Washington's "everything but marriage" bill

[ParanoiA]

I personally don't give a damn what the polygamists do' date=' let them get married - I think we've established before that the reason we don't let multiples get married is to make it easier in legalities, as well as it being against most peoples' opinion. If you want to start a thread and a movement to help get polygamists their free right to marry legally, more power to you sir - hell if you throw some good reasons out there, I'd probably jump in and help argue the point with you.

 

But this thread isn't about polygamy. Your counter-argument about my oppressing more than two-party marriages was either meant to sound like a 9 year old, or just came off that way to me - doubtful, since I usually associate credibility with your posts. [/quote']

 

I'm using the logic that marriage is a right. If marriage is a right, (which I do not believe) then there are MORE oppressed groups than JUST same-sex couples. If one is to use the logic that marriage is a right, while only arguing for ONE group to be liberated from this oppression, then they too are hypocritcal bigots if they do not support ALL groups to be liberated from this oppression.

 

You see what I'm getting at?

 

It would be like white folks having the only rights in the country. And here we have a group arguing for the rights of black folks, with all kinds of appeals to our bigotry and so forth - yet they ONLY want rights for black folks - no other minority.

 

It's a battle of the bigots. IF you're going to say marriage is a right.

[Dak]

It presumes your "marriage" concept is some special institution where membership is restricted to opposite sex partners only.

 

well, in washington state, it is!

 

Ergo, same sex couples are "excluded" from that institution

 

from the institution that, for better or worse, it has been desided is an opposite-sex partners only affair. Kinda makes sense, at least they have their own version:

 

and any partnership they have is a "subclass" of it... not as good... separate... and for no justifiable secular reason.

 

Justify the bit i emphasized above. And 'subclass' while we're at it. why must DPs be a lesser subclass of marriage, and not an equivelent alternative? Espescially as they appear to be objectively indistinguishable in all but name.

 

Your logic appears to be:

 

1/ I am considering DPs to be lesser than marriages

2/ therefore it's bigoted

 

I disagree with 1, essentially.

 

How about inheritance? Or for a partner to make medical decisions for the other when they are not conscious to do so? The institution of "marriage" is referenced in those laws - hence the consequences of "rights" descending from a "privileged" institution.

 

So, it can harm same-sex unions because they will not enjoy the same set of consequential rights as married folks - and only because of not calling it "marriage".

 

From the article linked in the OP, in washington both of those were already afforded to gay 'domestic partnerships', with the recent legislation adding more rights to bring domestic partnerships up to essentially the same status as marriages, in all but name.

[ParanoiA]

From the article linked in the OP, in washington both of those were already afforded to gay 'domestic partnerships', with the recent legislation adding more rights to bring domestic partnerships up to essentially the same status as marriages, in all but name.

 

Sure, in Washington. We have 50 states in our union and all of them have any number of laws impacting marriage. As long as it isn't called "marriage" then all of those laws do not automatically apply to domestic partnerships.

 

Also you used the word "essentially" - why was that necessary?

[Dak]

we're talking about DPs in washington

 

And i'm a bit tired, so 'essentially' just snuck it's way in there for no reason whatsoever. as i read it, in washington, DPs have the same status as marriage. If anyone knows of any differences (espescially iNow) feel free to share.

 

---

 

actually, to clarify: yes, elsewhere, i'm sure refusing to call gay marriages marriages could have some actual legal ramifications that make the gay 'not-marriages' genuinely lesser, and thus discriminatory

[john5746]

I'm using the logic that marriage is a right. If marriage is a right, (which I do not believe) then there are MORE oppressed groups than JUST same-sex couples. If one is to use the logic that marriage is a right, while only arguing for ONE group to be liberated from this oppression, then they too are hypocritcal bigots if they do not support ALL groups to be liberated from this oppression.

 

You see what I'm getting at?

 

It would be like white folks having the only rights in the country. And here we have a group arguing for the rights of black folks, with all kinds of appeals to our bigotry and so forth - yet they ONLY want rights for black folks - no other minority.

 

It's a battle of the bigots. IF you're going to say marriage is a right.

 

This makes no sense to me at all. In your analogy, its as if you are saying that if we allow blacks to play baseball, then we also need to allow women, children and dogs and cats. They are completely different topics with their own impact and arguments. Slippery slope fallacy.

 

The culture accepts marriage as between one man and one woman, regardless of race, religion, creed, etc. We are talking about extending that to between one man and one man or one woman and one woman. We are reviewing the definition of marriage, which has been reviewed in the past - in regards to race, religion, family relations, age and polygamy.

 

Examination of cultural norms and legal consequences may bring up other discussions, but if they differ in some way, then they need to rest on their own merits. Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, beastiality, etc are different arguments than same-sex marriage. Supporters of same-sex marriage are not obligated to also support these groups any more than anyone else, because they differ with same-sex marriage just as much as heterosexual marriage. In the same way, Mormon polygamists are not obligated to support same-sex marriage any more than other people. Different situations, different arguments.

 

Now, transgender or hemaphrodites would be considered equivalent in my opinion and I would expect them to be included in the same argument for same-sex marriage.

[ParanoiA]

This makes no sense to me at all. In your analogy, its as if you are saying that if we allow blacks to play baseball, then we also need to allow women, children and dogs and cats. They are completely different topics with their own impact and arguments. Slippery slope fallacy.

 

Not sure where you're going with the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" comment. I certainly haven't argued that. I'm arguing consistency.

 

And yes, if playing baseball is a "right", and it is, then yes all humans get to play it - men, women and children.

 

Oh did you mean professional baseball? The private institution - no different than any exlusive voluntary private club? Yeah, my point is about calling state recognized marriage as a right. Not talking about private constucts created by free society.

 

Which is really interesting since that touches on WHY I don't believe marriage is a right - because it's as much a private sector institution as professional baseball. The only problem being that this particular institution drives downstream "rights" and pro baseball does not.

[john5746]

Adults have the right to vote, not children.

 

Adults have the right to bear arms, not children.

 

The argument is that any two adults should have the right to marry, not 10 adults, not children, not if they are related, etc.

[ParanoiA]

The culture accepts marriage as between one man and one woman' date=' regardless of race, religion, creed, etc. We are talking about extending that to between one man and one man or one woman and one woman. We are reviewing the definition of marriage, which has been reviewed in the past - in regards to race, religion, family relations, age and polygamy.

 

Examination of cultural norms and legal consequences may bring up other discussions, but if they differ in some way, then they need to rest on their own merits. Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, beastiality, etc are different arguments than same-sex marriage. Supporters of same-sex marriage are not obligated to also support these groups any more than anyone else, because they differ with same-sex marriage just as much as heterosexual marriage. In the same way, Mormon polygamists are not obligated to support same-sex marriage any more than other people. Different situations, different arguments.[/quote']

 

That sounds fairly accurate, John. But how does that all hold up when one presumes state recognized marriage is a right. If something is a right, then it can't be cherry picked away. Either we all get to bear arms, or none of us. Not just people with two arms.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Adults have the right to vote, not children.

 

Adults have the right to bear arms, not children.

 

The argument is that any two adults should have the right to marry, not 10 adults, not children, not if they are related, etc.

 

Ok, fair enough on the children. Good point.

 

But how does that change the rights afforded to the rest? Children are only restricted based on the idea they can't fully appreciate and negotiate their rights. They can't be prosecuted as severely, and they can't exercise freedom as liberally. They are not fully empowered citizens.

 

So, I guess in terms of fully empowered citizens - adults - how can rights be cherry picked without being discrimination?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

we're talking about DPs in washington

 

Ok, I guess your question was limited to that same scope as well. Sorry.

 

And i'm a bit tired, so 'essentially' just snuck it's way in there for no reason whatsoever. as i read it, in washington, DPs have the same status as marriage. If anyone knows of any differences (espescially iNow) feel free to share.

 

That's cool, I thought maybe you were dismissing some detail that might suggest something less than essential.

 

Good to hear from you by the way. I always enjoy your logic.

Edited April 17, 2009 by ParanoiA
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

as i read it, in washington, DPs have the same status as marriage. If anyone knows of any differences (espescially iNow) feel free to share.

Within Washington, you're probably correct. It sure sounds like rights are equal, and that for some (as yet to be determined) reason they just felt the need to prevent same sex couples from coming into their treehouse being equal in name by calling it something other than marriage.

 

However, the moment that couple leaves Washington... Let's say they have to move to another state for work or something... Their partnership is suddenly null and void. This is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause from Article IV, Section 1 of our constitution, which basically says that any rights or contracts valid in one state of the union must also be valid in the other states of the union.

 

It's not like they're moving from England to France. Those are two different countries, so it makes perfect sense that different laws will apply. They're moving from one state in the US to another state in the US, and suddenly rights afforded to them will be stripped. The same thing does NOT happen with opposite sex marriages.

 

If that sounds equal to you, then you are working from a much different definition of equality than I am.

 

 

 

actually, to clarify: yes, elsewhere, i'm sure refusing to call gay marriages marriages could have some actual legal ramifications that make the gay 'not-marriages' genuinely lesser, and thus discriminatory

You would probably benefit by reviewing these:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons

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

[john5746]

But how does that change the rights afforded to the rest? Children are only restricted based on the idea they can't fully appreciate and negotiate their rights. They can't be prosecuted as severely, and they can't exercise freedom as liberally. They are not fully empowered citizens.

 

So, I guess in terms of fully empowered citizens - adults - how can rights be cherry picked without being discrimination?

 

I don't see where the cherry picking is occuring. We are expanding the rights of individuals within the framework of a two person marriage. If someone says they want to be able to vote for 10 people, because they take care of them is that the same argument as minorites being able to vote? I don't think so.

 

Making something a right doesn't mean that there are no constraints.

[Dudde]

This isn't necessarily related completely to the OP, but fairly interesting for a few posting on this topic, and since we're discussing it anyway:

 

CNN

 

Apparently some GOP members are pushing for members of their affiliated party to drop the arguments against Same Sex marriages.

 

Schmidt told CNN that the GOP must become more open if it wants to reverse a shrinking coalition, especially among younger, more accepting voters.

 

"People are turned off in large measure by what they see as intolerance coming out of the party," he said.

 

"One of the things that has definitely impacted my views on these issues and an evolution of thought over time is having a gay sibling," Schmidt told CNN. "As Americans get to know gay couples and or have gay family members, or work associates ... they come to understand that these relationships are deep and worth being respect and being protected."

 

I'm kind of questioning that second one after hearing the first one

[Mr Skeptic]

Incidentally, Douglas Kmiec has stated pretty much my own point of view on the Colbert Report. Government should take care of the legal aspect and shouldn't call it marriage. The point I don't agree with is if he says it should be up to the churches to perform marriages (not sure if that's what he's saying, but my opinion is that the government should just take care of the legal aspects and let everyone squabble about the name as much as they like).

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224791/april-16-2009/douglas-kmiec

 

I'd put this in the thread about government dropping the word marriage, but it's locked.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39096&page=18

[john5746]

I think it should only be called a marriage if the couple agrees to raise children.

[iNow]

I think it should be called a marriage if they agree to get divorced once it's no longer convenient.

[john5746]

I think it should be called a marriage if they agree to get divorced once it's no longer convenient.

 

would that be a protestant marriage? Or is that one where you behead your wife?

[Dak]

However, the moment that couple leaves Washington... Let's say they have to move to another state for work or something... Their partnership is suddenly null and void. This is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause from Article IV, Section 1 of our constitution, which basically says that any rights or contracts valid in one state of the union must also be valid in the other states of the union.

 

Well, would a same-sex marriage be recognised in different states? Iirc, some (most?) states specifically have laws against same-sex marriages?

 

If they would be recognized, then yeah, i guess calling it something different has genuinely bad effects.

 

(the thread started with a suggestion that other states adopt washington's model; i suppose the federal government adopting it, or simply allowing gay marriage, would fix that problem)

 

You would probably benefit by reviewing these:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons

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

 

Nah, if you want to make your case, you're going to have to pick one of the 1,138 marriage entitlements that domestic partners don't get

 

from one of your sources:

 

Massachusetts is the only state in which gays can legally marry, due to the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that said the state constitution didn’t support discriminating against same-sex couples that wanted to wed. Like states that grant civil unions, Massachusetts extends all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples; unlike in other states, gay couples also can be issued a marriage license. However, married gay couples still are not eligible for federal benefits.

 

If i'm reading it right, gay domestic partners are entitled to federal benifits in washington, making it more 'marriage in all but name' than massachusetts' gay 'marriage'.

 

Good to hear from you by the way. I always enjoy your logic.

 

You too. I think we probably both have the same views on this -- i.e., the way i'd actually do it is to remove the need for the state to approve of marriage -- if any people want to register as married they can, at which point any accomodations that need to be made by the state (right to make medical desizisions if you're incapasitated, inheritance law, etc) are made. end of problem.

 

I still wouldn't mind if people wanted to call them 'civil unions' tho

[Dudde]

You too. I think we probably both have the same views on this -- i.e., the way i'd actually do it is to remove the need for the state to approve of marriage -- if any people want to register as married they can, at which point any accomodations that need to be made by the state (right to make medical desizisions if you're incapasitated, inheritance law, etc) are made. end of problem.

 

...What? This is the same point that I'm arguing for, except I completely doubt that the states would acknowledge something like that unless there were laws inferring rights to do so. Like marriage. The reason we have laws to let people to do things like make medical decisions is for the benefit of the couple, as well as for the care providers (legal documentation for them releasing patients, things like that)

 

I know we're all for getting rid of marriage at the state level and recognizing Civil Unions or whatnot, but let's face it:

 

1. There's no reason to do that

and

2. This will never happen

[ParanoiA]

I fully appreciate that conclusion Dudde, but for me, right is right and wrong is wrong and I have a duty to "be the change I want to see". I have to follow my principles, faithfully, or else I'm not living up to my rhetoric - which no man can, but all men should try.

 

That means I can't be bothered with how realistic my beliefs of "right" will ever be pluralized or implemented.

 

State recognized marriage is not a right, no different than any other labels citizens give themselves, or clubs they fabricate. State recognized marriage, being a privilege, should *not* create rights, which means that using marriage to decide who calls medical decisions, inheritance and etc is invalid since it establishes rights based on an institution that is exlusive and discriminatory in ways rights cannot be (in other words, it forces a citizen to traverse through a privileged institution to exercise their right). For this reason, I challenge all laws that use "marriage" to extend rights of any kind.

 

My take is not to exalt same-sex marriage, and continue to discriminate by using a privileged institution to filter access to one's rights, but rather to tear down hetero marriage to discontinue this disparity. Government has no business legislating marriage.

 

And that's what I believe. It will never be a reality and it's highly likely not a single person will agree.

 

Incidentally, it may be helpful if everyone restated their ideal positions. I'm not sure who's standing where on this stuff anymore. I know many of us have included compromises we'd agree to, but I'm more interested in everyone's ultimate preference.

[scrappy]

And same-sex domestic partnership is some special institution where membership is restricted to same sex partners only. Ergo, opposite sex couples are "excluded" from that institution...

 

And really that's all bullshit too. What you're arguing here is inference. You're suggesting it isn't good enough since free society will infer a subclass out of it. We don't go running around tweaking laws to preempt what society will infer from them. If people infer a subclass, that's their problem. Calling it marriage won't change that anyway.

Dang! I wish I had said that.

[Dak]

...What? This is the same point that I'm arguing for

 

Well, I agree with you, too, then

 

I know we're all for getting rid of marriage at the state level and recognizing Civil Unions or whatnot, but let's face it:

 

1. There's no reason to do that

 

Apart from the fact that it'd remove the states power to discriminate, and thus fix alot of problems.

 

Incidentally, it may be helpful if everyone restated their ideal positions. I'm not sure who's standing where on this stuff anymore. I know many of us have included compromises we'd agree to, but I'm more interested in everyone's ultimate preference.

 

Okay, ideally you'd self-identify as married, and any accomodations that needed to be made would be made.

 

Just wrt gays and without getting rid of marriage, ideally you'd have what you have atm in washington, tho i'll admit i'd prefer them to be called marriages, but it's really not a problem either way as long as they're identical (which is all i've been trying to argue in this thread)

[Mr Skeptic]

Well remember: just because the government call something a marriage, doesn't mean that you can't call it a marriage.

[iNow]

And same-sex domestic partnership is some special institution where membership is restricted to same sex partners only. Ergo, opposite sex couples are "excluded" from that institution...

I was unaware of any non-heterosexual advocates arguing to institute a "same-sex only" partnership from which opposite sex couples would be excluded. Do you have a source, and maybe some numbers? Where is it that all of these gay people are arguing heavily for their own institution from which heterosexuals would be excluded? I must have missed that somewhere, but I'm genuinely curious to read more.

 

 

What a silly comment, man. The argument is this:

 

• Same sex couples want equality.
  
• Many opposite sex couples are trying to restrict same sex couples from their special privileged club of opposite sex couples.
  
• In doing so, the suggestion is to instead open a new club for same sex couples so they can have their own club instead of allowing them entry into the restricted club of heterosexuals.
  
• You suggest that it's okay since we would be giving same sex couples equal opportunity to exclude opposite sex couples from a club into which they don't even want entry.
  

 

 

I certainly don't think that's one of your best arguments ever, and I'll return to my original bullet.

 

Same sex couples want equality.

[Dudde]

Apart from the fact that it'd remove the states power to discriminate, and thus fix alot of problems.

 

I understand where you two are coming from, I do, really. I simply think that taking marriage away from the states is both infeasible and unnecessary. Marriage licenses give a lot of couples rights that make their lives invariably easier and I don't think abolishing marriage by the state is going to help, I seriously doubt it will make anything better.

 

not to mention you're essentially telling the states to support and provide allowances for something that is not part of the law, but should be allowed special circumstances because two people like each other. I see every 2-week relationship trying to apply for these rights, and that's a ridiculous amount of paperwork to ask anybody to sort through

[ParanoiA]

What a silly comment, man.

 

I called it bullshit myself. It's certainly no more silly than the idea that if we call a different thing a different name since it's a different thing that it makes it inequal because people might interpret it as an inferior thing.

 

Yes it was a silly comment, and perhaps it doesn't work as an analogy since domestic partnership doesn't inherently restrict hetero couples, but whether or not the analogy is sound, it's all silliness anyway.

 

The rest of my post was where my logic and argument is really at.

 

Same sex couples want equality.

 

And they should get it.

 

Many opposite sex couples are trying to restrict same sex couples from their special privileged club of opposite sex couples.

 

Let's be clear and distinguish the difference between state recognized and self recognized - no one can stop them from "marrying", they're trying to stop the state from recognizing their marriage. There's nothing wrong with privilege here, except that it's being used to feed downstream rights. And that's a big issue.

 

In doing so, the suggestion is to instead open a new club for same sex couples so they can have their own club instead of allowing them entry into the restricted club of heterosexuals.

 

And this doesn't address the problem at all, and retains an element of inequality since many rights are determined by the institution termed "marriage", so by not sharing the same term they don't share the same downstream rights. Note, this is entirely different than inferring inferior value by different labels - an argument I reject.

 

You suggest that it's okay since we would be giving same sex couples equal opportunity to exclude opposite sex couples from a club into which they don't even want entry.

 

Where did I suggest this? The only thing I suggested was that it was a weak argument that speaks to a person's prejudices to say a different label provides a subservice, based solely on the words themselves.

 

Instead, I added functional substance by relaying to Dak that the words themselves matter since the laws that extend rights for married couples (again, like medical decisions and so forth) are written with the word "marriage", thus using any other term retains that inequality.

 

If we didn't have any laws or rights that depended on the institution of state recognized marriage, there would be no discrimination, in my mind.

 

I suggest you catch up with my position, if you haven't already. I've been honing in on the detail that's been bugging me about this entire issue from the very beginning. This disturbing relationship between privilege and rights.

[iNow]

I called it bullshit myself.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

I suggest you catch up with my position, if you haven't already. I've been honing in on the detail that's been bugging me about this entire issue from the very beginning. This disturbing relationship between privilege and rights.

I'm well up to speed. If you recall, you and I exchanged PMs on this issue several months back where you articulated exactly that.

 

I just find the approach lacking, mostly b/c I don't think it's realistic to achieve, and further, hetero couples would practically lynch same sex couples for "taking away their sanctimonious marriages." Your logic is consistent, and I appreciate that, but where we differ is our starting position.

 

I am inclined to believe that marriage will always be on the books, and that it should apply equally (in rights, privileges, and in name) to both opposite and same sex couples. You're starting a bit further back and working to argue that the government should not be granting special privilege or rights based on rather arbitrary differences. I see the two as very closely related, but different matters entirely (since they currently do, and historically have, granted rights in this manner).

 

Either way, thanks for clearing that up above. I think when I read it the first time I grasped your intended meaning, so had left it alone. Then, when it was quoted earlier today, I saw it in a different light and responded off point. Thanks again ensuring we're working from the same understandings.

 

 

 

Speaking of... To answer your question about "ideal state" posed earlier, I think marriages should remain on the books, and same sex couples should be given access to them and the privileges which come with it. I also think it should be called by the same name, but I sure hope that much was clear to everyone by now.