Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional by Geezer

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes; it will no doubt be a total mess and raise hell, but it would be nice if it worked.

I'm amazed that the right is always screaming about too much government intervention, but they have no problem when it keeps gays from marrying or a woman getting an abortion.

Hypocrisy, thy name is RWA.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 8:37 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Or, the better question Nix...

Why do we have to reorganize our society to placate a small percentage of the population? Why are libs/progs all FOR the so-called seperation of church and state, except when they want the state to impose on the church?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 9:28 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Why are libs/progs all FOR the so-called seperation of church and state, except when they want the state to impose on the church?

I personally don't want to impose anything on the church. I want to resist religion imposing on society and state - and specifically the claim that 'marriage is a religious institution'. It's basically two people choosing to pair and commit to each other - what's inherently religious about it? It's only religious if the people undertaking it choose it to be. Religiousity is optional, spirituality is optional.

I'm all for allowing individual churches/faiths freedom to discriminate, based on their religious convictions. But some churches are willing to perform gay marriage, and many gays desire to be married... why should the government intervene and stop them? Interested to hear 'libertarian' views on this.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 9:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Why are libs/progs all FOR the so-called separation (sic) of church and state, except when they want the state to impose on the church?

The real question is “Why are Conservatives/RWAs all FOR so-called “individual freedom” and less government intrusion, except when they want the church to use the government impose on the our liberties?” KPO has it exactly right. The state doesn’t intrude in religion, but a number of our leaders have let the church intrude in our government, laws and privacy.

So what, exactly, is the state imposing on the church? Want prayer in schools? Send your kid to a religious school; free education is paid for by the government, and is the government's purvue to keep the church out of it. Want to prevent gay marriages? Have your religion forbid it. Want to prevent abortion? Have your church forbid it. But don't make the STATE forbid it.

So let’s see some examples of the state imposing anything wrongly on any religion/church...I dare you.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 10:07 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Sorry, Geez, was gonna post on this yesterday but the power went out.

Thank you. A little sanity coming out of the halls of power is a welcome sight these days.

HKCavalier

The Defense of Marriage Act is THE big deal in equal rights for same-sex couples in the U.S., because it denies any Federal benefits to them...Joint tax filing, survivor benefits for Federal retirement and Social Security, joint coverage in Federal employee health care, just a whole bunch of stuff that state laws in regard to civil unions or same-sex marriage can't affect.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 10:09 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yup. I agree. I hope it's successfully challenged. The idea that someone can be dying in a hospital and their loving partner can't even visit them, or that they can die and said partner has no rights to anything, while a family which may well have cut the person off BECAUSE they're homosexual gets everything, is disgusting to me.

I meant to thank you for posting this, by the way. Thank you.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 10:46 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Nix, a civil union covers this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 12:31 PM

DREAMTROVE

If gays can't marry each other they will go on marrying other people under some sort of ruse of "legitimacy" which makes for miserable relationships. Better for everyone if gays marry each other.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 12:56 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm all for allowing individual churches/faiths freedom to discriminate, based on their religious convictions. But some churches are willing to perform gay marriage, and many gays desire to be married... why should the government intervene and stop them? Interested to hear 'libertarian' views on this.

Thank you KPO. That spells it out for me exactly. If a church decides it wants to carry out same-sex marriages, what the hell is the problem?

You know. Besides the usual: bigotry.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:00 PM

Quote:
If gays can't marry each other they will go on marrying other people under some sort of ruse of "legitimacy" which makes for miserable relationships. Better for everyone if gays marry each other.

Also known as marriage, period.

Anyway, good for them. Laws shouldn't create double standards. A law should be applicable to everyone. It would also be nice if it were agreed upon by everyone, in the sense of rule of law is supposed to be a social contract between people. The question, of course, is whether the contract is workable, if it makes illegal most actions that would cause harm to a person or their property, and doesn't intervene when a person's actions causes harm to no one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:31 PM

MINCINGBEAST

I don't care if gays marry other gays; its preferable to gays marrying straights.

We take this issue for granted. Amidst the furor over people being denied rights and dignity, or gays destroying western civilization, its easy to forget how novel this is all is. Gay marriage wasn't seriously up for discussion, let alone disagreement, a generation ago. Now its one of our great preoccupations. That is encouraging. And also, annoying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:08 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Someone wanted a Libertarian opinion. This is mine.

I think the entire debate over civil unions vs. marriage and who can have it is rooted, unfortunately, in a lingering lack of separation between church and state. Government ought not to have anything to do with marriage at all. It certainly should not be permitted to define or limit it. The idea that special benefits accrue to people paired according to the preferences of the state is abhorrent to me. Not only is the government definition of marriage as 'man + woman' unfair, but so too is its limitation of marriage at all. What if three people desire to be married? Six? Twelve? A grab bag of numbers and sexes and orientations? If a bisexual woman wants to marry two gay men, a straight man, and a bisexual man, so what? The government has decided to reward X vs Y marital arrangements, and I've never found a reason for it that wasn't rooted in religious morality and values.

So, let me tell you the flip side of this coin, and how it bothers me.

This ruling will establish the precedent that the Feds can't tell the states what marriage is. Thus the Feds will not be able to rule that marriage is an equal right, allowed for any group of adults who want it. And so, individual states and state clusters will continue to discriminate, making a long road-trip or short airplane jaunt a necessity for any unpopular group who wants to get married. This is very much a double-edged sword, and has the potential to bite on the backswing.

Only by removing all government definition of marriage will marriage ever be truly free for those that want it. As long as the government regulates people's commitments to one another, those commitments will always be dictated by government preference.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:28 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Nix, a civil union covers this.

Separate but equal, in other words.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike said it for me. Also; how many states allow civil unions? All of them? The state-by-state thing is absurd, given what it actually means, which is that those rich enough to travel are the only ones who could get married. It goes directly against equal CIVIL RIGHTS for all, and the "state" shouldn't be involved anyway.

What happened to my question?

“Why are Conservatives/RWAs all FOR so-called “individual freedom” and less government intrusion, except when they want the church to use the government impose on the our liberties?”

Anyone against gay marriage (or abortion for that matter) got an answer for that, since the opposite was hurled at liberals? That's kind of the crux of it for me where both are concerned (not to mention prayer in school, etc.). If you truly believe in personal freedom, how do you rationalize the state's involvement in religious questions?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm all for allowing individual churches/faiths freedom to discriminate, based on their religious convictions. But some churches are willing to perform gay marriage, and many gays desire to be married... why should the government intervene and stop them? Interested to hear 'libertarian' views on this.

Heh, we actually agree on something.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Why do we have to reorganize our society to placate a small percentage of the population?

That's what the southern States said about the Slaves in the 1860's wasn't it?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Government ought not to have anything to do with marriage at all.

Do you think that a non-American citizen should have no special right to become an American citizen if they marry one, so that married couple must live apart if the State decides it?

Quote:

Only by removing all government definition of marriage will marriage ever be truly free for those that want it. As long as the government regulates people's commitments to one another, those commitments will always be dictated by government preference.

Down with contracts then. But how is one, in that case, to ensure a company keeps it's commitment to you after it got your money?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:17 PM

KIRKULES

If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:50 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

"Do you think that a non-American citizen should have no special right to become an American citizen if they marry one, so that married couple must live apart if the State decides it?"

I don't think marriage and citizenship should have anything whatsoever to do with one another, if that's what you are asking.

Of course, that doesn't suppose that I endorse the fullness of current citizenship policy, either.

"Down with contracts then. But how is one, in that case, to ensure a company keeps it's commitment to you after it got your money?"

Thank you, Citizen, for making me clarify. Romantic commitments, is what I meant. I'm sorry if that was not obvious.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:52 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple."

Hello,

Absolutely. The idea of the government rewarding particular family dynamics and living arrangements is nonsense, in my opinion.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:57 PM

MINCINGBEAST

If gay marriage is legalized, I'm going to ask for the hands of hella many dudes in marriage, starting with Kirkules. I already have a plastic crackerjack ring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:09 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
If gay marriage is legalized, I'm going to ask for the hands of hella many dudes in marriage, starting with Kirkules. I already have a plastic crackerjack ring.

If you have good health care coverage I'll divorce my wife tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't think marriage and citizenship should have anything whatsoever to do with one another, if that's what you are asking.

So do you believe that a married couple should be kept apart for reasons of citizenship?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

"Down with contracts then. But how is one, in that case, to ensure a company keeps it's commitment to you after it got your money?"

Thank you, Citizen, for making me clarify. Romantic commitments, is what I meant. I'm sorry if that was not obvious.

Well, I get more than a little sarcasm from that, regardless what makes "romantic commitments" between two people different in essence from any other type of commitment between two people?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Absolutely. The idea of the government rewarding particular family dynamics and living arrangements is nonsense, in my opinion.

Well I agree with that too. It's silly how improved my financial position would be by simply saying "I Do", as a single male with a job I'm eligible for fuck all, get married and things start looking much easier, financially. Seems fairly fucking insane to me, though I find that with many conservative policies...

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 11:41 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Quote:
"So do you believe that a married couple should be kept apart for reasons of citizenship? "

No. What an awful thought.

Quote:
"regardless what makes "romantic commitments" between two people different in essence from any other type of commitment between two people?"

Because financial commitments are about money or property, and romantic commitments are about people and feelings and desires. The ways that people choose to enjoy each other's company should not be regulated or enforceable by any law under the sun. Do you really want the government to tell you who you can make a romantic commitment to, or when and how you can choose to end that commitment?

And yet we let the government tell us these things. This, so we can get a special set of privileges set aside for people who form relationships according to government preference. Or, put another way, to avoid punitive measures taken against people who fail to form these government-approved relationships.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:18 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes; it will no doubt be a total mess and raise hell, but it would be nice if it worked.

I'm amazed that the right is always screaming about too much government intervention, but they have no problem when it keeps gays from marrying or a woman getting an abortion.

Hypocrisy, thy name is RWA.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

As much as I would like to argue with this statement...I can't. It is true. However, as wulf pointed out in the next post...the door swings both ways with Rep and Libs...That's why I think Libertarians are a bit more consistent than others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:42 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well there we are then RivKane...one for one. I agreed with you on something recently; you agree with me on this. The world is a strange place...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2010 7:30 PM

RIVERDANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I think the entire debate over civil unions vs. marriage and who can have it is rooted, unfortunately, in a lingering lack of separation between church and state.

Yup.
I look forward to the day that no religion has control over whether I'm allowed to ask my girlfriend to marry me.
I might be looking forward to it for a long time, but I prefer to be optimistic. We already got rings and everything.

HRWATPWRTCITG

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2010 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Quote:
"So do you believe that a married couple should be kept apart for reasons of citizenship? "

No. What an awful thought.

Quote:
"regardless what makes "romantic commitments" between two people different in essence from any other type of commitment between two people?"

Because financial commitments are about money or property, and romantic commitments are about people and feelings and desires. The ways that people choose to enjoy each other's company should not be regulated or enforceable by any law under the sun. Do you really want the government to tell you who you can make a romantic commitment to, or when and how you can choose to end that commitment?

And yet we let the government tell us these things. This, so we can get a special set of privileges set aside for people who form relationships according to government preference. Or, put another way, to avoid punitive measures taken against people who fail to form these government-approved relationships.

Couple of points:
Romantic commitments, such as marriage, especially when there are children involved, are financial commitments. Because of, but not only because of that, I find your distinction rather arbitrary and intangible.

Should the government be able to tell a child and an adult they can't enter into a romantic relationship? What about people in positions of power over another, such as teacher and student?

Lastly:
You say that it's an awful thought that a government could keep two people apart for reasons of citizenship, and I agree. But the end of preventing that, and keeping government completely out of "Romantic Commitments" would seem to be incompatible. If immigration policy and marriage are completely separate, how is one to affect the other? How is a government that has no legally recognised marriage supposed to cater for people gaining citizenship through marriage? Unless of course it just does away with immigration altogether, opens it's borders and lets anyone gain citizenship without caveat.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2010 11:14 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Romantic commitments, such as marriage, especially when there are children involved, are financial commitments. Because of, but not only because of that, I find your distinction rather arbitrary and intangible."

Hello,

There are child support laws that exist independent of marriage. There are partnership and corporate and business laws independent of marriage. If we reject the idea that government ought to be rewarding or punishing specific romantic and living arrangements, then we find that we have all the financial laws we need to deal with financial matters.

"Should the government be able to tell a child and an adult they can't enter into a romantic relationship? What about people in positions of power over another, such as teacher and student?"

There are already laws governing age of consent that exist independent of marriage laws. Again, they have nothing to do with rewarding, punishing, or recognizing particular romantic arrangements. They instead deal with the basic issue of when a person is free to decide things for themselves. As soon as they reach that age of consent, the government responsibility to govern their couplings ends. These laws are distinct from marriage laws in that they are in place to protect the citizenry, which is the role of government. Adults need no such protection from their own choices.

"You say that it's an awful thought that a government could keep two people apart for reasons of citizenship, and I agree. But the end of preventing that, and keeping government completely out of "Romantic Commitments" would seem to be incompatible. If immigration policy and marriage are completely separate, how is one to affect the other? How is a government that has no legally recognised marriage supposed to cater for people gaining citizenship through marriage? Unless of course it just does away with immigration altogether, opens it's borders and lets anyone gain citizenship without caveat."

The incompatibility is an illusion. There is no need for citizenship and marriage to be connected in order for people to be together. There are legal ways for aliens to visit and live in this nation. There are ways for people to obtain citizenship. If someone wants to visit or live here or become a citizen, they should be free to do so. Any 'caveats' in doing so should be based on a willingness to follow our laws and show a basic ability and willingness to support themselves.

Marriage serves no official government purpose, other than mandating the lives of citizens and encouraging them to conform to moral philosophies adopted from religious belief systems.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.

This already happens. It's called a domestic partnership, though as I understand there's some age limitation.

There's a pretty good reason for this kind of arrangement to exist, say you're estranged from your family, or they're dead, or live far away, and you end up in the hospital. Even if you aren't intimate with a domestic partner, the idea is that you've both discussed what you want to have happen to you.

I'd have to look into the tax law to understand what the reasoning is for the tax breaks and credits such an arrangement gets, nothing comes to mind immediately. But they do get tax breaks for some reasons, so yeah, there's already plenty of unions and partnerships based more on convenience and tax purposes than anything else.

I don't particularly see anything wrong with that, though like I said, I have to think about whether applying a tax break to the situation is valid or if it makes any sense. But being a person who myself is not very affectionate, I'm going to end up dying alone, and I can see why maybe other people might want to take steps to prevent that. Romantic commitment doesn't even enter into the equation for me, from my perspective it's all about commitment, period, which may carry with it some manner of financial commitment (again, have to think about it).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There are child support laws that exist independent of marriage. There are partnership and corporate and business laws independent of marriage.

Ah, so marriage would be a "business partnership", presumably with a contract drawn up by a lawyer.
I can see it now:
"Do you take this man as your contractually obligated partner, to administer and liaise with in matters of personal arrangements, for as long as your nuptial contract may last?"
"Then I now pronounce you Mr and Mrs Jones PLC"

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If we reject the idea that government ought to be rewarding or punishing specific romantic and living arrangements, then we find that we have all the financial laws we need to deal with financial matters.

Yeah, but I reject your notion that marriage is not a special case, simply two people deciding to share a house and to stop having sex, and I reject the idea that it deserves no place in law.

You seem very anxious to portray marriage as a punishment, but it's not, it's a legal arrangement, one a lot more useful and robust than any business partnership, especially in this context. Some minorities in some governments have managed to get themselves an unrepresentative say in enforcing their personal view over the changing societal view, but deciding marriage should just be wholesale converted into some sort of business partnership, and destroying any legal representation of marriage is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm perfectly happy to remove an marriage incentive. I don't see why two people should pay less tax because of a marriage certificate, where you lose me is with your assumption that it's impossible for legal marriage to exist and it not be a tool of government social engineering. Replacing purpose built and robust marriage laws with some vague idea of using existing business partnerships because you don't like married tax relief is like blowing up your house to get rid of ants. I think you'd also find it would be profoundly counter-productive.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Should the government be able to tell a child and an adult they can't enter into a romantic relationship? What about people in positions of power over another, such as teacher and student?"

There are already laws governing age of consent that exist independent of marriage laws.

Yeah, and there's already laws about marriage and they predate the laws you're talking about. Saying "these already exist" when talking about abolishing something that already exists is a silly argument. It can work if you're talking about adding a law, but not here.

Anyway:
So you do believe government has a place in regulating "romantic commitments". You just want to call it something else...
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The incompatibility is an illusion.

It really isn't an illusion, and I note that you've not actually answered the question:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There is no need for citizenship and marriage to be connected in order for people to be together. There are legal ways for aliens to visit and live in this nation. There are ways for people to obtain citizenship. If someone wants to visit or live here or become a citizen, they should be free to do so. Any 'caveats' in doing so should be based on a willingness to follow our laws and show a basic ability and willingness to support themselves.

You've really skated around the point, and done so by bringing up stuff I've already addressed. What if someone doesn't meet the criteria for entering into the country? They don't have the amount of money or qualifications etc, the fact that they're married to someone can't be taken into account because you've decided that it has no legal status, so if they don't meet the citizenship requirements on their own, they don't get in and that couple will have to live apart. Unless you've also decided that entry requirements should be scrapped, which is, I note, something I put in my previous post.

So yeah, unless you want to open the borders and have no requirements for citizenship, it's very much a dichotomy, because a married couple has no standing in law, their marriage cannot be taken into account in a citizenship application, so married couples will, at times, be forced to live apart because one partner can't gain citizenship.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Marriage serves no official government purpose, other than mandating the lives of citizens and encouraging them to conform to moral philosophies adopted from religious belief systems.

Marriage hasn't been coopted from religion at all. It's all there in history.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:38 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

firstly i'm suprised at how civil all the posts have been. it's kind of refreshing.

anyway, marriage (from the outside) appears to be just people that love each other (supposedly) committing to each other. (i say supposedly because the divorce rate speaks for itself.) as i subscribe to the lennonist idea of "all you need is love" i hope everbody (especially me) finds someone to be with, gay, straight or bisexual, and that they should be able to express that however they wish.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:48 AM

Quote:
Ah, so marriage would be a "business partnership", presumably with a contract drawn up by a lawyer.
I can see it now:
"Do you take this man as your contractually obligated partner, to administer and liaise with in matters of personal arrangements, for as long as your nuptial contract may last?"
"Then I now pronounce you Mr and Mrs Jones PLC"

...Why not? I know this is mockery, but as someone without romantic inclinations, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. Requiring a romantic attachment seems like an emotional argument, which I don't see as having any basis in a modern system of law. An emotional appeal does not make for a very good definition (or limitation) of any legal arrangement.

I don't understand, I thought before, I heard you say that it bothered you about work-related benefits and double standards applies to single people versus married people. Something about saying "I do."

As for the citizenship argument, I don't particularly care about illegal immigration. What, they're looking for jobs? Cool. If their employer withholds tax from their paycheck, maybe they'll stop social security expenses from exploding long enough for us to fix it into something workable. Or maybe the set aside money could help to cut down on medical expenses. If they're not illegal, maybe they'll feel free enough to turn in the criminals that come in with them and prey on them, like the coyotes. Maybe not being illegal will prevent their employers from exploiting them, while at the same time providing much needed cheap labour our companies have been looking overseas for. We've had plenty of immigrant waves in the past, and plenty of fears that they were somehow taking over the country at the time. Why should I be caring about this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:15 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or, the better question Nix...

Why do we have to reorganize our society to placate a small percentage of the population?

Reorganize society? Wow. You never fail to bring the stupid in force.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:17 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.

Straight people do that now, so what's the issue? You're right in there with the Wulftard.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:35 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or, the better question Nix...

Why do we have to reorganize our society to placate a small percentage of the population?

Reorganize society? Wow. You never fail to bring the stupid in force.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

I don't get how gay marriage would "reorganize society", either. I get how CIVIL UNIONS and DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS could reorganize society, because now, for every contingency, you need one set of laws written for "married" people, another set for "civil union'd" people, yet another set for "domestic partners", and ANOTHER set for "unattached" or "single" people.

Why not just streamline the process, and call marriage a civil and/or religious contract between two consenting adults not currently married to other people? Boom. Done. Now you've got a set of laws that applies to everyone who's in a legally binding relationship.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:41 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Yeah, but I reject your notion that marriage is not a special case, simply two people deciding to share a house and to stop having sex, and I reject the idea that it deserves no place in law."

Hello,

I haven't heard anything that makes marriage something special or unique or different. You may reject my notion, but I haven't seen why my notion is reject-able other than that it offends some kind of sensibility. If we remove the notion of social engineering, the financial problems of a marriage are completely handled by financial laws that exist outside the purview of marriage. If you want something sentimental, you are free to supplement your arrangement with a religious or non-religious ceremony of your choosing. The government and the law should take no interest in your sentiments.

"You seem very anxious to portray marriage as a punishment"

You are not comprehending my words. Government is either punishing those who fail to get married or rewarding those who do (depending on your point of view.) I have never suggested marriage was a punishment.

"because a married couple has no standing in law, their marriage cannot be taken into account in a citizenship application, so married couples will, at times, be forced to live apart because one partner can't gain citizenship."

I have already explained what I think the citizenship law should be (this was somehow overlooked. Yes, I did advocate change.)

But why you think someone should need to be a citizen anyway to be with their loved ones is beyond me. The decision to be a citizen should be independent of the decision to marry. It should be possible to marry and also to choose not to be a citizen. You keep trying to suggest that if you're not a citizen, you can't be here. I'm not sure where you get that notion. There are lots of foreign citizens in this country at all times, without being married to citizens.

You keep using fanciful hyperbole like blowing up a house to kill ants and throwing babies out with bathwater. But I haven't heard any reason why marriage is needed as a government institution.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:43 AM

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Why not just streamline the process, and call marriage a civil and/or religious contract between two consenting adults"

Hello,

This new definition is already a problem, and infringes on the choices of the individual.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:56 AM

I'm on the fence with this topic. I can emphasize with religious marriage types not wanting to be lumped with people they staunchly disagree. On the other hand I can see why homosexuals feel second class and unfairly treated.

I see marriage as historically being defined as one man and one woman. This has always come with an economic advantage(and I understand why-make babies raise family, etc) that I like to think all people would want to take advantage of.

What I don't understand is why can't homosexual unions be called something other than marriage? If so many heterosexual couples are this offended why would homosexuals insist on "shoving" it in their faces? As long as the benefits of union are the same, that is. I see it as divisive to our country and unnecessary. I tend to think the civil union idea is overwhelmingly popular in this country and should be the chosen option. Sure their are millions who feel homosexual unions are wrong also, but they are a small minority.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:08 AM

MALACHITE

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes; it will no doubt be a total mess and raise hell, but it would be nice if it worked.

I'm amazed that the right is always screaming about too much government intervention, but they have no problem when it keeps gays from marrying or a woman getting an abortion.

Hypocrisy, thy name is RWA.

Well, I guess I'd start by saying we're probably all hypocrites to some degree or other...

Someone may have already addressed this. I'm not speaking from any expertise here, just opinion, but I don't think the RWA is opposed to all laws. Clearly, in cases they feel that a citizen's constitutional rights aren't upheld, they want further laws to provide clarification/protection. Gays getting married and women getting abortions are two very different issues. On the one hand, I don't see any harm to anyone with gays getting married, on the other hand, I can certainly see how some might see abortion as murder and feel that the rights of a fetus/baby need some kind of protection.

I don't want to derail the conversation. My main point is that the two issues are different and that I don't think the RWA is opposed to all law (unless RWA stands for something else, like, "Real world anarchists").

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...Why not?

A marriage isn't a business partnership.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:42 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kirk:

Quote:
If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits.

No, because many do, and nobody pays any attention. Jim and I were already a couple, already living together, and we DID get officially "married" for insurance purposes. The law determines under what conditions one can be covered or get tax breaks; why shouldn't homosexual couples have equal benefits? That has nothing to do with EXCLUDING heterosexuals, only with INCLUDING homosexuals and giving them the same rights as hetero couples.

Dmaan, perfectly expressed, and what it's all about in the end.

Question:

Quote:
What I don't understand is why can't homosexual unions be called something other than marriage? If so many heterosexual couples are this offended why would homosexuals insist on "shoving" it in their faces? As long as the benefits of union are the same, that is. I see it as divisive to our country and unnecessary.

As to your first question, why SHOULDN’T they be? As to your statement about “shoving”, I don’t see any shoving in anyone’s face. There is a desire for EQUALITY, nothing more. People who don’t like the concept are the ones who FEEL it’s being shoved in their faces, but the fact is it’s a private matter and there’s no shoving, unless you consider two people romantically involved who want to have their ties recognized by society as “shoving”.

In which case, how about interracial marriage, which was also illegal at one time? Isn’t legalizing interracial marriage “shoving” it in the face of racists who are uncomfortable with the concept? Should we do away with those, too, to avoid discomfiting some portions of society? I guess it’s equally divisive to our society, but somehow we’ve managed to survive it.

RWA stands for Right Wing Authoritarians—it comes from a book which attempted to understand a type of mentality. It does not mean ALL right wingers or all right-anything, just people like Wulf whose minds are made up and are unable to see past their prejudices, simply put. Nobody that I’m aware of said RWAs are against ALL laws; the question was why they, who express continuously that they’re against government intruding on our personal lives, are nonetheless in favor of (and MADE) laws intruding on people’s private lives. The two things mentioned are both instances of government intrusion in what should be a personal decision; therein lies the hypocrisy.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I haven't heard anything that makes marriage something special or unique or different. You may reject my notion, but I haven't seen why my notion is reject-able other than that it offends some kind of sensibility.

Much like I see nothing from you that supports your stance, nor that makes your notion anything more than reject-able.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If we remove the notion of social engineering, the financial problems of a marriage are completely handled by financial laws that exist outside the purview of marriage.

So you say, but you've not even begun to support that claim and the burden of evidence is on your side.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If you want something sentimental, you are free to supplement your arrangement with a religious or non-religious ceremony of your choosing. The government and the law should take no interest in your sentiments.

I've been talking about legal frameworks, not sentimentality.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
You are not comprehending my words. Government is either punishing those who fail to get married or rewarding those who do (depending on your point of view.) I have never suggested marriage was a punishment.

I understand your words perfectly. You're claiming that marriage is used as a bludgeon to force people to get married, and that that is all it's for. You're wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I have already explained what I think the citizenship law should be (this was somehow overlooked. Yes, I did advocate change.)

It wasn't overlooked, you just didn't say it. It was "overlooked" when I said it though.

So Anyway, you favor no border controls then?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But why you think someone should need to be a citizen anyway to be with their loved ones is beyond me.

Perhaps because one of us doesn't understand citizenship? You can't remain resident in a country in which you don't have leave to remain.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The decision to be a citizen should be independent of the decision to marry.

Nonsense. Of course who you're going to spend you life with is going to be a factor in whether you decide to gain citizenship of a country.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It should be possible to marry and also to choose not to be a citizen.

And how do you propose to do that with a world filled with sovereign nation states, precisely?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
You keep trying to suggest that if you're not a citizen, you can't be here. I'm not sure where you get that notion. There are lots of foreign citizens in this country at all times, without being married to citizens.

And you keep trying to pass off things that are entirely unalike as the same. Where you could get the notion that a permanent resident is the same thing as a tourist or someone on a temporary work visa is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

You keep using fanciful hyperbole like blowing up a house to kill ants and throwing babies out with bathwater. But I haven't heard any reason why marriage is needed as a government institution.

While you keep using flowery philosophical arguments entirely divorced from reality and deeply intellectually dishonest arguments trying to play off tourists as the same thing as a citizen. Then you try and dismiss what I've said by claiming well known English sayings (like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater") is "fanciful hyperbole".

You've yet to back up word one of your statements, and since you're the one making the claims, I'm just the one rejecting your claims, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Instead you wave your hands around and demand other people prove you wrong, rather than you prove yourself right.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:55 AM

Quote:
A marriage isn't a business partnership.

Yeah, I heard you saying this the first time.

I'm not asking you for burden of proof that marriages work one way or the other, I'm asking you your opinion on what defines a marriage.

I think Anthony was asking for something similar, when you went and demanded burden of proof.

What defines a marriage/civil union/domestic partnership for me is that functionally it's an agreement between two people to pool their resources, with the intention that doing so may better their future quality of life and financial prospects.

You disagree. But the conversation can't go any further unless you describe what you think defines marriage, because Anthony and I don't understand where you're coming from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:59 AM

Quote:
Where you could get the notion that a permanent resident is the same thing as a tourist or someone on a temporary work visa is beyond me.

A permanent resident is also not necessarily a citizen. In America, someone has to live here seven years before they can APPLY for citizenship. Meaning that after seven years they might not apply, yet still remain here, legally, on a visa or whatever other means they have. Maybe it works different in Britain, I don't know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:09 AM