Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

We have full access to an institution which does not acknowledge our difference. Which act, to me, constitutes discrimination

But the same could be said for a great many issues - I've already brought up the following:

Voting - we exclude minors from voting, even though many have an opinion and are more informed than some adults.

Funerals - we exclude living people from attending their own funerals.

Drinking - we exclude minors from buying alcohol, even though they want it.

Farm subsidies - we grant subsidies to farmer for raising certain crops, while others farm crops are ignored.

Housing - We grant tax breaks to those who pay home mortgate interest while those in apartments get nothing.

I could go on and on, but of course you get the point.

So tell me, why are homosexuals deserving of legal recognitions but apartment owners/minors/soybean farmers are not?

[belverron]

Minors are excluded from a great many things, your funerals bit is just silly, farm subsidies are stupid, and I probably want that tax break to go away. See, now, how I can disagree with you?

[Dirty Name]

And you didn't read my next post, where I said I knew that wasn't the point. The above post is in response to #1377, by the way.

Acknowledged. I just wanted to redirect the discussion so as not to detract from the original point I was making. Your point about "happiness" falls flat because gays are not forced into sham marriages - if happiness is their goal, they should stay with the person they love. If benefits are more important, they should get married to an opposite sex gay or lesbian.

But let's not lose focus here. We are trying to reach some consensus on how gays are systematically discriminated against.

[Dirty Name]

Minors are excluded from a great many things, your funerals bit is just silly, farm subsidies are stupid, and I probably want that tax break to go away. See, now, how I can disagree with you?

Disagree all you want. But at least be consistent. The federal government wants to encourage home ownership and investment because it's economically beneficial to society. So they offer the mortgage interest tax deduction. Apartment owners aren't screwed. They just don't qualify. How is this any different than the gay marriage issue?

[belverron]

Because I do not agree with your premise that opposite-sex marriages only are beneficial to society, of course. And I, again, probably don't approve of that tax break because I see no reason for the government to have an interest in where somebody lives.

[Dirty Name]

Because I do not agree with your premise that opposite-sex marriages only are beneficial to society, of course. And I, again, probably don't approve of that tax break because I see no reason for the government to have an interest in where somebody lives.

I wonder at which point you would ever want the government involved in anything. Are you a pure libertarian? Do you beleive that some government incentives can have a positive influence on society? Do you believe all taxes should be abolished? What federal programs do you support, and which would you do away with?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Dirty Name Do you believe all taxes should be abolished? What federal programs do you support, and which would you do away with?

Off-topic in this thread. Please stick to the issues as they relate to homosexual marriage.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Dirty Name I don't think you have thought this out very well. You advocate dropping marriage in it's entirety.

No, I just recommend returing it to a private institution, instead of a public one.

For what reason?

There was more than one. Ok, I'll try to summarize:

1) There's unlikely to be a large consensus over whether or not gays should be married, so assuming that a single federal decision one way or the other could resolve the issue is mistaken.

2) Individuals for themselves are more than able to determine who is married and what additional value it has, if any. Wedding presents should be voluntary and charitable, not come in the form of laws and the police force.

3) The institution of marriage primarily evolved around offspring and the family unit. Our public system treats married couples identically whether or not they have children, are capable of having children, or even intend to.

4) If marriage is determined solely upon love and companionship as the current system appea, then

5) The interests of non-married couples are sacrificed in favor of an institution that should in itself be of value without additional artificially enforced priviledges.

6) If public marriages were designed to promote the idea of marriage, do they truly even serve this purpose? If the institution of state marriage is the deciding factor for someone, then do these benefits of decreased tax liability, citizenship, alimony and other legal priveledges is that encouraging marriage for the right reasons, or the wrong ones.

7) Marriage and family laws have provided an excuse for government to grow increasingly involved in what would otherwise be private family affairs. I personally see this as a dangerous trend though some people may desire to have such involvement - people should get what they wish for and be responsible for it as well.

8) Marriage exists without government involvement. If you replace a state marriage certificate with a private marital agreement, issues of child custody and support or alimony can still be addressed, with the advantage of having these potential issues addressed openly ahead of time instead of being fine print hidden amongst the millions of laws we already have.

9) Fewer people get married now and marriages tend toward a shorter duration. There are many factors that potentially create this but the increasing amount of government involvement, and the burden it places on marriages is one of those factors, IMO.

10) And it's not just gay marriages. Why can't 3 people be married? Many nations around the world allow more than 2 people to be married, along with plenty of historical evidence (including the bible) to indicate that this was often typical in areas. Nature seems to indicate many species operate differently and to assume that everyone must conform to a single standard, whether or not it has any effect on anyone outside this affair is unreasonable. Even in America we've had poligamists since day one, and honestly I'd prefer to see men at least take care of women and children they're responsible for as opposed to seeing the legal need to operate in a hit and run fashion to avoid public involvement (I'm not trying to encourage these but too often public policy tends to leap before thinking with many unintended negative consequences - it's difficult to substitute 300 million independent minds with beaurocracy and expect as much available intellegence to shine through).

11) Government should not be involved in social engineering, only keeping the peace. Morality does not grow out of force.

I could easily list more but I'll stop there.

The above suggestion ignores Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution - "The Commerce Clause" and all of the case law that has already been decided on this matter. One of those issues is the fact that all states currently reciprocate the recognition of marriages from other states.

And who required the states respect marriages from other states? The federal government. So if you feel a gay marriage in some other state should not be respected, are you willing to let others opinions decide whether or not you have to respect it? I'm not trying to preach intolerance. What a couple guys do down the street is none of my business and I'm not calling the police but that's a respect that should be reciprocated both ways - police should not be enforcing anything with regard to individual private sexual or marital affairs, as long as these things remain within the realm of voluntary consentual actions.

So, the point is that states should not be forced to respect marriages in other states. Of course, most states and individuals would natural do this but there's no legitimate reason, that I can see why governments should declare any give respect or not to something that's an entirely private affair.

If a gay couple was to be considered "married" in San Francisco, but denied recognition in Salt Lake, then the state of Utah would face a lawsuit under the commerce clause.

Yet another reason to remove federal marriages, so we can stop trying to use the commerce clause to justify intrusion into private matters. The commerce clause was intended to assure people and products could physically travel between states - a good idea, but as most good ideas handed to government, has become a poor implementation. States already have a natural desire to trade. You could remove the commerce clause altogether (along with all the various rulings that relied on it) and we'd be better off.

Such legal manuevering is already happening as a result of the Massachussetts decision to legalize gay marriage. This is the precise reason the issue is headed to the Supreme Court, and the Supremes will take this case.

And so should we, as individuals, begin to change our views toward principled individual liberties or accept whatever decision regarding private social affairs a few people in D.C. decide? Sure, we could push ever more and more issues into the hands of police and "crack down" on all sorts of things some group of people desire to see but is that the country we desire to live in or not? The point is that no matter what the court rules, if it doesn't grant greater individual liberty with regard to marriage and respect toward it, we'll have one more unnecessary issue on threads like these that people will continue trying to find the 'right' government solution, when none exists because government created the problem.

Regean said these things and for a long time conservatives viewed government as the creator of many of our problems by increased intrusion and a heavier hand in enforcement, taxation, regulation and social liberties. It still applies but many people feel that because things happened to swing in their favor, no longer is government a problem but a friend that can be used to humble dissent. We need to realize our country was made great through cooperation, not competition, and through peace and innovation, not stagnantion and conflict.

So I ask you, on what basis will the Supremes find that gays are discriminated against? In other words, what criteria do states use to deny homosexuals the right to marry one another? Is sexual orientation even considered by the states? No. What IS considered is whether or not the couple seeking marriage is an opposite sex couple. The sexual orientation of that couple is never questioned. Consider two straight men who seek "marriage benefits." Are they being denied rights based on sexual orientation? Of course not. What about an opposite-sex gay couple wishing to be married for benefits? Can they get married? Certainly! So it's easy to see that "sexual orientation" is not a determining factor for marriage. I'll be waiting for your take on this.

Yes, they are being denied marriage to their sexual partners. If we defined marriage as only between 2 same sex individuals, then heterosexual individuals would be denied marrying there sexual partners.

I have never disputed the issue that marriage has been and should remain an institution between a man and woman (though seriously I don't see a reason to really deny 3 people getting married), but these things are all personal and the reason why marriage has become an issue of contention is because it was wrongly addressed as a federal issue.

[Dirty Name]

Off-topic in this thread. Please stick to the issues as they relate to homosexual marriage.

It's not off topic, Your Honor. I am using this question to illustrate an inconsistency in Belverron's argument. Further, Belverron's attitudes towards other matters of fiscal policy have direct implications in this discussion.

[Dirty Name]

SteveA, there is lot to respond to, and very little time to give your post the attention it deserves. Perhaps later tonight...

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name There can be no doubt that this is the strategy, and this is exactly why conservatives oppose gay marriage. Just tell me on what grounds you would deny two brothers the right to marry? On what grounds would you deny two heterosexual males the right to marry? If gays can be "married" why not heterosexual same sex friends? The concept of gay marriage based on equality is pure folly.

Personally, I wouldn't deny two brothers the right to marry. Free country, right? Denials would extend to cover underage/minors and other people who are not legally recognized as able to make such a decision for themselves. I also wouldn't deny two heterosexual males the right to marry one another. Same sex friends can certainly be married. There are plenty of married heterosexual opposite gender couples that do not have children, so the whole "benefits for the family unit" is moot for them. So you should really argue that marriage should be limited to opposite gender couples who are procreating.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Dirty Name SteveA, there is lot to respond to, and very little time to give your post the attention it deserves. Perhaps later tonight...

Yes, I understand. I don't think I've ever been accused of saying too little (and likely tend to ramble on occasion)

Just consider that depending on what the Supreme Court rules, many people might have a 50/50 chance of finding themselves forced to something they don't want to over an issue (that in my opinion) should instead just be put back under the control of individual discretion. I think single people, religions, gays and parents would likely find the individual freedom granted by such a solution to be more satisfiable all around, it would leave marriage as an institution not cast into stone by the letter of the law but, as originally intended, a means of encouraging families, companionship and long term commitments.

Anyway, have fun.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name All the above may be true, but can you say that it would prevent them from having kids in the first place? That's the key difference between gays and straights. Normal sexual relations between straights can and often does result in children. For this reason, the federal government has a compelling interest in encouraging marriage for straight couples.

Homosexuals (or same sex heterosexual married couples) obviously cannot procreate with one another. However, they can still make good parents to many children in need of a good home. Of course the federal government wants married couples with children to stay together, because single parenting can cause a lot of problems, financially and otherwise for the individual, the family, the community, and indeed, the nation. However, with the divorce rate over 50%, it doesn't seem that the federal government's "compelling interest" in encouraging marriage is making much difference. People marry because that's what they believe they should do when they're in love or willing to make a lifelong commitment to be with one person and share their lives, assets, debts, finances, and responsibilities. I doubt tha the government is encouraging opposite gender marriage and discouraging same sex marriage because they Want more kids running around. With the divorce rate and the number of single parents we already have in this country, not to mention the number of kids, the idea that that particular problem would be made worse by allowing same gender marriages is a total fallacy.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name No. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on what basis we discriminate against gays in relation to marriage? There has to be some basis. Can you not put it into words, as the EEOC does on employment applications (EEOC Disclaimer: Employment offers are tendered solely on the basis of qualifications without unlawful consideration of Race, Religion, Age, Color, Gender, Marital Status, National Origin, Disability, Veteran Status, Sexual Orientation, or as otherwise required by applicable law)? Which of these or any other basis is being used to "single out" heterosexual couples?.

Did you even read the rest of the post? They're discriminated against based on sexual orientation AND gender.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name OK, let's test your theory then. Are there cases where opposite-sex, yet gay couples have gotten married? Yes. Here's a link to prove it happens all the time: http://info.date.com/R2/infotopic_37...ntid_2154.html Was sexual orientation even considered by the government in granting benefits to such a couple? No. It's not the issue.

Of course it's the issue! A man and a woman walk in for a marriage license, even if they're both gay, and the clerk sees a man and a woman, not two gay people. Their orientation would not even be questioned. Two men walk into the same office and the same clerk sees two men, obviously gay, therefore, and therefore also not able to qualify to marry one another.

Consider this analogy:

Quote by: Dirty Name Our society has limited resources, and the government has decided they wish to encourage the production of oranges. After all, oranges are a healthy snack and most of society likes them. So the government offers a subsidy to all orange growers to encourage continued production of oranges. A small percentage of the population is doesn't like oranges because they taste bad to them, and they don't want to produce them. Instead, this group prefers the taste of chocolate candy bars and sets out to produce them instead. When the orange subsidy is passed as law, the candy bar folks get all worked up and demand equality, saying they don't like oranges and candy bars taste so yummy, and since production of candy bars doesn't really hurt anyone (as long as you brush your teeth), why shouldn't the candy bar producers get a subsidy too? After all, isn't the government discriminating against candy bar producers on the basis of food group orientation? The answer, of course, is no. No discrimination exists on the personal level. The government doesn't care what sort of food each producer prefers. The government doesn't deny benefits based on food group (or sexual) preference. It denies benefits based on whether or not the producer (or couple) QUALIFIES for benefits.

So the candy bar group doesn't qualify for benefits because it's a smaller group? That's oppression.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I wonder at which point you would ever want the government involved in anything. Are you a pure libertarian? Do you beleive that some government incentives can have a positive influence on society? Do you believe all taxes should be abolished? What federal programs do you support, and which would you do away with?

I evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, of course. In general I do not believe government provides efficient mechanisms, so if it is not essential.... I still haven't figured out what I deem essential. As PatrickHenry pointed out, that is a subject for another thread or private messaging.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: belverron I doubt that argument holds up when considered in the context of a binding treaty. They are marriages in Canada. Now, whether the fact that Canada changed their definition of marriage after the treaty's ratification affects how we interpret it is another matter. I'm not saying we'll be recognizing those marriages. But it is an interesting possibility. I don't know why I bother posting all these nifty tidbits I've acquired: clearly you don't appreciate them. For that matter, I don't know why I bother discussing anything with you.

What treaty are you talking about?

As far as I know, most states have "if it was legal to marry where you were, and if it would be legal to marry in the state your in" clauses in their marriage rules.

[belverron]

Let me see if I can find a source for this. I heard it from my government professor.

[belverron]

Here we go.

Quote by: WorldNetDaily Perry, who considers himself the first national homosexual-rights leader to marry in Ontario, argues the U.S. government, through a concept called "lex loci contractus," has recognized marriages performed validly in other countries, including Canada. A decision not to recognize same-sex Canadian marriages, he insists, could be a violation of international treaty law and of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. (link)

Definition of lex loci contractus.

Interesting stuff. Maybe it'll give us something new to talk about.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SteveA No, I just recommend returing it to a private institution, instead of a public one. >snip>

This is a typical dogma derived Libertarian response that I must admit a large degree of annoyance for hearing voiced yet again. As revealed in the DOGMA of Libertarianism: (No matter what the topic under discussion) It is only a problem as a result of the EVIL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Oh, and Anarcho-Libertarianism dogma: All government is EVIL. Dismantling the government will eliminate the problem. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

>fake cultured accent>ON<Indeed, my good capitalist, why don't we "privatise" parenthood next? Why, should the EVIL government INTERFERE the evolution of such an infinitely evolving concept? Why do we even need a legal status of "parent" or "guardian?" Parents exist without the legal status. Leave it to government to come up with a legal status that is totally redundant>OFF<

Are you catching onto the absurdity of such arguements? There is nothing about marriage that infringes on anyone's liberty to do anything except be considered married if they don't meet the requirements. Just the same as there is nothing about the legal status PARENT/GUARDIAN that denies anyone anything except being considered a parent if they don't meet those requirements. The point of having different legal statuses is that people in one category are considered to need different treatment that people in another category. Just as citizens are treated differently from aliens, married people are treated differently than single people. A legal status in itself does not encourage or discourage anything. Does having a legal status "murderer" encourage criminal behavior? It is how a particular legal status is treated that determines whether it is being encouraged or discouraged. Whether a particular status needs to be encouraged or discouraged is an entirely different discussion than whether the status itself needs to exist. The issue is whether there is anything sufficent about a same-sex couple that means this particular situation should be moved from the SINGLE column to the MARRIED column.

Now, your post was considerably longer than my response. I haven't gone through the process of responding to your individuals points because there is but a single response needed. I repeat, "There is nothing about marriage that infringes on anyone's liberty to do anything except be considered married if they don't meet the requirements." And, since no one's liberty is being violated, how can a Libertarian like yourself even hypothetically support taking an institution that has laws that are relatively compact and simple to understand and even consider replacing it with the marriage equivalent of the internal revenue code?