marriage
 

So: gay folks can now legally 'marry' in (I'm guessin') 30 of the 50 states.

Good on them!

Can't see any reason why gay folks ought to be insulated from the miseries, burdens, and horrors of 'marriage'.

And since gay folks (pound for pound) are no more intelligent, stable, insightful, or wise than straight folks, I expect their 'marriages' will fail in the same way straight 'marriages' do (1st-50%, 2nd-65 to 70%, 3rd-75% plus).

A damned good time for all.

-----

If you really want to solve the problem then get government out of the mix.

Is there a constitutional right to gay marriage?

Nope.

There’s also no constitutional right to straight marriage.

Marriage is a covenantal event that properly falls into the religious sphere.

Government (federal, state, regional. municipal) ought to be silent on the matter.

'But, Henry, what about all the legalities of 'marriage' (property and children and whatnot) without the oversight and sanction of government how is all 'that' supposed to be handled?'

There's a thing called *'contract': Joe and Jaclyn, Joe and Jack, Josephine and Jaclyn, get thee to a lawyer (or notary) and bestow upon each, through idiosyncratic contract, the rights and responsibilities each deems important, or, just jump the broom and get on with the livin'.

This way, government's role is simply as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter).

Imagine all the folks left hanging if such a thing were to pass.

Pro-folks would have no political rope to hold (and no money to make).

Anti-folks would have no political rope to hold (and no money to make).

Again: a damned good time for all.









*me, not a shyster...just seems codifying a relationship is more honest (and easier) than directing a culture

You're right!

Not very romantic, but that's in character for you, and perfectly legitimate.

FYI: my above post has me labeled as a bigot in another forum...go figure.

*shrug*

Not everybody who can spell "bigot" knows how to use it in a sentence.

That's weird. I could see a variety of knee-jerk responses to that post, but "bigoted" isn't one of them. Are they saying you're bigoted against straight people?

Marriage (of any kind):..:bolt:

Well of course they can:

:jig:

Emerson Bigots. :lol:

Yeah, I don't know how they got 'bigot' from all that. I don't think they actually read your post. You need to stop hanging out at IdgitsForum.com

I hate that Grav beat me to it. and he already made me laugh a little once today.

I agree with you too, Henry.

But I see that it being a state thing with standard legal repercussions make it more convenient for society. And if that's the way it is, then it should be available to gays as well as ungays.

V,

I notice we -- you and me -- have been agreein' more and more.

Better watch it or you might get labeled 'anarchistic sociopath' too.

#

Clod,

Here's the thread: http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...=25598&page=17

I weigh in with post 419.

Most of what follows my initial post in the thread I assess as nonsensical.

#

Grave,

I admit it: I'm no fan of marriage, but I'm not anti-marriage either.

Just not seein' the huge advantage to gov-regulated marriage (more accurately, the advantage seems outweighed by the oversight), especially for a group of folks who -- despite makin' a great deal of cultural headway -- are still seen as 'other'.

Suggesting to 'freethinkers' that mebbe one can D.I.Y. and sidestep the state (and gettin' the reaction I did) illustrates, I think, how deep the infection of 'society' (instead of civilization) is and how little 'individual means' are respected.

What I draw from the later part of the linked thread is: 'without the sanction of the state, I am nuthin'.'

Of course, I'm biased (bein' bigoted and sociopathic).

#

IM,

"You need to stop hanging out at IdgitsForum.com"

HA!

Tell me how to get off planet Dirt cuz that's the only way to avoid 'idgitery'.

#

Monster,

"...it should be available to gays as well as ungays."

Sure.

Someday it will be.

My post simply pointed out that for those who are tired of waitin', who place little premium on what 'the people' say, there is another option.

If you're still talking about a legal contract between the two individuals, that isn't another option. Because marriage isn't only about the two individuals, it's about how they are treated by other parties.

Insurance coverage is not offered to partners of a contract, only to spouses and family.
Hospitals only allow spouses to be involved in decision making and visiting patients. Partners of a contract are not allowed.
The IRS has a special filing status for spouses, but not for partners of a contract.

You would need to come up with a contractual partnership that is recognized by others the way marriage is.

I'm sure I could think of other examples.

"You would need to come up with a contractual partnership that is recognized by others the way marriage is."

Only if one has an interest in promoting the current, one-size-fits-all, version.

Idiosyncratic contracts, while not perfect, can go a long way to duplicating the important, core, benefits of 'marriage'.

#

"Insurance coverage is not offered to partners of a contract, only to spouses and family."

But this has roots in the current interpretation of marriage. Change the interpretation and those who stand to make a buck will change business practices to keep up.

#

"Hospitals only allow spouses to be involved in decision making and visiting patients. Partners of a contract are not allowed."

Again: this has roots in the current interpretation of marriage. Change the interpretation and those who stand to make a buck will change business practices to keep up.

#

"The IRS has a special filing status for spouses, but not for partners of a contract."

Never did see why married folks should have a special status.

If progressive income tax is the means, then make it so Joe (single or not) pays his share based on his income alone.

A special status is nuthin' more than the gov pickin' favorites.

#

"You would need to come up with a contractual partnership that is recognized by others the way marriage is."

Not really. What you need is the recognition of clear intent on the part of the contracted.

For example: a formal last will and testament binds any one involved (even those not contracted or formally recognized in the will) simply because the will is the codification of a clear intent.

Not seein' why an idiosyncratic contract between two (or more folks) wherein they give one another (with clear intent) these rights and these responsibilities (duplicating 'marriage') would be any more (or less) disputable than a state-regulated union

Oh, I got it. We can either A) give gays the same legal status as straights wrt marriage, or B) redefine society's interpretation of marriage and everyone's relationship with the government.

A can be done quickly and solves the hugely bigoted aspect of the system like cutting the Gordian knot.

B probably cannot be done, and leaves gays in an unequal position while it takes place.

Advocating A means you are putting gays in an unequal position for maybe decades. Maybe forever.

Hence, bigot. If you would like to not be considered a bigot, you should advocate for gay marriage and THEN advocate for what you think marriage should be and who defines it. After all,

So give the gays marriage (codify their relationship, albeit via that evil, unclean government) and then attempt to direct the culture to change. Address inequality because it's the right thing to do, and let the culture catch up.

That's how it used to work... xkcd today:

http://cellar.org/2014/xkcdmarriage.png

(And by the way, what an "activist" Supreme Court, making interracial marriage Constitutional when only a quarter of the people were in favor of it.)

"So give the gays marriage..."

Or: gays and straights can give themselves the kinds of marriages, unions, whatnots each deems suitable for him, her, or them.

Your beloved machine (the 'state' you cling [so very tightly] to) need not be involved except as arbiter of contract.

And that's what's scary, isn't it?

That mebbe gov is not the end-all, be-all; that mebbe folks are capable of gettin' along with things without overarching oversight and regulation.

#

"evil, unclean government"

I prefer 'necessary evil', thank you very much.

#

"Address inequality because it's the right thing to do..."

Apply yourself to that quixotic quest as you like.

They sure can! But you didn't follow through on that idea: ask anyone who's been divorced how that contract idea would work!

The only contracts that are EVER valid are those that can and will be enforced. We wrote and signed a contract, but now I have a big rock and I'm saying our contract is null. What do you do now? Who do you call? Why would whomever you call take your side, do your bidding? Aren't they going to side with the person with the big rock?

Who decides whether the contract is valid? Who determines what can be contracted? What is the punishment for breaking the contract? Ah shit, suddenly we need a system of scary police, scary courts and scary, written, BINDING laws!

(And since we're all human, we're gonna fuck that up!)

Mankind has not been able to advance itself without representative government. The arrival of representative government coincides neatly with society and culture becoming productive. It's not by chance. We need to agree on a lot of shit to get ahead, government is how we enable and encourage that. And here's the weird part: that is true even if we are collectively wrong about certain aspects of governing.

So I no longer mind that government is involved in determining survivor benefits. Because I am weak, and many people have big rocks. So let's allow the gays to have government help get them survivor benefits, even if government involvement in this contract is a bad idea. The worse idea is allowing the inequality to continue.

Folks are not capable of getting along without a representative government, period. I don't have to say maybe. Contracts must be enforced.

And in a representative government, "overarching" is just a big word for what everyone has compromised on so far; we can change it if we find it terrible. You didn't get your way on that: sorry, but that is your personal preference. You can work to change that but in the meantime we all have to figure out how to get along with each other.

UT,

"What do you do now? Who do you call? Why would whomever you call take your side, do your bidding? Aren't they going to side with the person with the big rock?"

I was pretty clear: government's role is...as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter).

I guess you missed that (or, mebbe you just want to rant and my thread provides a point of discharge...if so: glad to help a frustrated person out).

#

"Folks are not capable of getting along without a representative government..."

Yeah, that's why I call it a 'necessary evil'.

Right, the government only arbitrates contracts. But it's weird how the government that I end up with, and the government that you end up with, are quite different things, from that same starting point.

I say you are underestimating what it requires to arbitrate a contract. It isn't very long before a system identical to the one we have would evolve.

Who arbitrates the contract? "Government." No, I mean like, which person or system? Is it someone elected, or appointed, or did you have a different approach in mind?

"the government only arbitrates contracts"

I didn't say that.

Why are you playin' stupid?

Clearly: if you take gov out of the mix as licenser, promoter, sanctioner of marriage (allowing folks to craft contracts between one another [as they do currently in many other areas]) then gov has the role of contract dispute arbiter.

Have said this several times.

#

As to 'who' arbitrates: who (within gov) arbitrates contract dispute now?

Contract law is not new...contracts (as concept) are not new...the courts are not new.

And: I don't recall sayin' contract dispute is easy.

Divorce (a form of disputed contract) is not easy.

Not seein' your point.

It's slow going so please be patient and bear with me. My point will become apparent over time. This is a discussion, there is no winner.

"the government only arbitrates contracts"

I made that sentence to clarify. The longer version of the sentence would be, "So, in your suggested concept of how this should work, the government only arbitrates contracts."

That is what you are saying. You are also saying that your suggested concept of how this should work includes all of the current mechanisms of law.

So under your suggested concept, anyone can make a marital contract with anyone else, except for those who can't make a contract with someone else, such as people under 18. You can't make a contract with someone underage, so you can't make a marital contract with someone underage. Is this also your position?

"so you can't make a marital contract with someone underage. Is this also your position?"

Yes.

Why?

ETA: I seem like I'm leading here. Let me go further. Not all authorities agree on 18 as a marital age. In fact in many countries, including almost all of the US, you can marry younger with parental consent. In Scotland the age is 16. In Asia it's all over the place.

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

Should you be able to marry at 16? Does parental consent matter at all in this?

Yes, the law wiggles a lot on the matter of age of consent.

Does it do the same in matters of pure contract?

Can a 16 year old enter into a legally binding contract?

No, they cannot.


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...o-contract.htm


The legal age to contract refers to the chronological age a person must be to enter into a binding agreement. In most parts of the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, a person is a legal adult when he or she is 18 years of age. In some parts of the United States, a person must be 19 years old before he or she is a legal adult. In Scotland, a person can sign some types of contracts when he or she is 16 years old, but must be at least 18 to sign a contract to make a major purchase, such as buying a house or other property.

To form a legally-binding contract, each party who is signing it must be able to understand what is being signed. Not only does each party need to understand the terms of the contract, but everyone must also specifically consent to its terms. Children are not considered capable of fully understanding the terms of a contract and, in most areas, are not held legally responsible if they enter into one.

The law is written in this way to protect children from people who may attempt to take advantage of them. A young person may think that he or she has the capacity to understand the terms of the contract presented, but he or she must also be mature enough to appreciate the consequences of what is being signed. The principle was written for this purpose.

Wull, I find that to be unfair. A lot of 16 year olds are very mature. A lot of 20 year olds are not. Why are mature 17 year olds not allowed to enter into contracts? Why are immature 19 year olds allowed? Physical age is really a very weak way to determine who can enter into contracts. Why is it 18?

"Physical age is really a very weak way to determine who can enter into contracts."

But that's not the determiner.

"To form a legally-binding contract, each party who is signing it must be able to understand what is being signed. Not only does each party need to understand the terms of the contract, but everyone must also specifically consent to its terms."

"A young person may think that he or she has the capacity to understand the terms of the contract presented, but he or she must also be mature enough to appreciate the consequences of what is being signed."

Maturity/experience is the determiner.

Certainly there are 16 year olds capable of entering into binding contracts (emancipation is one means by which the under-aged can access the use of the legal system) and there are 60 years who cannot.

Broadly (based on community standards) 18 is seen as the minimum age wherein a person generally has the experience to consent.

It's not a perfect system.

The current system of marriage is not a perfect system.

My suggestions in this thread are not indicative of a perfect system.

And: considering the increasing level of infantilization in America, I’m inclined to think the age of consent mebbe ought to be set higher… ;)

Your suggested imperfect system only needs to be better than the current imperfect system, in order to be something to aim at.

Community standards made 18 the age. It did it the usual way: people apply all different kinds of pressure. Some of it through the vote: we vote for people who seem to advance the ideas we like, shared by the groups we are a part of. Some of it through the courts: when people believe the law is unjust, they will use power to demand that it be re-considered or overturned. Some of it just through conversations: convince others of an idea, and that idea becomes stronger in the culture.

If a government is representational, eventually the law will reflect the will of the people, when they exercise these kinds of forces.

That's kinda what my point is, I suppose. You say "let anyone construct a contract and government can only arbitrate!" but the people demand a special type of contract law governing certain types of contracts. If we don't have that, the government is not representing the will of the people.

That's a bigger problem than we started with. I think that's my point.

Step further after thinking about it. 18 is really remarkable isn't it? The law makes 18 the boundary because it's the will of the people, but it's more than that. Now, society reflects the law right back, and applies pressures on 17 year olds to get their shit together, and shames 19 year olds who don't have their shit together. Because hey, it's the law.

"Your suggested imperfect system only needs to be better than the current imperfect system, in order to be something to aim at."

If idiosyncratic marriage contracts comprehensively secure that A can live with B without interference, as A and B like, isn't it better than a piecemeal approach wherein A and B are blunted 'here' but supported 'there'?

On the day they sign the contract, yes. After a few years 24 hours, A and B will have different notions of how that contract should be upheld. In most cases, one party will be supported and one blunted.

"You're not the B I married!" "Well you signed a contract with this B, so tough titties! Where's my bourbon?"

But the reason it's not simply a matter of what's best for A and B is because someone else is the arbiter. Once A and B sign a contract, they are applying the force of law, which in a representative government, is all of us.





Cruelty is grounds for terminating the contract right now, which seems right. And unusual, for a contract. If you buy a car on payments and the bank calls you names, hates on you, tries to provoke fights, and damages your self-esteem, you're still on the hook for the payments.

Pretty much any place where I posted my suggestion to privatize marriage I got shit thrown at me. All I can figure is that it's way more important for a whole whack of folks to 'be accepted' than to simply get on with living.

Seems to me: any means by which a person can 'do' sumthin' with a minimal of interference (and assistance) from others is a good thing, but I guess that puts me in the minority.

*shrug*

I don't think anybody here threw shit at you. Maybe in those other forums. Serves you right for cheating on us. ;)

The problem is man/woman marriage... and Christianity... were the accepted norm for so long, tons of laws were written around that given. Therefore we have an entangled legal code which would be impossible to change, so obviously the best solution is to change who can marry and become part of the system. You'd have to designate which is the "wife" though, who's going to give up their social security benefits, tax breaks, etc. ;)

It's a very deep and complicated matter, and simply framing it that way is inaccurate, unfair, and a tad bigoted.

glatt: I don't think anybody here threw shit at you

Undertoad: a tad bigoted

'nuff said.

#

"It's a very deep and complicated matter"

No. It's very simple. Two folks love one another and want to give to one another certain exclusive privileges.

It's made 'deep and complicated' by other folks wanting to stick, and keep, a finger in the pie.

Again,

Once A and B sign a contract under the law, they are applying the force of law, which in a representative government, is all of us.

What A and B like they can agree to, but that's temporary. In order to make it binding they will have to involve the lot.

Again: government's role (in the idiosyncratic marriage contract) is simply as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter).

If there is no dispute then government is not needed.

You are underestimating what it requires to arbitrate a contract. It isn't very long before a system identical to the one we have would evolve. Imagine the year 1965:

Arbiter: "I am the appointed judge for this county and I find that this marital contract is not valid because it was made by two men."

Voters: "Yay we like Arbiter and re-elect him judge."

Hank: "But the marital contract is merely a financial instrument involving a small amount of voluntary servitude."

Voters: "That guy must be a faggot."

You already pulled the 'you are underestimating what it requires to arbitrate a contract' card.

*shrug*

No matter how burdensome the arbitration process is (look at divorce now for your sample), the government, under my scheme still would not license, sanction, or promote marriage, so, voters would not get a say (any more than they get now in any contract) and judges would only arbitrate the disputed contract (as they do now for many contracts).

Your little scenario is more akin to the current circumstance than anything that might spring from my scheme coming to be.

Your scheme cannot come to be because arbitration IS licensing and sanctioning.

I suggest you read the definition of arbitration.

You'll see this "arbitration IS licensing and sanctioning" is wrong.

As for my scheme coming to be?

I have no expectations that it will be implemented in my lifetime.

Can't see why that has any bearing on the conversation/debate.

The definition of the word arbitration has almost nothing to do with how people behave, when given the duty of arbitrator.

I say they will act as licensors and sanctioning bodies when given the duty of arbitrators.

A representative government given the job of "simply arbitrating" will inevitably not simply arbitrate, as if by some dictionary definition. It can't. It must reflect the values of the voters.

This is true even if the voters are wrong.

And I say even if arbitration should come to involve a measure of 'licensing and sanctioning' (though you haven’t really evidenced why that should be) all of it will still come at the unhappy end of a marriage contract and only if -- in fact -- the marriage contract is to be dissolved.

Again: if Joe and Jane, or, Joe and Jack, or, Jane and Jackie are making successful runs of their lives together, government (as arbiter and as big stick of 'the people') is not needed.

That was this:

Arbiter: "I am the appointed judge for this county and I find that this marital contract is not valid because it was made by two men."

Voters: "Yay we like Arbiter and re-elect him judge."

...or it could be anything else:

Arbiter: "I am the appointed judge for this county and I find that this marital contract is valid even though it is between a 40-year-old man and a 9-year-old girl."

Voters: "Our outrage is now on all media. We are storming the courthouse with tar and feathers unless Arbiter resigns."

In a representative government, the voters will create pressure to make the arbitration work according to the community standards.

Hence no need for the contract part? But if you need a contract, it's not worth anything unless the law fully recognizes it.

This happens all the time in real life. Let's say you have a pre-nuptial contract with your spouse, and it is a written agreement that you both have signed, but it's not witnessed and/or notarized. Well, you may feel free to divorce your spouse with no consideration of that piece of paper, because that contract will not be recognized. You don't even have to go to arbitration. Your spouse's lawyer will look at it and say, sorry, none of this applies.

"the voters will create pressure to make the arbitration to work according to the community standards"

The voters 'could' (not 'will').

The voters ‘could’ also move to amend the Federal Constitution and bring back slavery.

Would you support such a thing?


I'm wondering how many contracts between folks today (properties, services, etc.) are overtly blunted or directed by the voters?

#

And: this "this marital contract is valid even though it is between a 40-year-old man and a 9-year-old girl" is not possible (as discussed up-thread) for reasons that have nuthin' to do with voters.

I suggest using a notary in my first post.

Recognition/witnessing (for legal purposes) is not the same as licensing or promotion.

Notarizing is simply the formal declaration that 'this' is agreed upon by those involved and such agreement occurred on this date.

Again: not the same as licensing or promotion.

It's nothing but scrap paper if the law changes.

True, as with any contract today.

Not seein' your point.

"This is true even if the voters are wrong." (eight posts ago)

If the voters want to bring back slavery, for some insane reason, then slavery will have to be brought back, or the government will not be representational. A just government derives its power from the will of the governed. If the people demand slavery in enough numbers, and their current government doesn't agree, the government will be overthrown to achieve it.

Community standards are almost certainly wrong about other things right now. We may be wrong about things we don't know about. Who knows what will seem like overarching government in 50 years, 100 years? Many things that seemed like very obvious truths back then, seem ridiculous, even horrible now.

I was stating an example, not advocating an approach. Come on, man!

Read harder, it's been the same throughout the thread. Anyone else seein' my point now that I've made it several times?

Mostly, though, it's recognized that contracts between or among those capable of consent lead to stable transactions and therefore can contribute to relatively stable economies.

Yes, contracts can be heavily monitored but this is not the baseline.

And most contracts between individuals occur with minimal government involvement (except in the case of dispute).

I suggest that a neat way to bypass all the piecemeal, patchwork, struggle to secure marriage rights for gays is to simply move the impetus into contract law wherein A and B (and C and D, if we're talkin' about polygamy) can bestow by way of contract most of the rights and responsibilities that can now be found in government sponsored marriage.

Still not seein' why this suggestion is unworkable or so offensive to so many.

I can only conclude that the endeavor to secure government sponsored and licensed marriage for gays folks has less to do 'rights' and more to do with 'forcing approval'.

I work hard to minimize the involvement of folks in my business while, at the same time, a whole whack of others work just as hard to maximize involvement of other folks in their business.

*shrug*

If that’s what (other, you) folks want: most assuredly their/your wish will be granted.

‘nuff said.

Of course you don't, because you feel you can handle your life without government involvement. Want to form a partnership with someone, just make a simple contract.

But when the partnership goes sour, the enforcement or dissolution of the contract is up to the government to mediate... make that dictate. Any changes in the law after the contract was made, could void all or part of that contract.

"If the people demand slavery in enough numbers, and their current government doesn't agree, the government will be overthrown to achieve it."

Might makes the right: glad to see we agree.

Again: I suggest that a neat way to bypass all the piecemeal, patchwork, struggle to secure marriage rights for gays is to simply move the impetus into contract law wherein A and B (and C and D, if we're talkin' about polygamy) can bestow by way of contract most of the rights and responsibilities that can now be found in government sponsored marriage.

Still not seein' why this suggestion is unworkable or so offensive to so many.

Offensive I can't answer, but you can't write any contract with anyone that dictates law or policy to the IRS, SS or any other government agency. You'd have a hard time dictating policy to private companies like hospitals too.

"This is true even if the voters are wrong."

Yeah, well, that's on you now. When you decide to be intellectually honest with yourself, you will re-read the thread for comprehension.

~ and you will be shocked at your own slippery-slope, straw man, weasel arguments ~

Someone, following this thread, sent me the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/op...ontz.html?_r=0

Now, gonna read the thread, as suggested.