State amendments regarding gay marriage

I don't know about him, but I am. Or perhaps have a range of options. One could have...1) Partnerships (for couples (or more) that want some legal protection of their relationship but not with full benefits/restrictions a typical marriage today entails).2) Civil Unions (for couples (or more) that want the same legal protecions for their relationships as typical marriages today give).3) Marriage {fill in blank} (for couples that want the protections of typical marriages today, with the legal recognition (characterization) of having been religiously observed/for religious reasons. In this case all marriages will be identified with the religious order that married them... for example Married {catholic})The advantage of having the third is that you allow religious people to distinguish their marriages socially, while granting the greatest freedom to diverse religious views. For example a Catholic bigot can say "yeah you got married, fine, but it wasn't a CATHOLIC marriage." To which of course the target may respond "well it was a catholic MODERN reformed movement marriage".Anyhow, I will advance another idea as well.If these amendments and laws appear to be the trend, and the California situation appears to be the way such things will be used... maybe gay rights advocates should get on board and sacrifice "marriage" for something else.It seems that the biggest problem is that the California deal had only half of what was being said in writing. Maybe the amendment should have included the very words that the commercials stated. Thus something like:"Marriage will be defined as a union between a man and a woman, but this cannot be used to deny similar unions in rights by same sex spouses, nor shall this be used to argue the state has set a precedent that homosexual relationships have been regulated by the government. "If groups promoting the definition amendments won't agree to the additional statements, then their goal will be plain, and any commercials promising otherwise will be shown to be lies.Just a thought.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which defeats the entire point of being single, does it not?

---

​

Of course, which was my point. Being single is a voluntary situation

---

Incorrect.For the umpteenth time, it takes two to tango. You cannot go down to the courthouse and sign a piece of paper and suddenly become married. You need someone else to get married to. Just because you are ready, willing, and able to get married doesn't mean you can.Remaining single is a voluntary situation, yes, but not being single.

quote:

---

differential rights for the single aren't discrimination.

---

They are if there is no specific justification beyond the physical necessity for the conferment of those rights. For example, just like getting married, you cannot bestow insurance benefits upon someone without a someone to bestow them upon. That makes perfect sense.But suppose you did have someone to bestow them upon. Why the insistence that you have to be married to that someone in order to do it? Why do married people pay a different tax rate than single people?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you convert the single people into married people, they're no longer single and thus there is no comparison to make.

---

​

Exactly my point again; "discrimination" against single people doesn't exist simply because they have the option to stop being single.

---

Incorrect.For the n+1th time, it takes two to tango. You cannot get married without someone else to get married to.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just because you want to get married doesn't mean you can. You have to find someone else who is willing to marry you.

---

​

Which, while non-trivial, is not a significant barrier.

---

Incorrect.F'rinstance, as the various magazines pointed out, a woman in her 30s is more likely to be struck by lightning than get married. The requirement of finding someone else to go in on it with you is a significant barrier.

quote:

---

And at any rate, the hypothetical single person who's complaining about all these rights married people get must obviously have someone they could get married to

---

Not at all. Why do married people get differential monetary obligations just because they're married?

quote:

---

it's incoherent to complain that you're being denied the right to (for instance) transfer property to a specific person tax-free if you don't have anyone to transfer the property to.

---

Not at all. Why should a person be allowed to transfer property to another person simply to avoid the taxes? Getting married suddenly reduces your obligations? If we want to keep this ability, why not bestow it upon all people so that you can do it with anybody you wished rather than requiring marriage to that person?

quote:

---

No, but why would someone complain that they were being denied the ability to have a significant other be able to visit them in the hospital if they had no significant other?

---

Who said anything about a significant other? You seem to forget that if you're single, you still have a next-of-kin (usually your parents) that can come in and make decisions for you. That's part of the reason that gay people want marriage: Even with power of attorney, families routinely overrule it in such ways that would never happen if the two were married. Why does a marriage license have more ability to sway a hospital than a power of attorney?

quote:

---

And if they do have a significant other, then they can marry that person and have those rights.

---

Gay people can't get married (Massachussetts notwithstanding as the jury is still out on that for reasons ranging from pending constitutional amendments to the fact that DOMA still exists.) Siblings cannot get married. A parent and child cannot get married. Why can a person grant rights to complete strangers and not to intimates? Why do those strangers get benefits that could easily be applied to singles?

quote:

---

Ergo, no discrimination.

---

Why do married people pay different tax rates than single people? Why does a widow/widower get SSI survivor benefits?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

It's also an agreement about the status and custody of minors

---

Why does the relationship status of the parents have any effect upon the status and custody of the children they produce? Why should the children be made to suffer just because the parents aren't married?

quote:

---

I don't see that that's something that the scope of a private contract can hope to encompass.

---

Then simply apply that scope to all children with regard to their parents.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The same place we find that it says the government can force you into any contract.

---

​

I don't see that this is being forced, though.

---

If you want the benefit, you have to sign the contract. Even though the right could easily be applied to you individually as the requirement of the contract has no bearing on the case.Why do married people pay different tax rates than single people? Why does a child's status depend upon the parents' marital state?

quote:

---

And it's certainly the case that states, municipalities, and even the federal government have the perogative to make legislature that promotes certain social policies

---

But not just any policy. Especially when those policies are not capable of being followed by everyone. Marriage is not something you can just go out and do. It takes two to tango. You cannot get married without someone to get married to. Why are the rights attached the existence of the contract rather than being attached to the person? If there is no object to receive the benefit of the right, well then it sucks to be you. But if I receive a benefit simply because of a legal contract with someone else that does not actually come from that someone else, why can't I have it when that person leaves?Why do married people pay different tax rates than single people?

quote:

---

Governments have the right to discourage or punish behavior to serve greater social ends; this is called "the criminal justice system."

---

So being single is a crime?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because what if I want to give one of those rights to one person and another to another?

---

​

I dunno. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do that. I don't know, though.

---

Oughtn't we think about it before we start passeling out the rights?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But some of those rights granted to married people ought also to be granted to single people to passel out as they see fit.

---

​

And many of them are. I don't, however, believe that you should be able to sponsor anybody you want for citizenship in the US. That's not a right that single people should have to give out wherever they please.

---

OK, so we'll regulate it. Marriage is a pretty hefty thing that a person acquiring US citizenship must go through, so why not put the burden at a similar level for single people? If a single person can come up with as good of a reason to sponsor a person for citizenship in the US as "We're married," then why not allow a single person to do that?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Which, in a democracy, they would have the right to do, assuming everyone including the gay people went along with it.But, essentially, yes. The government has whatever rights we say it has, and it has the right to enforce laws to adjust society to be the way we want it. That's called "the mandate of the people."What do you think government is, if not a means to social ends? Isn't that the very purpose of government? I think you've misunderstood me; I wasn't referring to strictly Christian formulations of marriage. It puts a functional limit on how many people can be sponsored for citizenship; there's a strong incentive for immigrants to develop roots and merge into society in order to be sponsored. Well, it's good for people, at least - married men live longer and healthier lives. Well, would you be fine if the government offered tax credits to people who chose to drive hybrid or electric cars? Doesn't that discriminate against people who can't afford a $20k Prius, like me?I sure don't think so. If I wanted the tax credit, I could go buy the Prius. Where's the discrimination?

But for the umpteenth time, Rrhain, that's covered already. There are plenty of people who will marry you for any reason or for no reason, to make a statement, for a lark, or to gain citizenship.Getting married - finding a spouse - is almost trivial. This is still a non-objection.I'm certain that you could get married when the courthouse opens tomorrow, if you really wanted to and wasn't picky. This is not a substantial objection. Nonsense. Only if you're picky. I would have presumed that you had paid enough attention to my arguments in the past months to know that I'm in favor of gay marriage.Certainly this is something that needs to be fixed.As for the other stuff, the rights of marriage stem from at least one culture's conception of what marriage is - a civil arrangement where two persons become as one, sharing their stuff and their responsibilities. It seems to me that the majority of rights you're talking about stem from that, and that's why they they don't apply to single people.At such time as a single person has another person they want to become one person with, they can have all those rights. But at that time, they're married.

What about the children that one of them didn't produce?If I marry Jane, and I have sole custody of children from a previous marriage, what happens to those children when I die?Does Jane become the parent? Does custody revert back to their original mother? I don't honestly know, but how could a private contract possibly have the scope or the enforcability to decide?

Wow am I surprised.You are under some mistaken impression that, first of all, we are a democracy, which we are not. We are a republic.Second, we are in a limited democratic republic. The government is restricted from purely majority overreach against minority populations. Or at least it is in theory, clearly majorities have ignored this restriction in the past as a practicality, but there is no doubt the Constitution, and so our government, is limited in the scope of what kinds of laws it may pass.Third, assuming your statement above is right, why would it take "everyone including the gay people", all it takes in the democracy you described is a majority of people.It is already pretty well documented that the majority are against things like gay marriages, so then you think this is right? The Bill of Rights does away with this notion entirely. There are limits to where the government can roam with its "mandates". I will not argue that in practice these have not been nor cannot be violated, but the limitations are there in theory. Absolutely NOT. The purpose of government is ambiguous. It can be anything. In the case of the government of the United States, the founding fathers created it to establish security for those within its borders so that they could choose what society they wanted to have all by themselves. The idea of the government deciding this for everyone else was roundly criticized by all main signatories.My first suggestion is to read a lot more Jefferson and Franklin. No, I think I just wasn't clear enough. According to your theory of government it would be okay for a government to enforce one specific religious formulation of marriage to the exclusion of all others. Thus in my example I used one specific formulation.Although I will point out that the current definition of marriage throughout almost all states is based on Judeo-Xian tenets. Currently same sex, and greater than 2 spouses are not allowed, according to THEIR customs.So my criticism still stands, I see a huge difference between tax breaks to aid a general impoverished area, and breaks to aid a religion gain members or foist its beliefs on others. It does no such thing. A person can be married and divorced numerous times during their lifetime and sponsor their spouses in.And further, there cannot be an assumption that just because a person is not married there will be some massive sponsorship of others, or that those sponsored will not develop roots and "merge".And to cap it off, if this was the rationale, why not just cap the number of people one can sponsor in any time period? This has NEVER been shown. Please bring on stats. The only thing which has been shown is that people with close family, including loving partners of some kind, live longer and healthier lives most likely because of better coping mechanisms (get a little help from a friend).More recently it has also been shown that frequent masturbation helps men live longer and healthier lives. Perhaps we can have a tax break for porn so that we can encourage men to masturbate more frequently?The idea that a government should tell any individual how it is best to live his life was majorly criticized by our founding fathers. I know this is a repeat, but I tells ya it is a point worth repeating. I am behind such things. This does not discriminate against anyone's beliefs on how they should live. What it does is help people (including people with less money) attain generally more expensive devices that help conserve resources which are dwindling.That certainly IS a purpose of this government.That said, I believe those that question whether the government should be using public money vs. some other incentive strategy, have a point.But regardless, no one is being discriminated against if everyone gets the same break, and the goal is conservation of a public resource. That is NOT a theoretical GREATER end.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, a democratic republic, but yes. Because of what you said here: Obviously, there's a moral difference between what the majority wants and what everybody wants. When did I say anything else?But societies have a right to shape themselves as their members see fit; democratic government is a natural extension of that. If an entire society decides to oppress a minority, and the minority agrees to be oppressed, who are we to say different? And moreover, what moral basis would we have to stand on? Obviously not, Holmes. Maybe you haven't been paying attention around here but I'm a very vocal advocate of gay marriage. To the contrary, the Bill of Rights supports my position - that the government has whatever rights we, the people determine that it has, not whatever rights the government says it has.That's the third time in this post you've argued against a position you'd have known I hadn't taken if you'd read a little closer. Number 4. Your post continues to have very little to do with the points that I raised. Ok, well, obviously signing a marriage document doesn't change your life expectancy; that's not what I was talking about. (Number 5.) But to me, if you have a lifelong partner who you're committed to (which we agree extends a man's life), you're as good as married. You have the equivalent of a marriage.You seem to believe that I hold as narrow a definition of marriage as your average Southern Baptist. How you came to that conclusion I can't imagine, as I've advocated literally every single concept of marriage that has been presented to me. Unless they want to live with gasoline engines. That's a way of life for some people - I live in the Midwest, so I should know. Which is something we, the people decided government should do, under the ageis of altering social policy through incentive. Why is marriage any different?Please understand that I adopt as broad a definition of marriage as possible, excluding only the situation where only one participant is involved.

I said that within my post so I am not sure why you bring this up at all. The fact that we are a republic at all, does make it different than a democracy, even if it happens to be a democratic republic. Uhhhhhh... I'm willing to accept that a miscommunication occured, but I have to say it is coming from your side. Maybe dealing with the barrage of rrhain replies has you skipping some details.You emphasized a democracy. That means a majority rule, not an everybody rule. This is why I brought it up.That said, there is no way you can compare the morality of every legislator agreeing with something and every person wanting something. Within the US, the best you get is the former. That is why there are proscriptions. See, you are not really addressing what I am talking about. Absolutely if everyone agrees with everything then anything is possible. But that's not what we have in reality. We are talking about a government where there will ALWAYS be dissent of some kind, yet some do not have the ability to get a legislative voice at all.The question is what is a government ruled by a select group elected by the people allowed to address for those people. They have been directed NOT to deal with laws creating a society that they want.Well maybe I shouldn't state that so definitely. As I mentioned earlier that is really the heart of this debate. There are two camps: one says the government has no rights or business in forming a society it wants (it will be by the actions of the people outside of government to shape this), the other says it certainly does.I would state that the irony is you say you believe all types of marriages should exist but the arguments you are using are from the very camp that is trying to stop it. If you believe the government has the right, and the ability, to decide what society should be and change it through law, then you ARE on the side of Scalia and Bush and etc etc.I am on the side of Jefferson, Franklin, (justices)Stevens, Ginsberg, etc etc.You should read SC decisions on porn from the last few years (and through history). They do a pretty good job outlining this debate. I have, and that's why I am pointing out a clear reductio with your position. At least as I was able to understand your argument. If you are talking about OUR government having the ability to shape society through laws, then you are on the side opposed to gay marriage.What to you counts as majority and minority? What do you mean by everyone? Is this all theoretical, or practical? I am seriously asking you to define these things. Huh???? I never said the latter. I am unsure where you even got this.Yeah, we determine what the government can do, but until we scrap the current government (embodied within the Constitution), we are restricted from allowing the government to have certain rights. There is obviously some major disconnect here. Your words suggested that the government has the ability and responsibility to shape the society into what it wants (some Greater end). I have been addressing that concept.Where did I get it wrong? You really do not seem to be yourself today. My reply on this was accurate, yet you made out like it was point 5 missing what you said.YOU SAID MARRIAGE PROLONGS LIFE and QUALITY OF LIFE. In addition you used that as an example of why a government could support such an institution through laws.But the above statement shows why that argument is fallacious. Marriage is not necessary at all. Yet, people just in a relationship do NOT get benefits (which is the very thing I was talking about and you shot down).I would also add that the studies do not show LIFE LONG PARTNERS as having been the issue, just important people within one's life in general. I neither believe this, nor have I suggested such a thing. I have been using such things as a reductio. My only point is to show that your position on the mission of government, leads to the imposition of such things as the above. BS. I also lived in the Midwest. Heck, I spent over 8 years living in redneck central. Yeah I know people loooooooove gasoline engines. So what?Gasoline is running short and these people you are discussing will have to change how they get their fuel, or burn it, soon enough. This only aids their transition to the new technologies they will have to adopt anyway.I would add that hybrid cars use gasoline so they can do that anyway.If you are talking about the fact that these people like NOISE, and a shaking vehicle, because thet denotes POWER. Well that is something else. Maybe they'll figure out how to reproduce such things in basically quiet vehicles.They can of course still get the same speed and so real power. This is not altering social policy. This is not about how one can improve one's life through becoming a tree hugger and adopting such an attitude.All this is about is addressing a physical reality regarding a physical resource, it is dwindling, as well as the physical impact of the use of that resource on our physical environmant.Whether people get married or not and so maybe live longer happier lives, is a completely subjective, social issue.That is the difference. You understand that gasoline will eventually run out, most likely within the lifetime of our grandkids, unless new technologies are invented, correct? Life will go on the same as it always has, whether people get married by the government or not. I understand this completely and am sorry if I said anything that made you think I did not understand that. My whole point is showing you that the position you are taking regarding the nature/role of government regarding the control of society undermines your own position regarding marriage. It allows people aligned against you to say the government has that right.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hrm, I'm not impressed with the maturity level of that statement. Is there a reason you're taking such an adversarial tone all of a sudden? I had thought our exchanges in the past had been civil, to the large part; I had counted you among the "friendly" posters.Did I do something to change that? But clearly I was referring not to the "majority rules" aspect of democracy, but the participatory nature of democracy in general, in contrast to other largely non-participatory forms of government.As the man once said, "here, sir, the people rule." While I realize this is an ideal and not always the reality, it's certainly a good goal, don't you think? Agreed. We have to compromise. Well, I disagree. Isn't it the purpose of all laws to shape society? Why do we even have laws if they're not supposed to have an effect? From your statements, Holmes:

quote:

---

There are limits to where the government can roam with its "mandates".

---

By which I took to mean "mandates that the government gives itself." That was how I took it in context. Maybe I misunderstood? Not what it wants, what we want. We the people.Obviously, since we the people can't really come to an agreement, that requires some kind of compromise. Sometimes we compromise with majority rule. Sometimes we compromise with the lesser of two evils. Well, I'm not sure that's the case; I'm not certain that there's a substantial difference between "life long partners" and "important people within one's life", unless we're talking about parents/children:

quote:

---

Family relationships, social support and subjective life expectancy.

​

Ross CE, Mirowsky J.

​

Department of Sociology, Burdine Hall 336, University of Texas, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-1008, USA. cross@prc.utexas.edu

​

Do supportive personal relationships increase subjective life expectancy? The objective existence of family relationships and the subjective sense of having someone to call on in need may increase the length of life a person expects by creating assurance about the future, by reinforcing healthy habits, and by improving current health. Using the 1995 Aging, Status, and Sense of Control representative sample of 2,037 Americans ages 18-95, we find that having adult children and surviving parents increases the length of life one expects, but young children in the home does not, and marriage only contributes years of life expected for older men. People expect to live longer when they report high levels of emotional support, and the association is mediated entirely by the perception that one has someone to call on when one is sick. People with informal health support expect to live longer than those without it, and this is especially true for persons with physical impairments. Although informal health practices shape subjective life expectancy, they explain little of the effects of supportive relationships. People who smoke, drink heavily, and have poor nutritional habits expect shorter lives, and those who walk and exercise expect longer lives. Better current health is associated with higher subjective life expectancy, but it does not explain the impact of supportive relationships. Most of the impact of supportive relationships appears to be a direct result of projected security about the future. Feeling that you have someone who would care for you if sick appears to increase the sense of security about surviving future health crises, thereby increasing one's perceived inventory of the essential property--life itself.

---

Clearly having someone to call on is good for your well-being, right? Doesn't promoting marriage lead to that? Doesn't that give an incentive for folks to have life-partners? You don't believe that promoting fuel-efficient vehicles and changing attitudes about fossil fuels is altering social policy? I sure do.When you change what people do, that's altering social policy, by definition. I disagree. People's happiness and quality of life is a very real thing. Well, they do, Holmes. They have the right to use the machinery of government to implement the social policy that they think is best. I have the right to try to stop them within the means provided me in the Constitution to do so.That doesn't, of course, mean that people like you and I have to like it. And the means or agenda being pushed by the "other side" might just be unconstitutional (though they say that about us, too.)What are we supposed to do, Holmes? Make it illegal to vote if you're going to vote Republican? Doesn't that make us as bad as they?

That's a good point...hmm...got me there.Yeah, I guess you would have to have some sort of "civil union." Especially in cases of divorce and adoption. However, I think penalties/benefits granted by the state should be abolished.

---

the world is a fine place and worth fighting for

*Blink blink*

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

crashfrog responds to holmes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You understand that everything you just said above allows the government to persecute gays then and deny them the right to marry and also to leave out all but Xian marriages?

---

​

Which, in a democracy, they would have the right to do, assuming everyone including the gay people went along with it.

---

So we should do away with the Constitution completely?Now please, don't get disingenuous on us and say that the Constitution can be amended by the will of the people. Of course it can. We all know that. The point is that we work under the constraints of the Constitution as it exists right here and now, not some future possible version of it that doesn't exist yet.We are not a direct democracy. We have an ultimate authority: The Constitution.Just because the majority of the population want to do something doesn't mean they are allowed to do it.Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to find marriage to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and overrule the opinion of 70% of the population by allowing interracial marriage?That's a greater public opinion against marriage equality than currently exists against same-sex marriage. If the SCOTUS could overrule the "democratic" opinion then, why can't it do so now? That is, after all, the job of the judiciary: To examine the law and see if it stacks up against the constraints of the Constitution.

quote:

---

quote:

---

what does marriage grant to a previously single person that makes the choice of who he wants to sponsor better?

---

​

It puts a functional limit on how many people can be sponsored for citizenship

---

So we regulate sponsorship of citizenship. Why do you have to get married to the person in order to fulfill the regulations?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I should also say I'm surprised to hear you implying that there is some evidence that marriage is some good for society.

---

​

Well, it's good for people, at least - married men live longer and healthier lives.

---

Every single one?Shouldn't we promote people finding the kind of life that makes them fulfilled and happy? Since when did living longer necessarily mean happier and more fulfilled? For many, marriage will be a good thing. For others, it will be a nightmare. Why treat marriage as a panacea when it clearly isn't?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Thanx for trying to stick with my original point. I just got back from a 3.5 days catholic pilgrimage to get all my sins absorbed *sigh*.Anyhow... This is easier said than done.First of all, the gay rights advocates are going against people that are against any gay right at all. As demonstrated by Buz and the rat, we are not dealing with just the issue of marriage.This reminds me of segregation. Since not everybody was willing to allow equal rights for American blacks, they came up with the "seperate but equal" policy. In theory, it was perfect. Children in different but equal schools. Adults riding different but equal buses.Anyone that ever attended a history class should know that "seperate but equal" was a fairy tale. In reality, racism and injustice was rampant... just like communism. Equal rights my arse.What I am trying to say is that history has taught us a very good lesson. Settle for anything less, say marriage is for straight couples and civil union is for gay copules, will leave too much room for people like buz and the rat to make the meaning of civil union to be meaningless.They actually proposed a bill that defines the difference between civli union and marriage in California (and a bunch of other states). The reason gay rights advocates rejected such bill is because it defines civil union in such a way that you might as well be single. In other words, it ain't fair. This was exactly my point in the first message of this thread. I seriously can't see how a reasonable person could possibly think that it was a mere coincidence the pro-amendment group left out the second part of your version. You think?Remember that we are dealing with the same people that argue there is no evidence for evolution.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!