SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Just thinking about it from a purely mechanical standpoint, a gay married couple can slide seamlessly right into pretty much every state legal marriage/divorce system without much if any adjustment to laws/defaults for resolving disputes and determining duties and obligations and splitting up property. You just can’t say the same thing for polygamy–the entire structure of the defaults would need to be revamped. I think that’s a pretty real and important distinction.[/quote]

First, quit deceiving yourself, you’re not thinking about this mechanically (biologically) or legally. This same argument is/was used against homosexuals. They can’t inherently procreate so custody becomes and issue. This is only one of several instances;

Additionally there is no or hardly any default dissolution process for regular marriage. Some states automatically split down the middle, some don’t. Infidelity is treated differently virtually everywhere. Custody typically follows income/providence but is easily swayed by other factors. Acting like marriage/divorce law is a smooth running machine is a flawed perception. IMO, acting like divorce law should run like a well oiled machine is one as well.

I think you are missing my point on this. In each state, there is a system that has defaults, and the defaults generally don’t depend on whether the couple is of the same sex or opposite sex. I don’t know the ins and outs of every states code, but I’m familiar with many, and I just don’t see same-sex vs. opposite sex as presenting substantial complications.

Second, you’re right, the entire structure of defaults needs to be revamped and that’s part of the issue. When citizenship became a condition of marriage, both immigration and marriage (as well as other factors) were in very different situations than they are now. Many of these flaws were socio-politically used to justify gay marriage. Which is like cramming more people under an umbrella full of gaping holes so that fewer people get wet.

Whether the divorce process needs to be revamped is a separate issue.

Third, we have property partnerships from dozens to hundreds if not thousands of people form and dissolve every day in this country in the form of co-ops, business partnerships, and corporations (and it’s done regardless of sexual orientation, gasp!). I leave you to do the statistics, but a marriage of 3 or more is increasingly unlikely to completely dissolve (three way split) and is much more likely to leave children with a more stable two (or more) parent home. Acting like the same can’t be done for polygamous families or relationships shows that you just find polygamy to be ‘icky’. [/quote]

Each state already has a developed set of laws to dissolve business partnerships, but this doesn’t mean these laws would transfer to a family dispute. The entire family/marriage/divorce codes would need to be revamped to accommodate three or more parties. I don’t contend this couldn’t be accomplished, but no comparable system is in place now.

To your last point, I really don’t have any moral opposition to polygamy as long as there aren’t any real consent issues.

102

God damn it, I don’t know how to multi quote. Sorry.

103

1: Saying that homosexuals have had the right to marriage “just like everyone else” since you don’t have be heterosexual to enter a male/female union is simply absurd. Sure, if you want to remove every emotional and sexual tie associated with marriage and simply define it as a legal agreement between two consenting adults, they have the “same” right. If you want to deconstruct marriage to that level, why bother discriminating against same sex pairings? Marriage is obviously a purely logical decision that has nothing to do with emotional/sexual ties (sarcasm).

To say that homosexuals have had the “same” right as everybody else is ridiculous as you are expecting them to enter a legally binding contract that will force them to deny one of their most powerful evolutionary urges (sex). Last time I checked, infidelity is grounds for divorce. Therefore, you are expected to have sex with your partner or not at all. For gays, this amounts to “not at all”. Sure, it’s the “same” opportunity…just deny a basic human need.

2: Saying that allowing homosexual pairings opens the door for polygamy is also ridiculous IMO. Do I think groups will try and get it approved? You bet. Does that mean it’s going to be approved? No. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, the current definition of marriage, which is supported by the state to promote familial stability, creates a binary distinction between the couple and the rest of humanity. My partner is a 1 (sex/family raising), everyone else is 0 (no sex/no family). Nothing in between. Humans work better when there are strict cut offs and clear boundaries to live in.

Let’s say polygamy is now legal. Me, my co-husband, and our two wives are married. I now have three 1’s…and who’s to say we can’t add more to the unit? Suddenly marriage is no longer a static, stable institution. Suddenly the world is painted in shades of gray. The marital pact suddenly has been altered drastically more than it has been by letting just two loving, committed adults (with any combination of gender) marry.

3: At the end of the day, the government getting out of the fabric of our lives (especially small/non dangerous things), even a little bit is a victory.

104

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Haha. Partnership dissolution is a fucking complicated pain in the ass, another reason to justify line drawing, IMO, especially if kids are involved.
[/quote]

Right, but what is going to happen when polygamists start crying about discrimination and bigotry?

We won’t be able to say no, and still be intellectually consistent. Just being honest.

[/quote]

I think the case for polygamy is much less compelling and there is also simply less demand for it. But I don’t really disagree with you. [/quote]

Sort of like the LBGT movement in the 80s… ;)[/quote]

Jealous women will put an end to any momentum the polygamy movement gains so I wouldn’t compare it to LBGT.

105

If we accept that marriage is a government institution, then there’s no reason not to allow gay/same sex marriage.

If we don’t accept that, then there’s no reason for government to be involved in marriage.

106

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

No matter how this issue gets flipped, smacked, turned around, or whatever else to present it from another angle, it’s discrimination. Period. [/quote]

Saying “period” doesn’t make a false statement fact. [/quote]

You’re right. However, the statement stands as truth just fine all on it’s own. “Period” was added for effect.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You can’t have the government giving said rights and privileges to one set of people, while actively and purposefully denying those very same rights to others.[/quote]

First off, the government doesn’t grant or give rights. The government can only take them away.[/quote]

Also true; perhaps my choice of wording wasn’t quite appropriate. “Recognize” would probably be a better fit. Regardless, we’re still at a government “recognizing” the legal union of heterosexuals, while purposefully denying the same to gay couples. All because the religious among us think it’s icky and their bronze age religious book told them so.

Guess what that is…

DISCRIMINATION

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Secondly marriage isn’t a right, neither are any tax write-offs or shared insurance plans.[/quote]

It’s a legal status granted by the government to heterosexuals couples, that is at the same time denied to gay couples, solely because they are gay. Turn this around as much as you like, but it’s always going to be haters denying gay couples the same rights and privileges that straight couples enjoy. Yes, all people should have the right to live their life with whomever they choose, with the same legal status as everyone else, even if some folks among us think they’re icky.

The same argument was made about interracial marriages at one time. Think about that…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No privileges were denied to anyone based on who they were.[/quote]

Willfull ignorance is the worst form of ignorance.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Privileges were (and are) granted based on behavior. A behavior everyone was allowed to partake in. They just had to meet certain conditions.[/quote]

ORLY?

LOL…and by “certain conditions”, you must mean “not gay”.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Using your logic, people who rent could sue the government for discrimination because they can’t deduct mortgage interest on their taxes. The government was rewarding a certain behavior, that anyone was free to engage in. [/quote]

Interesting.

Using your logic, it would be okay to deny the ability to deduct mortgage interest based on any behavior. Behavior like practicing as a protestant, jew, or muslim, simply because the catholics writing the laws want to create a financial incentive for catholics owning a home. Want to own a home? Then rush right over to your local catholic church and sign up; you could be a home owner too. Just rewarding a certain behavior, right?

Or maybe you’re in support of denying gays the mortgage deduction, because HEY, if they would just go straight, they could have the deduction. Just rewarding a certain behavior here folks, nothing to see here, keep moving along…

Careful, that slope is a bit slippery.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
And if you support legal decisions based on religious beliefs, then you support a theocracy. [/quote]

We have 3 laws that also appear in the 10 commandments. Murder is illegal, theft is illegal and so is perjury. Therefore you must believe we should remove those laws from our books then?[/quote]

FAIL

Those were secular laws LONG before christianity or the jesus story. Rethink your argument.

107

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
For those of you who perpetuate the hilariously stupid old meme regarding marriage to inanimate objects and animals, I have one question: Can a toaster or a goat sign a legal agreement such as a marriage license?

Take all the time you need…[/quote]

Oh calm down…I was using it as a humorous way to make a point…so you are ok with Polygamous marriage then? Because that is coming.

Trust me, shit is gonna get really ugly (ever seen any of the documentaries on Polygamy?).

But go ahead and single out the one far fetched example and ignore the two nasty ones that are on the horizon.[/quote]

Not sure that polygamy, by and of itself is a problem. Legal adults marrying 15 year old girls I have issue with.

108

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Sure, if you want to remove every emotional and sexual tie associated with marriage and simply define it as a legal agreement between two consenting adults, they have the “same” right.[/quote]

Since when does the government have any say in the emotional or sexual ties involved in a marriage?

Please point out where one has to tell the government how you feel or the sex you like to have in order to be married. Please show me one example of where emotional or sex is a requirement to petition for and receive a marriage license.

What you said above is 100% the only function government’s role in marriage is. Government isn’t your daddy, mommy, friend, lover, preacher or master. Who you want to have sex with is irrelevant ot the government, if you are in love or not doesn’t matter either. The government can’t approve or disapprove of whom you choose to love or have sex with. With DOMA intact, all they can could do is prevent two members of the same sex from entering into a particular contract.

All government does is facilitate a social agreement (contract) between two people called marriage. Government isn’t a moral compass, and it shouldn’t be used to validate anyone’s life choices.

So make up your mind. Do you want government in the business of regulating who you have sex with and love or not? If your answer is no, then what you have called absurd isn’t in fact absurd now is it.

You may not like the fact that this was the case, it may be uncomfortable, but it is what it is.

You have to in order to talk about government’s role in marriage. because government doesn’t and cant’ legislate love or sex (between consenting adults as long as it isn’t a direct money exchange.)

Agreed.

In the eyes of the government, we are speaking about in the eyes of the government. You are feeling your way through this, not thinking. Take a second to think about how much government intrusion into your life you are inviting with your viewpoint.

Divorce now a-days can be no fault.

Infidelity doesn’t prevent you from being on each other’s insurance, file joint, or receive the other privileges provided to married couples.

There are many sacrifices in marriage, sometimes 100% what you describe here happens in a heterosexual marriage as well. It isn’t government’s place to in any way, be involved in that aspect of marriage.

[quote]2: Saying that allowing homosexual pairings opens the door for polygamy is also ridiculous IMO. Do I think groups will try and get it approved? You bet. Does that mean it’s going to be approved? No. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, the current definition of marriage, which is supported by the state to promote familial stability, creates a binary distinction between the couple and the rest of humanity. My partner is a 1 (sex/family raising), everyone else is 0 (no sex/no family). Nothing in between. Humans work better when there are strict cut offs and clear boundaries to live in.

Let’s say polygamy is now legal. Me, my co-husband, and our two wives are married. I now have three 1’s…and who’s to say we can’t add more to the unit? Suddenly marriage is no longer a static, stable institution. Suddenly the world is painted in shades of gray. The marital pact suddenly has been altered drastically more than it has been by letting just two loving, committed adults (with any combination of gender) marry.[/quote]

You’d call me a bigot if I wrote:

Let’s say gay marriage is now legal. Me, and my husband are now married, and we might even adopt a child. I now have three 1’s…and who’s to say we can’t add more to the unit? Suddenly marriage is no longer a static, stable institution. Suddenly the world is painted in shades of gray. The marital pact suddenly has been altered drastically more than it has been by letting two loving, committed heterosexual adults marry.

or

Let’s say interracial marriage is now legal. Me, and my wife are now married, and we might even have a bi-racial child. I now have three 1’s…and who’s to say we can’t add more to the unit? Suddenly marriage, is no longer a static, stable institution. Suddenly the world is painted in shades of gray. The marital pact suddenly has been altered drastically more than it has been by letting two loving, committed same race adults marry.

Really… Take a second to re-read what you wrote and ask yourself if it can’t be applied to a different group of people.

Also agree. But if you don’t have strict, emotionless expectations of what government’s role in our lives is, little victory’s like this won’t happen very often.

109

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

[i]It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry…[/i]

110

And of course, few can say it quite as well as the late great, Christopher Hitchens.

111

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

You’re right. However, the statement stands as truth just fine all on it’s own. “Period” was added for effect.
[/quote]

No, you are conflating, like many others, differing issues.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
perhaps my choice of wording wasn’t quite appropriate. “Recognize” would probably be a better fit. Regardless, we’re still at a government “recognizing” the legal union of heterosexuals, while purposefully denying the same to gay couples.[/quote]

this isn’t the case. Please show me on the marriage license or 1040 or Health Insurance form where you had to list your sexuality.

Please show me where it says a man must be heterosexual to marry a woman, pre or post DOMA. Please show me where it says, post DOMA, that a man has to be gay in order to marry another man.

[quote]
DISCRIMINATION[/quote]

So is making possession of Meth. But everyone is discriminated against equally. Much like DOMA, no one was allowed, incorrectly, to marry a member of the same sex.

[quote]
It’s a legal status granted by the government to heterosexuals couples, that is at the same time denied to gay couples, solely because they are gay. [/quote]

No. Government doesn’t grant a god damn thing. Government facilitates the legal (read property and protections) based on a contract entered into by two consenting adults. Prior to DOMA being overturned, the restriction on entering this contract was the two parties had to be of the opposite sex. No where did sexuality of the parties prevent or allow the entering of the contract. Who people wanted to have sex with, or if they did or didn’t have sex was moot.

I mean, unless you can show me the section of DOMA that mentioned sexual preference, then I’ll concede I’m wrong here.

No one’s rights were denied, you already admitted as such. Say it as many times as you want, doesn’t make it true.

Does it say that someone has to be gay in order to marry someone of the same sex now that DOMA is over turned?

Where did I have to fill out my sexual preference when I married my wife?

[quote]
The same argument was made about interracial marriages at one time. Think about that…[/quote]

The biggest similarity between the two is government’s improper prevention of two individuals entering into a contract.

The biggest difference is interracial marriage disproportionately put blacks at a larger disadvantage than it did whites. It reduced their pool of potential mates, at a time when un-wed mothers were socially unacceptable, far more drastically than it reduced the potential pool for whites. Same sex marriage restrictions effect both men and women equally, seeing as their populations are relatively equal.

[quote]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No privileges were denied to anyone based on who they were.[/quote]

Willfull ignorance is the worst form of ignorance.[/quote]

Poorly worded statement, let me try again, even though your rebuttal is lazy and proves nothing other than you don’t want to articulate your position beyond ad hominen.

No privileges were denied to anyone based solely on their sexual preference.

[quote]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Privileges were (and are) granted based on behavior. A behavior everyone was allowed to partake in. They just had to meet certain conditions.[/quote]

ORLY?

LOL…and by “certain conditions”, you must mean “not gay”.[/quote]

No, by certain conditions I mean: marry someone of the opposite sex.

Again, until you can show me where the government facilitates marriage contracts based on who the parties involved love or have sex with, the sexual preference of the individuals involved is irrelevant.

[quote]
Using your logic, it would be okay to deny the ability to deduct mortgage interest based on any behavior. Behavior like practicing as a[/quote]

FAIL (to use your words)

No. The key behavior is owning a home. The privileged is the incentive to own a home by allowing the deduction for mortgage interest.

My logic is: Consenting adults should be allowed to buy a home and therefore get the deduction

The governments old logic: We can control the citizens and tell them that any adult can purchase a home, but only if the house is painted the state sponsored color.

The “it’s discrimination” logic: People who rent homes should be be able to deduct their rent payments, even if they don’t purchase a home

(I’m not particularly religious, so please save your atheist crusade for someone else.)

[quote]Or maybe you’re in support of denying gays the mortgage deduction, because HEY, if they would just go straight, they could have the deduction. Just rewarding a certain behavior here folks, nothing to see here, keep moving along…

Careful, that slope is a bit slippery.[/quote]

No it’s really not. I don’t think you are reading my posts very clear.

There is a very, very specific reason why I argue against the discrimination aspect, and yet am very happy with the fact DOMA was shut down.

[quote]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
And if you support legal decisions based on religious beliefs, then you support a theocracy. [/quote]

We have 3 laws that also appear in the 10 commandments. Murder is illegal, theft is illegal and so is perjury. Therefore you must believe we should remove those laws from our books then?[/quote]

FAIL

Those were secular laws LONG before christianity or the jesus story. Rethink your argument.[/quote]

lol, no, not really a fail. Because your rebuttal doesn’t address the fact that those moral codes are written into law, and are consistent with the vast majority of world religions.

But whatever, I’m not interested in an “I hate religion” conversation, so fine, you win, You are the ever knowing anti-religious dude. I’d rather focus on the DOMA case if you don’t mind, so do a victory dance on this point and spike the ball.

112

Lol, this is what is wrong with this fucking country and why I make the argument that I do.

Nothing said here: [quote]In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”[/quote]

Makes marriage a fucking right. The right is personal freedom and liberty. Marriage is the shit you are allowed to enjoy because of your right. You are allowed to enjoy it because it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

Good Christ.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

[i]It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry…[/i]

[/quote]

113

You start with the idea that free people can arrange relationships in whatever way they desire. Recognizing this, recognizing that. Using this title for that or that title for this. That government doesn’t referee your private affairs, recognize them, title them, or privilege them in anyway.

You then consider that out of all these interactions, a rather highly represented interaction, men and women having sex, seems to be the norm. And that further, this specific interaction is reproductive. The propagation of your citizenry is a natural consequence of this action. An action that will continue to happen regardless of government. Reproduction, therefore, happening regardless.

However, you realize there are socio-economic benefits to directing as much of this reproductive act as possible into an institution we recognize as traditional marriage. Benefits which in turn reinforce governing principals of your nation at the level of the citizen; self-reliance, self-responsibility, self-governance. Basically, providing a foil to the ever present specter of a nanny state in a nation which supposedly values (or, valued) it’s absence. So, then you conclude that there is sufficient cause to recognize this one form of human relationship, if general welfare of a nation has been established as a reserved ‘trigger’ for any government involvement (recognition).

The state discriminates against any and all other human arrangements (not just homosexual binary couplings), elevating one for recognition, because it has a couple of brute facts of nature tied to it. And, because how these brute facts are ordered and directed can alter the prosperity of the nation for better or for worse.

Now I’m too tired to continue.

114

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I think you are missing my point on this. In each state, there is a system that has defaults, and the defaults generally don’t depend on whether the couple is of the same sex or opposite sex. I don’t know the ins and outs of every states code, but I’m familiar with many, and I just don’t see same-sex vs. opposite sex as presenting substantial complications.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re seeing my point on this (see included maps);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_lgbt_adoption.png

One of the responsibilities of marriage; “Providing financial support for raising children born of the marriage.” has traditionally been applied in a biological sense. Do we shit all over the heterosexual dads out there with paternity suits? It wouldn’t surprise me one iota to discover, because of the ease of proving biological paternity, we disproportionately prosecute heterosexual paternity suits over homosexual paternity/maternity suits.

That’s like saying revamping the ass end of a bull is a different issue than dealing with the horns. Like I said, a lot of the 1100 statutes lumped into marriage weren’t done for any other reason except expediency, to act like they have any place here and now are somewhat folly.

Existing homestead lease rights.
Right to change surname upon marriage.
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement.
Providing financial support for raising children born of the marriage.

1819, corporations have been regarded as having personhood. Saying ‘no comparable system is in place’, that ‘each state has a developed set of laws’, and that ‘[sic]some laws might not transfer’ ignores the fact that there is a comparable system in place, each state currently has their own laws for both marriage and business partnerships, and, for homosexuals, right now, there are laws that won’t/don’t transfer.

The system being too complex and cumbersome to change isn’t an argument in favor of adding more people to the system, nor is it an argument against simplifying the system. It’s an argument in support of laziness.

You, rather actively, insist that there is no or should be no practical opposition to same-sex marriage. You take this active stance despite the fact that there is opposition both popular and bureaucratic. Further, you ignore the practical solutions to issues with both same-sex and polyamorous marriage based solely on the fact that it’s presented in support of polygamy. At which point, you become too lazy or overwhelmed by bureaucracy to implement any solutions. The bias is pretty clear. Whether it’s just a cognitive or popular bias or a religio-social one isn’t clear, but it’s there.

115

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
CornSprint wrote:
Sure, if you want to remove every emotional and sexual tie associated with marriage and simply define it as a legal agreement between two consenting adults, they have the “same” right.

Since when does the government have any say in the emotional or sexual ties involved in a marriage?

Please point out where one has to tell the government how you feel or the sex you like to have in order to be married. Please show me one example of where emotional or sex is a requirement to petition for and receive a marriage license.

What you said above is 100% the only function government’s role in marriage is. Government isn’t your daddy, mommy, friend, lover, preacher or master. Who you want to have sex with is irrelevant ot the government, if you are in love or not doesn’t matter either. The government can’t approve or disapprove of whom you choose to love or have sex with. With DOMA intact, all they can could do is prevent two members of the same sex from entering into a particular contract.[/quote]

That’s the key though - why does it matter if the two consenting adults happen to be of the same gender then? If it is truly a government contract, blind to morality, that exists to promote stability, I see no reason why gender combination should matter.

[quote]Beans:
All government does is facilitate a social agreement (contract) between two people called marriage. Government isn’t a moral compass, and it shouldn’t be used to validate anyone’s life choices.

So make up your mind. Do you want government in the business of regulating who you have sex with and love or not? If your answer is no, then what you have called absurd isn’t in fact absurd now is it.[/quote]

Correction: all government does is facilitate a social agreement between two people of the opposite gender called marriage.

I agree that government is not a moral compass (I actually think this is a GREAT point outside the scope of this discussion as well) - but I fail to see how not allowing same sex couplings is making government less intrusive in our lives. Why should sexual attraction affect my ability to get a government contract if it is truly being viewed outside of any kind of “morality” lens?

If anything, only allowing opposite sex pairings is validating heterosexuality because right or wrong, we associate the marital contract issued by the government with the religious construct and subsequently with sex and love.

[quote]Corn: If you want to deconstruct marriage to that level…

Beans: You have to in order to talk about government’s role in marriage. because government doesn’t and cant’ legislate love or sex (between consenting adults as long as it isn’t a direct money exchange.)[/quote]

Ideally, yes you have to. For a purely intellectual discussion about the merits of the scope of the government contract I agree. However, for actual application to the real world, you cannot.

The fact of the matter is that while you and me can separate the idea of a government contract you enter with an individual from love/sex/etc in this discussion, this is not the case and arguably shouldn’t be the case within the greater population. I say this because I believe the power of the marital contract (and why the government bothers to issue them) stems in a large part from the emotions individuals associate with the contract. Sex, love, etc are incredible bonding agents. Associating these agents with the contract strengthens the power of the contract.

[quote]Corn: To say that homosexuals have had the “same” right as everybody else is ridiculous as you are expecting them to enter a legally binding contract that will force them to deny one of their most powerful evolutionary urges (sex). Last time I checked, infidelity is grounds for divorce. Therefore, you are expected to have sex with your partner or not at all. For gays, this amounts to “not at all”. Sure, it’s the “same” opportunity…just deny a basic human need.

Beans: Divorce now a-days can be no fault.

Infidelity doesn’t prevent you from being on each other’s insurance, file joint, or receive the other privileges provided to married couples.

There are many sacrifices in marriage, sometimes 100% what you describe here happens in a heterosexual marriage as well. It isn’t government’s place to in any way, be involved in that aspect of marriage.[/quote]

Good point about the no-fault divorce.

Around the infidelity piece, do you believe the marital contract would stil promote similar stability if there were widespread instances of individuals entering the contract for the financial gains but actually loving/committing to others outside the contract? Where do you believe their loyalty would lie at the end of the day? It would be a (significantly more) broken institution and utterly pointless.

[quote]Corn:
Let’s say polygamy is now legal. Me, my co-husband, and our two wives are married. I now have three 1’s…and who’s to say we can’t add more to the unit? Suddenly marriage is no longer a static, stable institution. Suddenly the world is painted in shades of gray. The marital pact suddenly has been altered drastically more than it has been by letting just two loving, committed adults (with any combination of gender) marry.[/quote]

Beans:
You’d call me a bigot if I wrote:

Let’s say gay marriage is now legal. Me, and my husband are now married, and we might even adopt a child. I now have three 1’s…and who’s to say we can’t add more to the unit? Suddenly marriage is no longer a static, stable institution. Suddenly the world is painted in shades of gray. The marital pact suddenly has been altered drastically more than it has been by letting two loving, committed heterosexual adults marry.

or

Let’s say interracial marriage is now legal. Me, and my wife are now married, and we might even have a bi-racial child. I now have three 1’s…and who’s to say we can’t add more to the unit? Suddenly marriage, is no longer a static, stable institution. Suddenly the world is painted in shades of gray. The marital pact suddenly has been altered drastically more than it has been by letting two loving, committed same race adults marry.

Really… Take a second to re-read what you wrote and ask yourself if it can’t be applied to a different group of people.[/quote]

I can’t help but feel like you misunderstand my point here. The whole point of the binary argument was that you can draw a clear divide between one person (your partner) and literally the rest of the world. When I mention the “marital pact” I don’t mean the societal institution of marriage, I mean my personal contract. Regardless if I’m married to someone of the same/different gender/race, there is one person who I have committed myself to (going with the generally accepted societal emotional view of marriage). I am expected to pair with this individual until one of us is dead. That is static and clearly defined. I may have/adopt children with that individual - they are not in the same relationship category as my partner and do not affect my pact.

Now if I’m in a polygamous relationship, it’s no longer my one partner vs the world. It’s now 1+ partners vs the world(?). Furthermore, you likely cannot say that polygamous unions would be “set” between the people who entered the contract at its inception. That allows for creep which allows for shades of gray and human error as it now becomes 1+ partners vs the world (unless it really clicks).

The distinction is a purely numbers based game - the characteristics of who fills that 1 are unimportant.

[quote]3: Corn: At the end of the day, the government getting out of the fabric of our lives (especially small/non dangerous things), even a little bit is a victory.

Beans: Also agree. But if you don’t have strict, emotionless expectations of what government’s role in our lives is, little victory’s like this won’t happen very often.[/quote]

Beans: As I went through this, I was pushed to re-read your posts in this thread. The feeling I’ve gotten is that you don’t necessarily have a problem with same-sex marriages, but you feel that arguing “gays have been discriminated against because they cannot marry” is incorrect because they can technically marry, just not within gender.

I guess the question I would have you answer is if you believe there is an inherent benefit and interest in marrying a person you are romantically involved with or not. If you believe there is benefit to marrying somebody you love, and you recognize same sex unions have been banned, I believe you would have to cede that homosexuals have been denied the benefit of marrying somebody they love.

Outside of the discrimination/not discrimination piece, do you agree that in a purely logical discussion marriage benefits should either be applicable to all combinations of two consenting adults or none at all?

116

Apologies for the wall of text…quoting failed me (or more truthfully I failed to quote).

117

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The propagation of your citizenry is a natural consequence of this action. An action that will continue to happen regardless of government. Reproduction, therefore, happening regardless…

However, you realize there are socio-economic benefits to directing as much of this reproductive act as possible into an institution we recognize as traditional marriage. Benefits which in turn reinforce governing principals of your nation at the level of the citizen; self-reliance, self-responsibility, self-governance. Basically, providing a foil to the ever present specter of a nanny state in a nation which supposedly values (or, valued) it’s absence. So, then you conclude that there is sufficient cause to recognize this one form of human relationship, if general welfare of a nation has been established as a reserved ‘trigger’ for any government involvement (recognition).

The state discriminates against any and all other human arrangements (not just homosexual binary couplings), elevating one for recognition, because it has a couple of brute facts of nature tied to it. And, because how these brute facts are ordered and directed can alter the prosperity of the nation for better or for worse.

Now I’m too tired to continue.

[/quote]

If you would care to, can you please elaborate on the aforementioned “brute facts of nature”?

Additionally, do you believe there is more value to be attached to the conception or raising of a child?

118

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

3: At the end of the day, the government getting out of the fabric of our lives (especially small/non dangerous things), even a little bit is a victory.[/quote]

Same-sex marriage means more people filing jointly and falling above the ‘$400k’ mark. More people on the Obamacare roles. More people short-cutting the citizenship process ahead of their non-married peers. More litigation about paternity of sperm donors.

Elimination of marriage or the plurality of marriage into regulatory obscurity (like the corporate tax code) are the only two anti-government plays here. Striking down DOMA was a great step in the direction of less government, don’t be fooled into thinking it actually means Less Government.

119

Rather than break out your post let me try and explain my position:

This issue is one of the “rubber meets the road” in ideology. The fact that DOMA encapsulates multiple issues in one, some fairly and other interjected for emotional appeal, makes it hard to navigate.

The first issue: Government’s role in the citizen’s day-to-day lives

I firmly believe Government’s role should be a bare and minimum as possible. People should be free to make choices that don’t harm, or infringe on any other’s rights as a human. This means people are free to make choices. Some of those choices will be bad, and result in consequences that aren’t pleasant. Some of those choices are going to be things I don’t like or may be offended by. Because I believe freedom is paramount, these are things I have to live with.

Given that, I can’t in good faith say that government’s role in marriage should not be anything but facilitation of property claims and certain legal protections. Because government’s sole role is as stated, it is tough to argue that the state can deny two people of the same sex from entering into this particular contract as long as they otherwise follow contract law, consent, legal age, not drunk, etc. Mainly because once the government claims the authority to dictate the terms of eligibility for entering a contract, they, by definition gain more control over our lives. Much like the fire arm controversy, it is like the government saying “I know what is best for YOU, so I will decide what you CAN do.”

The second issue: Government’s regulation of paring/mating/sexual preference

I would think people would be hard pressed to not agree it is none of the Government’s business who anyone wanted to have sex with as long as it was a consenting adult. (Still don’t understand why prostitution isn’t legal in 2013, but whatever.)

This is why I hammer the discrimination angle. If you continue to stand on the notion that gays were disproportionately discriminated against by DOMA, then you are, by default, saying that in the eyes of the government, who you love and want to have sex with is a requirement for marriage. Ignoring the fact that those aren’t factors in government accepting or rejecting your marriage license, that would mean in order for me to divorce my wife and marry a man, if I choose to, I would have to tell (read prove) to the government I was gay. That isn’t, nor should it be the case. No one should have to tell the government their sexual preference.

Think about it. If you say “gays didn’t have equal access to marriage”, then you are saying “passing same sex marriage is so we can have government recognized gay marriage.” Seems simple right? But what about when two heterosexual men want to get married? If you’ve spent all this time defining same sex marriage as a gay rights issue, what now? Are they allowed to get married? If so, it isn’t a gay rights issue now is it? If not, then you are discriminating against heterosexual people who want to marry the same sex now too. So unless you want the government to dictate who can marry who based on sexuality, we need to remove the “gay rights” argument from government’s control of marriage.

I just don’t want any, not even the slightest hint, of government having to, or even considering having to take sexual orientation into account when facilitating marriage contracts.

Issue 3: Rights

As I’ve stated. Marriage itself isn’t a right. It is an activity your rights allow you to partake in. Freedom to choose and freedom of choice. The act of marriage itself isn’t a right. It is very important to maintain the difference consistently.

Sort of like knowing the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.

120

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Striking down DOMA was a great step in the direction of less government, don’t be fooled into thinking it actually means Less Government.[/quote]

This is what I’ve (poorly) been trying to get at.