NJ Approves Marriage Benefits to Same Sex Couples -- 13 days before the mid-term

[Pangloss]

New Jersey's highest court today approved marriage benefits to same-sex couples, leaving it up to the state to decide whether to call it "marriage" or something else along the lines of "civil union".

 

What's interesting about this to me at the moment is the timing. One of the reasons why Republicans are so concerned at the moment is the perception that social conservatives are feeling ignored by a President and congress they had pinned high hopes on. Many political observers have been saying that these folks will stay home (or actually vote Democrat, especially in light of the Mark Foley scandal).

 

This sort of thing may well re-energize the right wing right when Republicans most need them.

 

Google News Search:

http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://rawstory.com/news/2006/New_Jersey_court_approves_gay_marri_10252006.html&hl=en

[Mokele]

Well, at least two states have had the balls to do the right thing. I guess now we wait for the American Taliban to once again strip the rights from other Americans for the crime of being different.

 

Mokele

[Haezed]

Well, at least two states have had the balls to do the right thing. I guess now we wait for the American Taliban to once again strip the rights from other Americans for the crime of being different.

 

Mokele

 

You don't think the phrase "American Taliban" is just a wee bit hyperbolic?

[Severian]

Are they also going to give benefits to groups of people who are in a mutual relationship? How about giving benefits to people who live together without romantic attachment (ie. flatmates)? Or is the 'American Taliban' going to try and strip these people of their rights?

[ParanoiA]

Are they also going to give benefits to groups of people who are in a mutual relationship? How about giving benefits to people who live together without romantic attachment (ie. flatmates)? Or is the 'American Taliban' going to try and strip these people of their rights?

 

Or, here's a thought..how about no benefits for anybody?

[JHAQ]

I have no objection to such rights or civil unions only calling it " marriage" ; a term which should be reserved for heterosexual union because of its procreative potential ..

[mike90]

Are they also going to give benefits to groups of people who are in a mutual relationship? How about giving benefits to people who live together without romantic attachment (ie. flatmates)? Or is the 'American Taliban' going to try and strip these people of their rights?

 

How exactly can you compare this situation to roomates or casual relationships? These are people that are in serious relationships and merely want the same rights and benefits that a heterosexual would be able to have in the same circumstances.

 

If its not simply a prejudicial bias against gays simply for being different, then what other valid reason would there be for people to oppose this? How is it NOT then discriminatory?

[ParanoiA]

I'm still trying to figure out how gay marriage somehow affects hetero marriage...

[Pangloss]

Or, here's a thought..how about no benefits for anybody?

 

Thank you! Why are we even discussing giving people something for nothing? What an entitlement society we've become.

 

If the health insurance companies want to, they can easily attach riders that the signee can sign off on covering specific individuals in specific instances. That's a contract and easily resolved as such. Life Insurance can work the same way. ANYBODY can be the beneficiary. What's the problem?

 

The government should just get out of the business of licensing and defining marriage.

[Severian]

How exactly can you compare this situation to roomates or casual relationships? These are people that are in serious relationships and merely want the same rights and benefits that a heterosexual would be able to have in the same circumstances.

 

What's the difference? Why should the state make moral judgements about our relationships? A 3-way relationship is just as valid to society as a 2-way one. And why do we have to be sleeping with someone to be granted benefits? What does it have to do with the state? What utility does the rest of the population get from a gay coupling living together which it does not get from two blokes sharing a flat?

 

If its not simply a prejudicial bias against gays simply for being different, then what other valid reason would there be for people to oppose this? How is it NOT then discriminatory?

 

On the contrary, you are being discriminatory by holding sexual relationships to be more worthy than non-sexual ones.

[mike90]

But the point I was making is that the only thing seperating it from a standard marriage is the gender involved. The issue is not how it relates to every other type of relationship, but how it relates to a heterosexual marriage. If you want to argue over why heterosexuals should not be allowed marriage rights over the same issues that would be one thing.

 

But so far everything that you have said could be used to critique heterosexual marriage as well. The issue is why they are not allowed to have a right heterosexuals can enjoy simply because they are not heterosexuals.

 

Wether we should have the standard marriage benefits that already exist would be a seperate matter entirely

[ParanoiA]

But so far everything that you have said could be used to critique heterosexual marriage as well. The issue is why they are not allowed to have a right heterosexuals can enjoy simply because they are not heterosexuals.

 

You're trying to box up the argument. The point he brings up is why you feel the state should grant special priveledges to people to have sex together and pledge to do that forever.

 

Instead of just questioning the hetero / homo dynamic, how about questioning this whole idea of moral judgements cast by the state?

[Sisyphus]

I agree that it really shouldn't be a legal issue at all. State-licensed marriage should be abolished altogether. If necessary, stuff like hospital visitation rights can be granted to some legally designated other person, irregardless of relationship. Kind of like power of attorney or something.

 

That said, I also agree it's a separate issue. Giving rights to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples is still unjust, and it's not any closer either way to abolishing legal marriage entirely.

[mike90]

Im not trying to box the issue, I just assumed we were talking about gay marriage, as that was the original topic. Personally I dont think we should have marriages at all, but since we clearly do, I don't see a fair reason why that should be allowed for straight people and not for gay people and how this is anything but biased. If someone has a logical reason as to why that is I am more then willing to hear it out.

[Haezed]

Are they also going to give benefits to groups of people who are in a mutual relationship? How about giving benefits to people who live together without romantic attachment (ie. flatmates)? Or is the 'American Taliban' going to try and strip these people of their rights?

 

Maybe I should start a thread to consider what would be a similar phrase for American Taliban to tar the left.

 

American Commies?

American PC Police?

unAmericans Americans?

American Cubanists?

 

The intellectually sloppy possibilities are endless!

[Haezed]

I agree that it really shouldn't be a legal issue at all. State-licensed marriage should be abolished altogether. If necessary, stuff like hospital visitation rights can be granted to some legally designated other person, irregardless of relationship. Kind of like power of attorney or something.

 

That said, I also agree it's a separate issue. Giving rights to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples is still unjust, and it's not any closer either way to abolishing legal marriage entirely.

 

Anyone seen this film? http://www.1049films.com

[ecoli]

Out of curiosity, is there any significant political party of lobbyist group trying to remove marriage from the government altogether? Perhaps the Libertarians?

 

It's not necesarily a bad thing that government controls marriage. After all, it's much easier for the courts to make sure, say a father doesn't abandon his partner and kids without paying for it. After all, if nobody is married, how do we legislate stuff like that? And, hate to say it, but in cases where non-married couples of kids, it's usually the father who gets screwed (he rarely gets custody if they decide to part ways - at least, I don't think he does).

[mike90]

Seems like they could handle that perfectly fine without marriage being necessary though. And there would be no prolonged divorce to F up the whole family when they decide to part ways. Im not sure if wether or not they are married would affect who got custody, but I don't see why it would.

 

I think we should keep the option of some sort of civil ceremony open, but nothing legally binding about it.

[Mokele]

As I've said before, yes, it would be nice if the government got out of marriage altogether, but it will *never* happen. We might as well waste time hypothesizing about honest politicians or campaign finance reform or pink magical unicorns. None exist, none ever will, so why waste time with hypotheticals? Because it's the policy of a party which has never held any real power?

 

Sure, it would be nice if the government didn't grant any relationship any special priveledge. It would be nice if I shit gold nuggets. Neither will ever happen.

 

Seriously, try to imagine it. You could *never* campaign on it; you'd be shouted down as "anti-family" and "hurting America" before you even finished the sentence, your political career dead. No bill introduced to effect such a change would *ever* pass, because anyone who voted for it would be committing total poltical suicide. And even if someone activated the Infinite Improbability Drive, resulting in such a bill's passage, *everyone* voting for it would be voted out the next election, and the first act of the new legislature would be to repeal the bill and re-instate benefits, to great public acclaim.

 

If you want to mentally mastrubate about a future where pink fairies constantly feed you sandwiches made of kittens who shit gumdrops while the Libertarians enjoy widespread public support, feel free, but at least use a damn tissue rather than leaving the results all over this board.

 

While you're busy patting yourself on the back for fantasizing about what never can and never will be, some of us are actually trying *realistic* methods of alleviating the injustices wrought by the Stormtroopers-for-Jesus.

 

If I saw any more mutual theoretical mastrubation, I'd think I was at a String Theory presentation. Act like scientists and deal with empirical reality as it is, not as you wish it was.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

Mokele -

 

How's the view from the top of that soap-box?

 

This is a debate forum is it not? There is value and insight to be gained by challenging the root of philisophical views - such as why the state should cast any judgement about marriage.

 

At the voting polls, your fascination with pink and shitting valuable goods will not have much merit. Just like here, ignoring half of the debate doesn't make such an interesting discussion.

 

I wouldn't normally have that opinion, because we could just well ruin every discussion by re-inventing the wheel so to speak, but in this case the whole hetero vs homo thing just doesn't offer much depth.

[Mokele]

There is value and insight to be gained by challenging the root of philisophical views - such as why the state should cast any judgement about marriage.

 

Yes, but that value is purely mental satisfaction. Unless one restricts oneself to realistic possibilities, there's no actually value in the form of getting things accomplished.

 

At the voting polls, your fascination with pink and shitting valuable goods will not have much merit. Just like here, ignoring half of the debate doesn't make such an interesting discussion.

 

And your views will be on the polls? Really?

 

I want you to find any bill or any voter referendum, ANYTHING, at ANY level that seriously moved towards reducing the benefits of married couples. You can't, because nothing like that will *ever* happen: humans are far too inherently selfish to give up advantages for any reason.

 

When I go to vote, I'll be casting my vote for *realistic* alternatives, not waiting for the magic pink libertarian fairy to appear and wave its wand to make the entire political process and human nature change.

 

but in this case the whole hetero vs homo thing just doesn't offer much depth.

 

Precisely; it's a forgone conclusion for any rational human with a brain bigger than a grape.

 

So why bother wasting time on theoretical possibilities which will *never* work, when the solution is obvious? Like I said, it's like a damn String Theory conference: all bluster and pretty theories, but nothing with any actual use.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

I want you to find any bill or any voter referendum, ANYTHING, at ANY level that seriously moved towards reducing the benefits of married couples. You can't, because nothing like that will *ever* happen: humans are far too inherently selfish to give up advantages for any reason.

 

Wouldn't outlawing marriage really put stress on civil courts, however? If couples don't get married, wouldn't it be that much harder to go after 'deadbeat dads' and other people who abandon their families?

When people get divorced, they go through all sorts of legal issues for who gets custody of what, etc. But, when a non-married couple with children separate, these custody rights gets more hazy, right? If I'm not mistaken, it's usually the mother that gets custody of the kids, right? The father can sue for custody, but rarely ever gets it.

 

Simply speaking, non-married couples are harder to legislate, which will end up hurting their children.

[ParanoiA]

And your views will be on the polls? Really?

 

I want you to find any bill or any voter referendum' date=' ANYTHING, at ANY level that seriously moved towards reducing the benefits of married couples. You can't, because nothing like that will *ever* happen: humans are far too inherently selfish to give up advantages for any reason.

 

When I go to vote, I'll be casting my vote for *realistic* alternatives, not waiting for the magic pink libertarian fairy to appear and wave its wand to make the entire political process and human nature change.[/quote']

 

Well, that's actually what I meant, but I did a crappy job of wording it. The polls are where the reality is exercised. The debate forum is supposed to be broader. That's all I meant.

 

But I also understand the realist approach, which is usually my approach (or at least the effort). I'm just bored with the gay marriage subject and wanted to take it a different angle. Severian seemed to be into it, and I didn't want to lose the momentum.

[Sisyphus]

Wouldn't outlawing marriage really put stress on civil courts, however? If couples don't get married, wouldn't it be that much harder to go after 'deadbeat dads' and other people who abandon their families?

When people get divorced, they go through all sorts of legal issues for who gets custody of what, etc. But, when a non-married couple with children separate, these custody rights gets more hazy, right? If I'm not mistaken, it's usually the mother that gets custody of the kids, right? The father can sue for custody, but rarely ever gets it.

 

Simply speaking, non-married couples are harder to legislate, which will end up hurting their children.

 

Well there's already the concept of legal guardian, no? That has nothing to do with marriage. Just have a "guardianship arrangement" or something, where people who live together can arrange joint and equal custody of a minor.

 

Hey, I have a thought. Maybe the "abolish legal marriage" crowd and the "extend legal marriage to homosexual couples" crowd actually have a common interest. That is to say, the broader you make the legal definition of marriage, the less "marriage" actually means in a legal sense. If everyone is "married," then it means nothing at all, and the abolish legal marriage crowd wins. Not that marriage would be destroyed, just that it wouldn't mean anything legally. I'm thinking of the analogy of the Universal Life Church (minister since 2002!), taken even farther.

[mike90]

Just a wee bit harsh mokele, just a wee bit. Is such a, well tantrum is the only fitting word that comes to mind, especially one filled with such seeming anger and all the profanity really necessary?

 

 

Yeah abolishing marriage is impossible at this point most likely, but what harm does merely discussing the topic do? Especially on a DEBATE forum. And we would never get anywhere if our answer to things is " its pointless to discuss it because its impossible to change". Challenging the status quo is the only way anyhing can change,