Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

[iNow]

ParanoiA - I really haven't found a good answer to your question ("why does the government regulate any marriage?") The best I've seen is the contractual/legal stuff, like property ownership and how best to view those and settle disputes resulting from them without actual written contracts in place, but again, most I've seen has been somewhat lacking.

 

 

Either way, last night Gov Mike Huckabee (former Republican presidential candidate who now has his own show on Faux Fox Noise News) was on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart asked him about this exact issue, and I think did a fine job of getting to the heart of the argument.

 

Watch, and enjoy:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=mike-huckabee-pt.-2

 

 

 

"I will tell you this. Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality."

 

"I think it's an absolute travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to "make their case" that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else."

[ParanoiA]

Cool, thanks iNow. I can't watch it here at work, but I'll check it out when I get home. If it's anything like the quotes you picked out, then it sounds like I'm going to appreciate his opinion on it.

[padren]

iNow, you were wondering why I asked about "gay marriage" in the animal kingdom. This is why. The above is perhaps the best argument against gay marriage -- defining it as an oxymoron -- but if animals practice "gay marriage" then why not humans?

 

Well, personally while I support gay marriage, the "animals do it too" argument doesn't hold too much weight for me, as they do just about everything we have laws against too.

 

I could help but to post this article though when I read it, about the gay penguins that turn out to be good parents:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1094977/Gay-penguins-expelled-zoo-colony-stealing-eggs-given-look-following-animal-rights-protest.html

[Severian]

I just don't see how marriage qualifies as a concept able to be regulated by government. Anymore so than regulating the Crips' and Bloods' membership criteria.

 

Absolutely!

[iNow]

But if the crips and bloods had a dispute over property, or some personal possessions, or accumulated and previously shared wealth... but had no formal written contract in place to properly designate ownership, there would need to be some consistent way for the state (and the courts) to rule on how best and most fairly to distribute those items under ownership dispute.

 

While I concede the idea of gangs going to court to settle ownership disputes is laughable, the analogy applies all the same. It becomes further complicated when offspring are added to the mix of "possessions under ownership dispute" despite the lack of clear and legal ownership contracts available to assist in the rulings.

 

Hence, marriage laws to offer a consistent framework for the state to act on such issues.

[ParanoiA]

But if the crips and bloods had a dispute over property, or some personal possessions, or accumulated and previously shared wealth... but had no formal written contract in place to properly designate ownership, there would need to be some consistent way for the state (and the courts) to rule on how best and most fairly to distribute those items under ownership dispute.

 

While I concede the idea of gangs going to court to settle ownership disputes is laughable, the analogy applies all the same. It becomes further complicated when offspring are added to the mix of "possessions under ownership dispute" despite the lack of clear and legal ownership contracts available to assist in the rulings.

 

Hence, marriage laws to offer a consistent framework for the state to act on such issues.

 

Then refer back to my earlier post where I stated that it's not our stupid idea to use a society's private construct of intimate relationships labelled "marriage" as a basis for tax relief, and etc. It's dumb. They should be the ones running around in circles changing laws, rewriting laws when society exercises its right to pliably flex it's private construct of "marriage". Just like the private construct of "gangs".

 

If the government started giving tax breaks and creating inheritence legislation in reverence to gangs based on their "gang status" then I doubt we would pass legislation to ban police from joining "gangs", just because it's an affront to the traditional notion of "gangs". That's essentially what is going on here in california, and really all over the country.

 

Governments have this queer practice of using society's private constructs as a basis for legal consequences, and then they want to act all indignified as we freely exercise our right to evolve those constructs.

 

They need to do better. They need a more thoughtful method to establish these consequences. I don't support banning gay marriage, nor allowing gay marriage because I don't support government having any authority over consensual social constructs by private citizens.

[Mokele]

As I've pointed out before on this forum, the idea of the government simply butting out of marriage is like the prospect of shitting gold nuggets - it'd be nice, but it's never, ever going to happen. Not in our political system.

 

And even if it *could* happen, how long would it take? 50 years? 100? Can you honestly tell the millions of gay couples being denied their rights, "Sorry, but we'll have this fixed in about a lifetime or two. Just wait patiently."

 

A solution which cannot be implemented is worthless.

[john5746]

And even if it *could* happen, how long would it take? 50 years? 100? Can you honestly tell the millions of gay couples being denied their rights, "Sorry, but we'll have this fixed in about a lifetime or two. Just wait patiently."

 

LOL, I'm envisioning a Monty Python sketch:

 

<Cleese> "Oh, this gay couple wants this list of rights?"

 

<Palin> (Opens scroll and reads list of rights bestowed by marriage)

 

<Idle> "But your gay!"

 

(Some bickering back and forth about incest, beastiality and polygomy)

 

<Cleese> "OK, we can't decide so let's just take away EVERYONE's rights"

 

<crowd> Throws garbage at the gay couple

 

If the government started giving tax breaks and creating inheritence legislation in reverence to gangs based on their "gang status" then I doubt we would pass legislation to ban police from joining "gangs", just because it's an affront to the traditional notion of "gangs". That's essentially what is going on here in california, and really all over the country.

 

Governments have this queer practice of using society's private constructs as a basis for legal consequences, and then they want to act all indignified as we freely exercise our right to evolve those constructs.

 

Gang - a group of people up to no good. I think that is what you imply in context.

Marriage - a union between two people who usually intend to form a family, the foundation of a society.

Hmmm....which one to choose? It's so hard. It's like chocolate or vanilla.

 

Society recognizes companies, religions, community and charities as groups and affords them benefits. They are just highly organized gangs that are seen as having positive impacts on society. Bad gangs are seen as a social ill. Carrot and stick.

Edited December 16, 2008 by john5746

[Severian]

And even if it *could* happen, how long would it take? 50 years? 100? Can you honestly tell the millions of gay couples being denied their rights, "Sorry, but we'll have this fixed in about a lifetime or two. Just wait patiently."

 

That is fair enough, but are you also going to let straight men get married? How about brother and sister, or father and daughter? Why not let one man have 6 wives (at the same time)? Why are you denying their rights?

[ParanoiA]

As I've pointed out before on this forum, the idea of the government simply butting out of marriage is like the prospect of shitting gold nuggets - it'd be nice, but it's never, ever going to happen. Not in our political system.

 

And even if it *could* happen, how long would it take? 50 years? 100? Can you honestly tell the millions of gay couples being denied their rights, "Sorry, but we'll have this fixed in about a lifetime or two. Just wait patiently."

 

A solution which cannot be implemented is worthless.

 

Well sure, but as I've also pointed out before on this forum, an argument for what is, is not an argument for what should be. It may be a solution that cannot be implemented, but it is the correct solution, in my opinion.

 

Society recognizes companies, religions, community and charities as groups and affords them benefits. They are just highly organized gangs that are seen as having positive impacts on society. Bad gangs are seen as a social ill. Carrot and stick.

 

So what happens if my wife and I want to be a "company" so we can have those benefits? Or can my house be a church? Is there a law banning religions that don't utilize a "god"?

 

Is the law supposed to change to reconcile the evolution of those institutions or are those institutions supposed to stay static with respect to the law? Honestly, I'm not sure yet as I can see pros and cons either way.

 

That is fair enough, but are you also going to let straight men get married? How about brother and sister, or father and daughter? Why not let one man have 6 wives (at the same time)? Why are you denying their rights?

 

I'm all for it. At least, in terms of state recognition if we insist on a nosey, intrusive government that grants itself the authority to regulate the label on intimate human relationships.

[npts2020]

Well, in America you and your wife can incorporate or form a church simply by filling out appropriate paperwork. (Expect the IRS to be watching if you ever accumulate substantial assets or cash flow).

[Mokele]

That is fair enough, but are you also going to let straight men get married? How about brother and sister, or father and daughter? Why not let one man have 6 wives (at the same time)? Why are you denying their rights?

 

Sure, they can go ahead. Though I do have some reservations on incest, mostly because of harm to the kids (which opens thornier issues, such as whether it should be illegal to drink or use drugs during pregnancy).

 

Remember, you're talking to someone who was in a long-term polyamorous relationship.

 

Well sure, but as I've also pointed out before on this forum, an argument for what is, is not an argument for what should be. It may be a solution that cannot be implemented, but it is the correct solution, in my opinion.

 

But given that it has zero feasability, why are we wasting so much space and energy on it?

 

Shouldn't we just say "yes, yes, that would be nice, but lets get back to actually working towards equality" and hear no more about it.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

But given that it has zero feasability' date=' why are we wasting so much space and energy on it?

 

Shouldn't we just say "yes, yes, that would be nice, but lets get back to actually working towards equality" and hear no more about it.[/quote']

 

No, dismissing the root of a problem because it's hard is no worthwhile expense of energy. You don't truly solve inequality issues by avoiding the misguided principles that create it in the first place. However infeasable it may seem.

[Mokele]

Energy is limited. Time is limited. I (and everyone else) have a finite amount of time in the day. Why should I spend that time and energy on something that will never work, when I could actually help people?

[ParanoiA]

Well, you're presuming it will never work which is an opinion I don't share and is the obvious point of contention since the downstream logic checks out for both of us. If it actually would never work, then obviously one would be silly to waste energy on it. If it will work then obviously one would be silly not to treat to cure, which would arguably help the most people. So, it's a difference of outlook I guess.

 

For me, I can't be bothered with subjective prescience. If I believe the government should butt out, then that's my stand. The potential for political success just doesn't matter to my philosophical conclusions.

[iNow]

Well, you're presuming it will never work which is an opinion I don't share and is the obvious point of contention since the downstream logic checks out for both of us. If it actually would never work, then obviously one would be silly to waste energy on it. If it will work then obviously one would be silly not to treat to cure, which would arguably help the most people. So, it's a difference of outlook I guess.

 

For me, I can't be bothered with subjective prescience. If I believe the government should butt out, then that's my stand. The potential for political success just doesn't matter to my philosophical conclusions.

 

I certainly appreciate the principle on which you're standing, ParanoiA, but it misses the importance of being pragmatic. It's as if we're trying to end slavery, and you're suggesting that we instead focus our discussions on the deeper considerations of why we chose to start growing cotton instead of food when voluntary labor resources were unavailable.

 

There is a time and a place for each. They can be discussed in parallel, but one discussion should not be silenced at the expense of the other. We can talk about removing state legislation of all marriage while also working to ensure any existing legislations regarding marriage are nondiscriminatory.

 

Let's end slavery AND talk about the merits of choosing to grow cotton instead of food despite shortages of voluntary labor. You said it yourself. The logic of both checks out. A fair compromise?

[john5746]

That is fair enough, but are you also going to let straight men get married? How about brother and sister, or father and daughter? Why not let one man have 6 wives (at the same time)? Why are you denying their rights?

 

In my mind, marriage currently is defined as a loving sexual bond between a man and a woman that usually involves the creation of children. Of course, children and sex is not obligatory, but stable, healthy families is the objective.

 

Some now think that this should be extended to a bond between two adults, regardless of gender. While children cannot be conceived between the pair, adoption and insemination(lesbians) is possible. Arguments should be made for or against this particular case, dragging in all possibilities and then suggesting its all or none is a false dichotomy, IMO

 

So, to me I think the baby(marriage) is important to a society. I want to keep the baby and allow it to grow and change, not kill it because we are thinking about changing the bathwater. We should consider each situation on the slippery slope separately and have reasons for pro or con. The arguments should be base on the effect on society, not circular arguments that gay is bad because its gay or slippery slope arguments. Some examples below:

 

A marriage between straight men is not a loving bond in the spirit of a marriage. Again, sex is primary, not for every couple, but certainly for every group consideration.

 

Incest has potential problems with offspring and would be harmful to the family unit, IMO. It would weaken families to consider siblings or parents potential sexual partners.

 

Polygomy gets confusing legally and in the case of many wives has the potential of abuse historically(maybe less so now)

 

 

Of course, there would be arguments for them as well, but they should be considered in isolation. After all, they have no more to do with gay marriage than with heterosexual marriage, so why bring them up now?

[ParanoiA]

I certainly appreciate the principle on which you're standing, ParanoiA, but it misses the importance of being pragmatic. It's as if we're trying to end slavery, and you're suggesting that we instead focus our discussions on the deeper considerations of why we chose to start growing cotton instead of food when voluntary labor resources were unavailable.

 

No, that example doesn't demonstrate my insistance on principle. It's as if we're trying to end slavery and I'm focused on the objective reality that "all men are created equal" with "inalienable rights" and arguing for their freedom on those grounds, while others are more concerned with "pragmatics" and shoot for simply freeing them from the cotton fields as a political reality.

 

Another thing I've shared on this forum before is the lack of appreciation for compromise by us. What is the use for us, a group of blokes on an academic discussion board, to compromise? What function does that serve? We're not legislators, and we're not operating in the capacity of any potential consequence to law.

 

Compromise is for politicians. I'm not sure what value compromise brings to a discussion forum, when all it does is remove key dynamics from a discussion. Arguing the heart of a given problem, whether its global warming or government intrusion on marriage, is the responsible thing to do. Ignoring it may be useful for passing legislation, creating political reality, but serves no purpose to human understanding and personal growth and ultimately keeps mankind's expectations low and uneventful.

 

Nothing is blocking the discussion you're proposing to have. It's just that I have no inclination to engage in it. Don't misinterpret that as a rejection, I just have nothing to offer. My mind just doesn't work that way. So my posts are directed at the issue of government intrusion, while others are directed at parity in this intrusion. No reason to shut either direction down, as far as I can tell.

 

There is a time and a place for each. They can be discussed in parallel, but one discussion should not be silenced at the expense of the other. We can talk about removing state legislation of all marriage while also working to ensure any existing legislations regarding marriage are nondiscriminatory.

 

I can agree with that. That's why I proposed the concept of "civil union" to replace "marriage". I also proposed any combination of humans to qualify for that union, which includes any quantity and mix of sexes, family, whatever.

[Reaper]

I can agree with that. That's why I proposed the concept of "civil union" to replace "marriage". I also proposed any combination of humans to qualify for that union, which includes any quantity and mix of sexes, family, whatever.

 

 

What's the difference though? They practically mean the same thing, except one of the terms is more tied to religion than the other. If this term is to be adopted instead as to satisfy the bigoted among us, then why not just simply call all marriages civil unions instead? It's just simply another slide further toward extreme political correctness from what I see...

[ParanoiA]

What's the difference though? They practically mean the same thing, except one of the terms is more tied to religion than the other. If this term is to be adopted instead as to satisfy the bigoted among us, then why not just simply call all marriages civil unions instead? It's just simply another slide further toward extreme political correctness from what I see...

 

Apparently you misunderstood my post, I do mean all marriages should be called civil unions. Man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, any combination and any quantity.

 

The difference is that the term civil union is generic, more accurate and relieves the legislature from debating definitions of words which they have no business doing. The word "marriage" IS the issue. Civil Union applies to all unions and the word "marriage" can be batted about in free society all they want without any consequence to anyone's rights and privileges.

 

And this isn't political correctness, it's correcting a political mistake. "Marriage", as defined by lexicographers, singles out man and woman unions only, and grants rights and privilege that many of us believe should be granted all unions, not just nonfamilial monogamous hetero ones.

[Reaper]

Apparently you misunderstood my post,

 

You really believe so? I was actually being sarcastic in the thread...

 

And this isn't political correctness, it's correcting a political mistake. "Marriage", as defined by lexicographers, singles out man and woman unions only, and grants rights and privilege that many of us believe should be granted all unions, not just nonfamilial monogamous hetero ones.

 

 

Hmmm..... http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=define%3Apolitical+correctness

 

Seems like the very definition of the word contradicts your statement above

[ParanoiA]

You really believe so? I was actually being sarcastic in the thread...

 

Ah, got me. I did not detect it. Sorry. I guess I'm a little thick, which I'm sure doesn't surprise anyone here.

 

Hmmm..... http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=...al+correctness

 

Seems like the very definition of the word contradicts your statement above

 

Well' date=' that would only be true if my suggestion was merely about replacing the [i']word[/i] "marriage" with the phrase "civil unions". Instead, I propose to replace the concept of marriage (man and woman) with the concept of civil unions (any combination of consensual humans) in terms of state recognition. That equates to an actual functional difference, as opposed to symbolic pandering.

[iNow]

Well, that would only be true if my suggestion was merely about replacing the word "marriage" with the phrase "civil unions". Instead, I propose to replace the concept of marriage (man and woman) with the concept of civil unions (any combination of consensual humans) in terms of state recognition. That equates to an actual functional difference, as opposed to symbolic pandering.

That is hugely important. A word change alone carries with it it's own problems, as there are actually 1,138 federal laws which pertain to "married" couples, but would not pertain to those in a "civil union."

 

 

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:

• The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
  
  
• Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
  
  
• Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.
  
  

The Government Accountability Office

lists 1,138 federal laws

that pertain to married couples. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States:

 

 

 

I whole-heartedly agree with your point that the concept and functionality must shift. The challenge is that we're required to do so within our existing legal framework and at both the state and federal level.

[Reaper]

Ah, got me. I did not detect it. Sorry. I guess I'm a little thick, which I'm sure doesn't surprise anyone here.

 

It's okay. I'm back now, so I can thin it out a little .

 

 

Well, that would only be true if my suggestion was merely about replacing the word "marriage" with the phrase "civil unions". Instead, I propose to replace the concept of marriage (man and woman) with the concept of civil unions (any combination of consensual humans) in terms of state recognition. That equates to an actual functional difference, as opposed to symbolic pandering.

 

Ah, I see, that would make a huge difference then. I was just under the impression that marriage was technically already a civil union, but given the ritualistic and religious connections it has, terming it a civil union would certainly eliminate the stigma of any couple of any sexual orientation come together. At the very least it would, in theory, eliminate the ability to arbitrarily place bans on same sex couples, so in this sense I do agree with you.

[iNow]

Another thing I've shared on this forum before is the lack of appreciation for compromise by us. What is the use for us, a group of blokes on an academic discussion board, to compromise? What function does that serve? We're not legislators, and we're not operating in the capacity of any potential consequence to law.

 

Compromise is for politicians. I'm not sure what value compromise brings to a discussion forum, when all it does is remove key dynamics from a discussion. Arguing the heart of a given problem, whether its global warming or government intrusion on marriage, is the responsible thing to do. Ignoring it may be useful for passing legislation, creating political reality, but serves no purpose to human understanding and personal growth and ultimately keeps mankind's expectations low and uneventful.

 

You've convinced me, and I agree. Arguing the heart of the problem is the responsible and necessary thing to do.