be okay with it. I would use it as a wedge to eliminate the program entirely, WHICH IS WHAT IM TRYING TO DO HERE.

  • SugarFree||

    Hate the game, not the playa.

    It wasn't gay people that bound a religious institution into an unholy union with state power for self-serving ends and then secularized it when the religious background became a hindrance (like divorce being difficult.)

    For every principled objector to state recognized marriage, there's 100,000 petulant assholes who are mad those icky gays get something that used to be only for them. I cannot summon even an atom of sympathy for culture war nonsense.

  • robc||

    (like divorce being difficult.)

    No fault divorce laws is one of the things that really, really pisses me off about state marriage.

    Im cool with it if both couples agree. Contracts can always be broken if both parties agree (although "both" may be inaccurate for marriage, as there are often 3 parties, the presiding religious organization may want a say in matters too).

    I wont blame the gays, but I damn will blame the state.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think marriage is better thought of as a kind of legally recognized partnership or joint venture dissolvable by any party to it rather than a traditional contract. The latter model can lead to some pretty illiberal looking places.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Take my example, or a variant of it, supra.

    If a state says it will henceforth stop recognizing X type of contract (that is, they will be prohibited with the enforcement mechanism being they will be considered void at law), and then decided to allow them again, would it be incorrect to say they have 'legalized' those types of contracts?

  • robc||

    C seems the bigger issue to me.

  • SugarFree||

    Reading through them, it looks like most of c) was repealed and given a very generous good faith exception.

  • robc||

    Its still required for state recognition though. Someone has to preside, even if they shouldnt technically be doing it.

  • SugarFree||

    I don't get why you need anything other than whoever is authorized to sign the certificate. I wonder if it is some sort of holdover from small county corruption.

  • robc||

    Signing the certificate **IS** the act of presiding, I thought. Or its the act of certifying that you presided.

    Sort of like a notary is cerifying that the saw the signature take place.

  • R C Dean||

    Interesting, SF.

    I'm wondering about the context. Are they just saying issuance of a marriage license is prohibited, are they saying it won't be recognized by the law or the state for any reason, or are they saying that there is some actual punitive consequence?

  • robc||

    Who knows what they meant, but just the first I think.

    The 2nd is covered by federal law, they have to recognize the licenses from other states, although didnt DOMA try to prevent that? I can keep track of that.

  • SugarFree||

    Are they just saying issuance of a marriage license is prohibited, are they saying it won't be recognized by the law or the state for any reason

    Both in my reading, and a part I didn't post outlines that KY doesn't honor SSM performed in another state.

    or are they saying that there is some actual punitive consequence?

    They don't define any punishment for obtaining one, but an officer of the court faces a low-level misdemeanor for issuing one to a prohibited couple.

    If something is prohibited by law, and that law is struck down, I don't see any great violence being done to the concept of "legalized" to call that situation as such.

    If there wasn't such a law, and it was just a simple non-recognition of non-conforming arrangements, then I would agree that "recognize" would be infinitely more accurate than "legalize."

    In fact, it was already settled case law in KY from 1973 that the state simply didn't recognize same sex marriage, but they still felt it needed to be black letter law in 1998.

  • robc||

    KY has a specific marriage disbenefit too:

    You cannot receive a brewers license if either you OR your spouse owns any interest in a distributor.

    In some states you can backdoor self-distribute by having one own the brewery and the spouse own the distributor.

  • SugarFree||

    Speaking of which, how goes it in BG?

  • robc||

    Im hoping to meet with the real estate guy later this week.

    I expected a call from him today, hasnt happened yet, but they are on slow time.

    I HATE CENTRAL TIME WITH A PASSION.

  • SugarFree||

    I grew up in Central Time. Ugh. Especially right on the edge of the TZ like BG. It gets dark in the summer at 8pm. Blech.

  • robc||

    It gets dark about 4 now. Double Blech.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is an excellent catch robc. I think there are many such 'disbenefits' (think of all the laws for government officials or contractors having to report certain spousal business, or barring service or contracting if the spouse has a certain position or interest).

  • robc||

    Im moving something down here because it doesnt fit the subthread.

    Re: Income taxation. While I would favor ending the income tax (duh), I dont favor targeted tax breaks and other loopholes. There are two immoralities going on, stealing of our income and social engineering thru the process of stealing our income. I consider the 2nd worse. I prefer a lower tax, but thru lowering the rate, not thru special deductions and bullshit.

    Someone could make the argument that gay marriage is similar. That allowing gays to marriage is eliminating a marriage loophole. I disagree, but I do thinking its a "valid" argument, in that it doesnt have a logical flaw. But a difference of opinion over a premise.

  • ibcbet||

    wow.. im glad to hear that.. im not aggree

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement