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.