PDA

View Full Version : The Marriage Rights Thread



Pages : [1] 2

Magtig
08-31-2012, 05:34 PM
One of the Koch brothers said the following at the Republican National Convention last night:

"I believe in gay marriage," the 72-year-old Koch told Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html). He was in Tampa as a New York delegate and to attend an event held by Americans for Prosperity -- the political advocacy group he helps fund and lead. He also told the newspaper the U.S. military should withdraw from the Middle East (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/middle-east.htm#r_src=ramp) and that the federal government should consider tax increases and defense-spending cuts to improve fiscal woes."

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/08/31/koch-brother-breaks-gop-supports-gay-marriage#ixzz25AKUNcxN


What the shitting fuck? Koch is not a human... he's a two dimensional card board cutout of everything I hate. What in the sam hell is going on here!?

aggroculture
08-31-2012, 05:40 PM
To me the debate, at least in the US, comes down to the separation between church and state. Civil marriage needs to be extended to all adults, not just the straight ones. Religious people have no business imposing their beliefs on the rest of us.

halloween
08-31-2012, 06:57 PM
I just want to point out how weird I think using the word "believe" in that statement is. Actually, the use of "believe" in political opinions is strange. Even signs saying "I believe in So and So!" irritates me. Maybe because of it's association I have with the religious use of "belief", but I'd rather people use words like agreeing or supporting.

Magtig
08-31-2012, 07:12 PM
That's an interesting point. Believing in something somewhat implies faith, which as we all know refers to the magic fairy pixey dust of reality: denial of facts. Ultimately though we're probably coming from a non-theistic bias.

I tell people that one of the only things I believe in is equal rights. Not because I'm so moral or anything, but because it's so totally obvious even to an over-thinking cynic. I believe in it because it's one of the few things in this world that falls squarely into the good vs bad binary. Using the word belief is not by accident though; I use that word primarily in conversations with people who tend to be religious and can relate to it better than the slightly more nebulous, "I support." It helps me present a moral case for the equal treatment of people far too easily characterized as perverts and sinners in conservative circles.

Elke
09-01-2012, 05:22 AM
UGH, magtig. Your first sentence actually made me not want to read the rest of your post (which is also a bit condescending, but I can see your point). In a lot of languages, there are no different words for what the English call 'faith' and 'belief'. It's semantics, and it sucks.

What the argument comes down to, though, is nothing to do with religion and everything with whether or not you accept the relativity of ethical systems. Coming from a secularist country, which has liberal legislation on abortion, marriage and euthanasia; the debate is no different here. People who are otherwise atheistic and even antitheistic will bring out the sanctity of life and the argument of the slippery slope just as much as christian conservatives.

The point is this: if you truly believe that your ethical system is the best, are you ever capable of allowing other ethical choices to be possible in legislation?

allegro
09-01-2012, 10:00 AM
In the United States, the point is this:

Look at this list and see what ANY of it has to do with the Bible or God etc:

http://money.msn.com/family-money/6-financial-benefits-of-marriage-investopedia.aspx

The STATE considers marriage a CONTRACT and a FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT, one that only the STATE can license, and that only the STATE can sever (via divorce).

Financial benefits should be available to EVERYONE. To deny them based on God or the Bible is a violation of civil rights.

Elke
09-01-2012, 11:40 AM
Ha. Like considering marriage a financial contract open to everyone isn't part of an ethical system.

allegro
09-01-2012, 11:46 AM
Well, yes, ethical, but I guess we stress that it's based on our constitution and civil rights, NOT the Bible.

See Loving v. Virginia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

Elke
09-01-2012, 01:07 PM
Yes, but that's the point: not everyone in the world thinks the concept of civil rights is a good one. Not everyone thinks the individuals rights should be protected over the collectives. Yet most of us assume that a secular state with the most liberal civil rights concepts is ultimately the most ethical one. Which is in itself an ethical notion, based on an ethical system.

So again, the question is: how is your (and my) belief that a secular government with extensive civil rights and liberties is the best possible government when it comes to social issues any different from the belief that a government that bases the moral principles it enforces on a holy text? There are solid arguments that can be made for a government that bases its social policies on a very clearly defined moral system, rather than the very woolly and ultimately almost nihilistic concept of absolute civil rights (there is a very real danger that it results in desintegrating individualism, as K.A. Appiah wrote about).
Again, I'm in the second corner, but it annoys me that people somehow don't see how their ideas are no different from the christian conservatives or the right wing nationalists in the UK or even islamists.

Only moral relativism can allow for the stance you advocate, and a lot of people aren't moral relativists. It's their right to not be that, and it's their right to advocate their point - that's what you and I believe.

aggroculture
09-01-2012, 01:53 PM
Elke: correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you erect a false equivalance. A secular liberal state which allows same-sex marriage is not taking anything away from religious people, however much they may believe it to be the case. They already must accept the difference between civil and religious marriage: if you get married in a church you still need to file with the state for the marriage to be recognized. Whereas a theocratic state that imposes its beliefs on everyone, religious or not, is taking something very material away from a certain section of the population. This is why the two systems are not equivalent. One lives and lets live, the other does not. Yes, both are ethical systems: but one is fairer than the other.

Magtig
09-01-2012, 02:19 PM
Whereas a theocratic state that imposes its beliefs on everyone, religious or not, is taking something very material away from a certain section of the population. This is why the two systems are not equivalent. One lives and lets live, the other does not. Yes, both are ethical systems: but one is fairer than the other.
Exactly. Maybe I'm misunderstanding too, but I don't understand how a level playing field negates individualism. Private organizations, such as religion, are still free to forbid homosexuals from being married in their particular church are they not? Wait... speaking of which, is that what individualism gets based on in your argument? The denial of rights/enforcement of moral code? Actually, hang on, how is uniform enforcement of a moral code promotional of individualism. Isn't that kind of like saying conformity promotes individualism?

Anyway, regarding my comments on the word faith. I realize that not all religious people are in denial about problematic facts regarding their faith, but here in Christian America I've seen it used over and over as exactly what I said, 'denial of facts.' If you want to be offended by that your ire should probably be directed at fellow Christians who so regularly rely on the phrase, 'you just have to have faith,' as an escape hatch from cognitive dissonance.

Elke
09-01-2012, 03:16 PM
This is why the two systems are not equivalent. One lives and lets live, the other does not. Yes, both are ethical systems: but one is fairer than the other.

THAT is in itself an ethical judgement: it's moral relativism. THAT is my point. There's nothing neutral about a secular state.


So, for those with too much time on their hands: the long version.

We already picked an option, and value both systems through the lense of that option, which makes it seem like a false equivalance. Much like a child would not consider a meal of Brussels sprouts, mashed potatoes and liver equivalent to a nice hearty bowl of spaghetti bolognaise, even though the nutritional value is probably about the same.


Actually, hang on, how is uniform enforcement of a moral code promotional of individualism. Isn't that kind of like saying conformity promotes individualism?

Again, exactly my point (except where I refer to Appiah): civil liberties are based on the concept that every human being has equal value in itself, regardless of its contribution to society, and complete ownership of its body, its actions and its thoughts.
Post-enlightenment Western-Europe and (parts of) the U.S.A. are unique in that idea. If you look throughout history, it's an idea that is often touched upon, but even more often disregarded. It's not a natural state of things, quite the contrary, because objectively speaking we are not equal.

The option that our countries have taken over the course of the last 200 years is to consolidate this ethical idea of equality in legislation, which has encouraged us in turn to believe in this idea. An idea that has no basis in fact, but is a moral concept.

And it's obvious most people here believe that this option is the best one - see aggro's use of the word 'fair'.

But there are a good number of people out there who do not believe that all human beings are equal, and therefore don't believe in the concept of civil rights that we use. And while 200 years of legislation has made the minority into a vast majority, those minorities still have the right to differ in opinion with us. It's a right that we hold sacred because of the moral option we chose.

Our political individualism is a form of collective thinking, because the majority of us western people believe it's the soundest and most rational option. But I can think of a number of societies that don't, and not just because they're being oppressed by evil communist regimes.
When Appiah mentions the desintegrating effect of individualism he does it in much the same way as Nietzsche ties nihilism to science: it's a possible effect, if the actual benefits don't match the expected ones. In other words: if society lets you down and doesn't provide a safehaven for you, you tend to become self-centered rather than individualist, cutting yourself off of the collective.



Also, magtig? [I]I realize that not all black people are thieving thugs, but here in my block most of the gang members who make my life uncomfortable are black, so don't call me racist, blame the blacks who ruin it for the rest of you.
Yeah, I'm sure there's a fancy name for that type of reasoning. Oh, wait, that's it: hypocrisy. Or intellectual laziness. You choose, I'm not picky. Just irritated.

aggroculture
09-01-2012, 04:12 PM
Elke, I still don't get your point. You are basically saying that we are judging both ethical positions through the prism of one of them, and finding that one superior. And so? Should we refrain from doing so because we are biased by the ethical position from which we make a judgment?

How would acting in a morally relativistic fashion help here? We have an either/or situation: we either legalize same-sex marriage, or we don't.

Harry Seaward
09-01-2012, 04:33 PM
I wish the people who say "The government should have no place in the bedroom!" would be consistent. They're right, they government should have no place in the bedroom. And that includes marriage. It's an archaic, pointless tradition. I think it should be abolished, for both gays and straights. It's not the government's job to be handing out pieces of paper that say you're in a committed legal relationship with another person.

Magtig
09-01-2012, 06:58 PM
Also, magtig? I realize that not all black people are thieving thugs, but here in my block most of the gang members who make my life uncomfortable are black, so don't call me racist, blame the blacks who ruin it for the rest of you.
Yeah, I'm sure there's a fancy name for that type of reasoning. Oh, wait, that's it: hypocrisy. Or intellectual laziness. You choose, I'm not picky. Just irritated.
Being black is not analogous to choosing a religion.

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
09-02-2012, 06:18 AM
Elke wasn't saying it was. Her point soared right over your head.

Try it another way: it's hard to see roses when you're wearing rose-colored glasses, but the blue hydrangeas stand out. Instead complaining to the gardener about the flowerbed having so many hydrangeas, maybe what you really ought to be doing is taking off those glasses.

You're wearing several fallacies and biases on your face—right there, sitting there on your nose, where everyone can see.

And actually what she's really saying (by my interpretation) is that you need to be aware that you're always wearing some kind of tinted glasses, and that you need to be aware of that fact before you start telling everyone what color the sky is.


How would acting in a morally relativistic fashion help here? We have an either/or situation: we either legalize same-sex marriage, or we don't.
It's the support in '(YES/NO) because I believe...' It isn't that there's a way of acting morally relativistic that would help, it's that the moral relativism informs our side on that argument, and has led to our being confronted with it in the first place.

Elke
09-02-2012, 11:00 AM
Thank you, Corvus. That.


We are moral relativists, which is what allows us to think it's better for everyone to have the right to choose than to have those choices limited or even made for you. But a group within our western societies clearly believes that universalism is a better approach to ethics, and they oppose our moral opinions. They're not necessarily misinformed biggotted Biblehumping morons, because despite a lack of Bible belt in Belgium, there is a similar voice in my very secularist utopia and it doesn't take its arguments from religion, but from social mores, conventional wisdom and even science.
[Also, moral relativism itself is universalist itself, imposing moral relativism everywhere.]

I'm just getting fed up with this argument reduced to enlightened open-minded people / religious nutcases. It's too easy. And that was where my initial remarks came from: annoyance at the reduction of an actual legitimate ethical / political debate to black/white terminology. If that's all you can take away from it, you're really thinking no harder about the issue than the aforementioned Bible belters. Who, for the sake of argument, I just all lumped together even though they clearly ought not be.

allegro
09-02-2012, 12:03 PM
I think those of us in the U.S. are only speaking about what it's like here in the U.S., not all over the world.

Here in the U.S., LOTS of times you see a politician (or people backing certain politicians) on t.v. talking about being against same-sex marriage, they cite the Bible as their reason for being against it. And they cite freedom of religion as their right to do so. That's why we keep stressing that the Bible shouldn't dictate our rights, due to separation of church and state: because of all these Americans very matter-of-factually citing "Leviticus" as the single simple reason why same-sex marriage is "wrong" and that freedom of religion allows them to think that way.

I do occasionally see people on television -- particularly senior citizens and MOST particularly African American senior citizens -- simply being against same-sex marriage because they "believe" that a marriage is between one man and one woman (and they somehow believe that anybody going against that denigrates their own marriage) and they don't particularly state the Bible as being the reason for that belief, but we're so overwhelmingly "Christian," here, we pretty much (perhaps erroneously) assume it's because the Bible told them so. (Or, at least, their interpretation.) In our country's history, we've used the Bible many times as a reason for our actions. Like slavery, for instance. Stating this in this forum isn't pointing fingers at "religious nutcases." It's simply pointing out the history -- in THIS particular country -- of people using the Bible as an excuse. Not the Bible's fault; it's the people's fault. They'll find any angle they can to avoid uncomfortable change, and the Bible is often the first excuse they'll trot out.

Elke
09-02-2012, 12:49 PM
I do understand that, but I also think that the actual debate - the actual conflict - is a much, much larger one than marriage equality, and I think understanding the scope and nature of that debate and your own position in it, is important.

I also suspect a lot of secularists think that a further seperation of church and state is going to 'solve' much of the problem, and it isn't, because in the end it's a clash of two very different ethical viewpoints that are irreconcilable.

halloween
09-02-2012, 12:50 PM
I have to say, I think I see the point that Elke made, and it made me change the way I view my first statement- saying I believe in equal rights definitely implies moral code, so I now I feel less irritated at the "I believe in gay marriage" statement. But, I agree with allegro's statement, that it just feels so damn loaded considering the context of...this country. Overall, is it terrible to say I got excited at how much debate/through provocation was caused over a small observation in word usage?

Magtig
09-02-2012, 03:05 PM
The point is this: if you truly believe that your ethical system is the best, are you ever capable of allowing other ethical choices to be possible in legislation?
So to go back to your original question, if this means legislating against gays and other minorities, then no. I believe everyone should have equal rights in eyes of the state, but I also believe that if you want to belong to a religion that doesn't allow gay marriage it's your right to do so. It's the religion's right to have their own conditions for membership as well. Isn't that the best of both worlds? I realize the paradox this would create if a state religion were to use the same system, but that's the difference to me: the morals that secular versus non-secular would choose.


So again, the question is: how is your (and my) belief that a secular government with extensive civil rights and liberties is the best possible government when it comes to social issues any different from the belief that a government that bases the moral principles it enforces on a holy text?
It's different in terms of the effect on groups of people. When you say we're not objectively equal, aren't you mostly speaking on an individual level? Entire groups of people are objectively equal, aren't they? A secular government is more likely to base its particular morals on scientific fact and consensus of it's people (hopefully, at least), rather than scripture; there's an inherent pragmatism to this. The diversity of secular leaders is a way of promoting the rights of diverse groups. Structurally, maybe the two aren't so different. But when you say that our ideas are no different than Christians, Islamist, fascists, etc I can't help but think, 'but our ideas would allow all of those groups to exist, so long as they didn't harm others (see the KKK), whereas their systems would not allow me to exist as the person I am at all.' Their ideas do not exist on the premise of justice as fairness, they exist on the premise of God's word and nothing else. One set of morals is inclusive of diverse belief systems, while the other is absolute even though both utilize universalism. Governments based on holy text tend to be the very definition of dogmatic and rigid, they go right back to what I was saying about the word faith: denial in the face of evidence (which, by the way, can apply to anyone with any strong belief in anything).

Also, regarding that, what would you have me do? I'm not intentionally trying to be offensive to you, but I've seen religious people use that word over and over exactly as I said: as an escape hatch from cognitive dissonance and as a shield from factual evidence. Hell, growing up in a religion I used that word myself for those exact reasons. Should I pretend none of that happened so I don't inflame your biases towards religion? Should I pretend that the largest voting block opposing gay marriage isn't squarely in the Christian/religious demographic (at least in the US, and probably most of the rest of the world)? I'm also not interested in tip-toeing around everyone, nor am I interested in presenting myself as perfect anymore. I'll save you the trouble: I'm not. But characterizing my attitude towards religious people as 'bible thumping morons' is a straw man, and all it really amounts to is you reinforcing the stereotype you're railing against. I don't even think that all people with blatantly racist or homophobic attitudes are necessarily bad people. I grew up in a religious community, and I talk to religious people all the time. Very rarely are they as well informed, willing to face dark jagged truths, and philosophically educated as you are. If they were we could have debates about what this conversation might ultimately be about: do objective truths exist? Instead, I wind up having conversations about how gay marriage will not lead to alligator marriage.

I think equal treatment of women, homosexuals, and all races is better. That is my bias, and I acknowledge it. I understand that other people have different ideas of what constitutes morality, and I'm really not trying to deny them that within certain bounds (like, let's not throw acid on women's faces for a start). In terms of legislating basic human rights, perhaps universalism is a better approach but only from a secular state. People will still not be equal in terms of societal position, objectively speaking, but it won't be because they are denied rights as an entire group. Theoretically their own actions will have a large role in determining their place.


They're not necessarily misinformed biggotted Biblehumping morons, because despite a lack of Bible belt in Belgium, there is a similar voice in my very secularist utopia and it doesn't take its arguments from religion, but from social mores, conventional wisdom and even science.
Ah, I see, they're misinformed biggotted non-believer morons (I'm being facetious). What are those arguments, by the way (the social mores, conventional wisdom, and especially science)? Out of curiosity, do you have any information on how many atheists oppose gay marriage in Belgium? I tried googling it, but couldn't turn up much. I'd be curious to see some polls on the percentages of who opposes gay marriage in your country.


I also think that the actual debate - the actual conflict - is a much, much larger one than marriage equality. ... I also suspect a lot of secularists think that a further seperation of church and state is going to 'solve' much of the problem, and it isn't, because in the end it's a clash of two very different ethical viewpoints that are irreconcilable.I think simultaneously holding a magnifying glass on this one issue, and putting it along side moral relativism is making it too complicated. You want to have a debate about how to structure society, and that's definitely a debate worth having, but it's overreaching to think that gay marriage is at the heart of that debate. It also doesn't take into account that most people have irreconcilable viewpoints, in terms of philosophical structures, simultaneously contained inside their heads at all times without realizing it. There probably never will be a full reconciliation, and yet, people will go on living, and gay marriage will probably become legal, and eventually people will just get used to it. We are deeply paradoxical beings, living in a deeply paradoxical universe, and we know for a fact that logic itself is limited.

aggroculture
09-02-2012, 03:45 PM
And that was where my initial remarks came from: annoyance at the reduction of an actual legitimate ethical / political debate to black/white terminology.


I also suspect a lot of secularists think that a further seperation of church and state is going to 'solve' much of the problem, and it isn't, because in the end it's a clash of two very different ethical viewpoints that are irreconcilable.

As Allegro points out, in the US, the debate is very much dominated by a clash of Christians vs. secularists, or certainly appears that way. I for one, have never heard articulated a specifically secular opposition to same-sex marriage in the US. Sometimes you hear a "slippery slope" argument (the "conventional wisdom/social mores" you refer to?) which is nonetheless based on a homophobia which would appear to have its historical basis in the judeo-christian religious one. If same-sex marriage normalizes homosexuality, why would that would be a bad thing?

It's interesting to hear from you about the Belgian secular opposition to same-sex marriage: I'd like to hear more about what their arguments consist of.

But you still haven't answered my question, which is: of what use is it to talk of moral relativism when, as you yourself admit, the issue is an either/or situation? We either legalize same-sex marriage, offending those who will be offended. As people were, and still are offended by divorce, abortion, birth control, interracial marriage, marriage across social classes or castes, sex and procreation out of wedlock, etc. Or we don't, keeping same-sex couples in an inferior category. There is no solution which keeps both sides happy. There is no "morally relativist" position which keeps everyone happy. In other words, beyond your statement that not only religious people object to same-sex marriage (a statement that in principle I accept) I still don't understand what your discussion of moral relativism brings to the debate: accepting that moral systems may be socially constructed and relative is not incompatible with believing one solution is better, fairer, juster than others - even to its opponents, and fighting for it.

Kodiak33
09-02-2012, 04:18 PM
This is actually going to the Supreme Court, so it should be a very interesting ruling. I really can't see how the SCOTUS won't rule for civil unions because of equal protection. I'm not a lawyer though.

allegro
09-03-2012, 09:41 AM
Even the seasoned trial lawyers at work who discuss this say they can't predict it. It all depends on how it's argued and the case law presented.

I sure hope those on the side of equal protection don't fuck it up.

Jinsai
09-07-2012, 04:04 PM
Well, this was pretty amazing (http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it)

leo3375
09-07-2012, 11:13 PM
Well, this was pretty amazing (http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it)

And this is why I'm a big Chris Kluwe and Minnesota Vikings fan.

theimage13
09-08-2012, 01:25 AM
Private organizations, such as religion, are still free to forbid homosexuals from being married in their particular church are they not?

Maybe I'm horribly wrong here, but I thought marriage certificates were issued by government agencies (courts), not churches. I was always under the impression that the church was simply a venue; no different than saying "I want to get married in a field". The state, on the other hand, is responsible for giving you the piece of paper that says "you're married, and are now eligible for all benefits related to said status". Tax benefits, benefits from employers, etc. Things that don't have anything to do with what church you go to (or don't go to) or what god(s) you do/don't believe in.

Correct me if I'm wrong - I've never been married, so I don't know exactly how the system works. But I always thought religion's only role, at the very core of it, was to provide a venue and a person to preside over the ceremony if so desired. What does religion have to do with government programs like tax benefits for couples?

Jinsai
09-08-2012, 05:39 AM
Maybe I'm horribly wrong here, but I thought marriage certificates were issued by government agencies (courts), not churches. I was always under the impression that the church was simply a venue; no different than saying "I want to get married in a field". The state, on the other hand, is responsible for giving you the piece of paper that says "you're married, and are now eligible for all benefits related to said status". Tax benefits, benefits from employers, etc. Things that don't have anything to do with what church you go to (or don't go to) or what god(s) you do/don't believe in.

Correct me if I'm wrong - I've never been married, so I don't know exactly how the system works. But I always thought religion's only role, at the very core of it, was to provide a venue and a person to preside over the ceremony if so desired. What does religion have to do with government programs like tax benefits for couples?

The issue here applies with "who is allowed to marry you." The general authority is a religious one. There's a few exceptions, but they're anachronistic and strange. The institution of marriage is so anachronistic with its restrictions, that someone I know had a "ship captain" officiate his wedding at sea... the reason for why this guy can do this is because back in the day, when you were at sea, you couldn't find a priest sometimes. I've also had friends join a cult just so they can officiate over a wedding... because then they have "religious authority" or some shit... once you're a priest in some random fucking cult.

We need to grow the fuck up.

Elke
09-08-2012, 06:01 AM
I've had a busy week, but I'll get back to the secular oppostion when I find some free time.

Also, the issue is not that churches have the right not to marry gay people, it's that they don't have the right to marry gay people.

Bluegirl
09-08-2012, 09:49 AM
The issue here applies with "who is allowed to marry you." The general authority is a religious one. There's a few exceptions, but they're anachronistic and strange. The institution of marriage is so anachronistic with its restrictions, that someone I know had a "ship captain" officiate his wedding at sea... the reason for why this guy can do this is because back in the day, when you were at sea, you couldn't find a priest sometimes. I've also had friends join a cult just so they can officiate over a wedding... because then they have "religious authority" or some shit... once you're a priest in some random fucking cult.

We need to grow the fuck up.

In the US a justice of the peace can marry people at a court house or at a venue. When you get married you sign a legal contract and you have a certain amount of time to have a ceremony (a religious one or with a justice of the peace) with witnesses. My parents got married at a court house with a justice of the peace (they had McDonalds afterward).

Also in response to Harry Seaward the government hands out legal contracts all the time why should marriage contracts be any different if people want it. And that is the point, marriage is no different then any other legal document, therefore, if constitutionally the federal government must recognize contracts and licences issued by the states they have to recognize all marriage contracts including same sex marriages as long as a state legally issues it. Hopefully the supreme court sees it the same way.

allegro
09-08-2012, 10:28 AM
In the US a justice of the peace can marry people at a court house or at a venue. When you get married you sign a legal contract and you have a certain amount of time to have a ceremony (a religious one or with a justice of the peace). My parents got married at a court house with a justice of the peace (they had McDonalds afterward).



I always thought religion's only role, at the very core of it, was to provide a venue and a person to preside over the ceremony if so desired.


Absolutely correct. (A "justice of the peace" is a fancy old-fashioned word for judge.)

My first wedding was solemnized by a judge at a courthouse. My second wedding was solemnized by a dude on a ski slope at 10,000 feet altitude.

When you hear the words in most vows, "... and now, by the authority vested in me by the State of _____, I pronounce you ____" -- that person has been authorized to solemnize marriages in the State/County in which the marriage license was obtained. Each state's marital statute defines the marital laws.

For instance, in Illinois:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2086&ChapterID=59

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=075000050HPt%2E+II&ActID=2086&ChapterID=59&SeqStart=900000&SeqEnd=3000000


(750 ILCS 5/209) (from Ch. 40, par. 209)
Sec. 209. Solemnization and Registration.)
(a) A marriage may be solemnized by a judge of a court of record, by a retired judge of a court of record, unless the retired judge was removed from office by the Judicial Inquiry Board, except that a retired judge shall not receive any compensation from the State, a county or any unit of local government in return for the solemnization of a marriage and there shall be no effect upon any pension benefits conferred by the Judges Retirement System of Illinois, by a judge of the Court of Claims, by a county clerk in counties having 2,000,000 or more inhabitants, by a public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages, or in accordance with the prescriptions of any religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group, provided that when such prescriptions require an officiant, the officiant be in good standing with his religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group. Either the person solemnizing the marriage, or, if no individual acting alone solemnized the marriage, both parties to the marriage, shall complete the marriage certificate form and forward it to the county clerk within 10 days after such marriage is solemnized.
(b) The solemnization of the marriage is not invalidated by the fact that the person solemnizing the marriage was not legally qualified to solemnize it, if either party to the marriage believed him to be so qualified or by the fact that the marriage was inadvertently solemnized in a county in Illinois other than the county where the license was issued.
(Source: P.A. 95-775, eff. 1-1-09.)


State of California (my second wedding, at Heavenly, California side):

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=400-402


00. Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of
the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any
religious denomination.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or
retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired
commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this
state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United
States:
(1) A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme
Court.
(2) A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district
court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which
are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
(3) A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.
(4) A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.
(e) A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a
Member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while
that person holds office.

Magtig
12-09-2012, 06:26 PM
This is actually going to the Supreme Court, so it should be a very interesting ruling. I really can't see how the SCOTUS won't rule for civil unions because of equal protection. I'm not a lawyer though.
They're also going to take up DOMA (prevents federal recognition of same sex marriage). This (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57557877/supreme-court-to-take-up-prop-8-doma/) article spends a few lines speaking about all the different ways the court could rule, which was a bit of an eye opener for me:

However, because of the unique circumstances of the case -- in which rights were taken away after they were granted by the state Supreme Court -- the court's ultimate ruling may only apply to California.
Alternatively, the court may not rule on the right to marry at all: The Supreme Court will also consider whether the proponents of Prop. 8 have any standing in court. If they don't, then the Supreme Court would send the case back to the lower courts to be properly defended. However, California's governor and attorney general -- the parties who would typically defend Prop. 8 -- are certain to refuse to defend the law, which would mean the current lower court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage would be left standing.

I can't help but fantasize about the ridiculous celebrations in the street if the SCOTUS were actually to legalize same sex marriage nationwide. It's a nice thing to think about, but what are the chances they'll do it?

R-Dot-Yung
12-09-2012, 11:23 PM
They're also going to take up DOMA (prevents federal recognition of same sex marriage). This (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57557877/supreme-court-to-take-up-prop-8-doma/) article spends a few lines speaking about all the different ways the court could rule, which was a bit of an eye opener for me:

However, because of the unique circumstances of the case -- in which rights were taken away after they were granted by the state Supreme Court -- the court's ultimate ruling may only apply to California.
Alternatively, the court may not rule on the right to marry at all: The Supreme Court will also consider whether the proponents of Prop. 8 have any standing in court. If they don't, then the Supreme Court would send the case back to the lower courts to be properly defended. However, California's governor and attorney general -- the parties who would typically defend Prop. 8 -- are certain to refuse to defend the law, which would mean the current lower court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage would be left standing.

I can't help but fantasize about the ridiculous celebrations in the street if the SCOTUS were actually to legalize same sex marriage nationwide. It's a nice thing to think about, but what are the chances they'll do it?

Chances are like 0.0000000000000001%

allegro
12-09-2012, 11:51 PM
I disagree; I think this will be argued as a civil rights case and, on that basis, there's a pretty good shot at making DOMA unconstitutional.

Especially considering Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967).

allegro
12-10-2012, 11:15 AM
This is so inspiring

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/07/edie-windsor-gay-marriage-supreme-court/1737387/

playwithfire
12-10-2012, 03:26 PM
This is so inspiring

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/07/edie-windsor-gay-marriage-supreme-court/1737387/

If you've never seen the documentary that was made about her and her wife, I highly recommend it. Amazing women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL83Yl4-9Vc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL83Yl4-9Vc)

littlemonkey613
12-10-2012, 04:14 PM
I think there's a big shot at declaring same sex marriage a constitutional right. If its ruled based on discrimination, it'd be hard to argue state's rights to define marriage. I just dont see any strong legal arguments from the other side from any angle. I think this is one of those things where the legal argument is astronomically weaker on one side. I don't think culture will dictate the ruling.

kenthebear
12-11-2012, 08:58 AM
Not to be beaten, we in the UK have not only banned gay marriage but made it illegal in cofe churches. I'm so proud of my country.

Highly Psychological
12-11-2012, 11:38 PM
Full Civil Partnerships have been legal since 2005 but I can guarantee you within 5 years Gay Marriage will be fully legal in the UK. They are just saying religious organisations that do not want to hold ceremonies should not be forced to.
There is significantly more power behind people backing Gay Marriage than opposed. I can feel that ferocious force. The whole process dealing with the religious organisations is understandably taking time.
In 10 years time this whole debacle will seem utterly absurd.

Magtig
01-28-2013, 09:02 PM
Gay marriage opponents are going to present the SCOTUS with the argument that gay couples can NOT have unintended offspring (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marry-court-20130127,0,6421506.story) which will become a potential burden to taxpayers and therefore Prop 8 should stand. WTSF? Is this some sort of crazy lawyer maneuver or is it grasping at straws?

littlemonkey613
01-28-2013, 09:31 PM
Gay marriage opponents are going to present the SCOTUS with the argument that gay couples can NOT have unintended offspring (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marry-court-20130127,0,6421506.story) which will become a potential burden to taxpayers and therefore Prop 8 should stand. WTSF? Is this some sort of crazy lawyer maneuver or is it grasping at straws?

It's weird things like this that truly bring out how wonky the legal institution of marriage is. Also this brings up one of the most disgusting realities that Americans refuse to talk about. Unintended pregnancy. We see it as a fact of life and part of women's natural processes as opposed to a litmus test for how little control women have over their own bodies and reproductive lives.

But yeah prop 8 proponents sure are getting desperate. I can't wait for them to realize its hopeless.

eskimo
01-29-2013, 12:11 PM
I just wanted to pop in and say how proud I am that me country has not only had legal gay marriage for the past 8 years, but as of earlier this week we have our first openly-gay premier in Ontario.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2013/01/29/wdr-kathleen-wynne-gay-windsor-pride.html

We've come a long way in the last decade.

onthewall2983
02-14-2013, 03:08 PM
Illinois Senate passes gay marriage bill (http://www.news8000.com/news/Illinois-Senate-passes-gay-marriage-bill/-/326/18551552/-/mkr77j/-/index.html).

snaapz
03-06-2013, 08:35 AM
I think it's a shame that anyone feels like they need a court or city hall document to prove that they are a couple and have vowed to be partners for life. If their love is real and comitment is true then go get some damn rings, have a ceremony with people to witness and move on. Fuck that government peice of paper... I truly don't get what the big fucking deal is. Are we so insecure that we need our partner to sign a legal document proclaiming their love and commitment?

SOLVED: Get some rings, call on your family, rent a hall, get catering and decor etc... have a ceremony, exchange vows and PUT THE RING ON. Make a will if you want and add your partner as a beneficiary. The government doesn't control who we love and cannot love.

If it's a religious ceremony (holy matrimony) you want then go see a preist. If the preist says no then re-evaulate your beliefs and values... I wouldn't want to be a member of a church that won't permit me to follow my good natured heart.

Can someone please explain? What am I missing? I'm getting married in 1 month... anyone can do it. Oh wait this is in the USA right, you all need legal documents for when you want to sue your partner for breaching contract? Is that it?

Go be happy and get married!!!

Magtig
03-06-2013, 01:00 PM
Can someone please explain? What am I missing? I'm getting married in 1 month... anyone can do it. Oh wait this is in the USA right, you all need legal documents for when you want to sue your partner for breaching contract? Is that it?
You're invited to fuck right off with this self righteous bullshit. Congratulations on your marriage, especially since it's not something everyone has the RIGHT to do.

icklekitty
03-06-2013, 01:14 PM
It's about equality, not the value of some pieces of paper.

slave2thewage
03-06-2013, 01:36 PM
If straight people can blow a ridiculous amount of money on clothes, an overpriced meal and shitloads of booze, why can't I?

allegro
03-06-2013, 03:15 PM
I think it's a shame that anyone feels like they need a court or city hall document to prove that they are a couple and have vowed to be partners for life. If their love is real and comitment is true then go get some damn rings, have a ceremony with people to witness and move on. Fuck that government peice of paper... I truly don't get what the big fucking deal is. Are we so insecure that we need our partner to sign a legal document proclaiming their love and commitment?

SOLVED: Get some rings, call on your family, rent a hall, get catering and decor etc... have a ceremony, exchange vows and PUT THE RING ON. Make a will if you want and add your partner as a beneficiary. The government doesn't control who we love and cannot love.

If it's a religious ceremony (holy matrimony) you want then go see a preist. If the preist says no then re-evaulate your beliefs and values... I wouldn't want to be a member of a church that won't permit me to follow my good natured heart.

Can someone please explain? What am I missing? I'm getting married in 1 month... anyone can do it. Oh wait this is in the USA right, you all need legal documents for when you want to sue your partner for breaching contract? Is that it?

Go be happy and get married!!!
When I got married I got my husband's health insurance, my husband's pension, my husband can collect my social security benefits, our estate planning is now cost-free, we file Federal taxes jointly, etc etc Denying these financial benefits (the original intention of marriage throughout history) to anyone is a violation of civil rights.

DigitalChaos
03-06-2013, 10:09 PM
I think there's a big shot at declaring same sex marriage a constitutional right. If its ruled based on discrimination, it'd be hard to argue state's rights to define marriage. I just dont see any strong legal arguments from the other side from any angle. I think this is one of those things where the legal argument is astronomically weaker on one side. I don't think culture will dictate the ruling.

It's really fucked up that we have gotten to the point where rights have to be granted to citizens. The constitution was supposed to be about granting a small set of rights to the government. If it's not mentioned in the constitution it means you have the right.


Government should, ideally, be completely out of the whole marriage topic. If they aren't, then they need to grant the service/recognition to EVERYONE. Fuck the religious people who cry about sanctity of their religious beliefs. You lost all control over that the moment you asked the state to get involved in your personal lives. You want control back? Then pull your bullshit back into the walls of your church.

icklekitty
03-07-2013, 03:12 AM
If straight people can blow a ridiculous amount of money on clothes, an overpriced meal and shitloads of booze, why can't I?


Imagine what gay marriage would do for the economy

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
03-07-2013, 07:28 AM
It's really fucked up that we have gotten to the point where rights have to be granted to citizens. The constitution was supposed to be about granting a small set of rights to the government. If it's not mentioned in the constitution it means you have the right.
It's not really that fucked up. The government must recognize contracts if they are to be defended through law; those entering into a contract not recognized may have no legal recourse should such be needed. Marriage status is important in a couple dozen (at least) important legal situations. What's asked is that recognition be extended to male-male and female-female marriage contracts in addition to male-female.

aggroculture
03-07-2013, 08:43 AM
Government should, ideally, be completely out of the whole marriage topic.

Corvus already answered this, but I want to state that I never understand what people mean when they say stuff like this.
It's like when Herman Cain kept repeating that government shouldn't be involved with abortion, and it was your "choice." The journalists would ask "So you think it should be legal then?" and he'd answer "no." What kind of choice is it to go get an illegal abortion?
So when you say "the government should be out of the whole marriage topic" this is simply a meaningless statement. How could it be out of the topic? The government is out of the topic of whether I want orange juice or apple juice for breakfast because the government is already totally in that topic by guaranteeing me that both choices are legal.

Minpin
03-07-2013, 11:18 AM
I'm getting married in 1 month...
Hahaha if you aren't doing it exactly as you prescribed, you are the most disgustingly hypocritical cunt getting round. If you are foregoing all the legalese please ignore my insult, but if you aren't... Which is it?


I think it's a shame that anyone feels like they need a court or city hall document to prove that they are a couple and have vowed to be partners for life. If their love is real and comitment is true then go get some damn rings, have a ceremony with people to witness and move on. Fuck that government peice of paper... I truly don't get what the big fucking deal is. Are we so insecure that we need our partner to sign a legal document proclaiming their love and commitment?

You have brought up my most despised argument against legalising same-sex marriage. The arguments from religion are laughable and not registered, I don't respect religion, i couldnt give a shit about religious opinions. But your argument I hear time and again, from people whose ideas generally arent centuries outdated, and it irks me bad!

Even if the benefits between a homosexual de facto relationship are equal to a heterosexual marriage and the only difference is terminology - WHY DO YOU GIVE A FUCK?!

You're 'apathy' (which it really isn't, but for want of a better word) is almost always followed by the brain dead cop-out "there are so many more important things government should be focused on" which just infuriates me more.

If I've misconstrued your stance, I'm sorry, but if I haven't, I hate you.

DigitalChaos
03-07-2013, 11:20 AM
Corvus already answered this, but I want to state that I never understand what people mean when they say stuff like this.
It's like when Herman Cain kept repeating that government shouldn't be involved with abortion, and it was your "choice." The journalists would ask "So you think it should be legal then?" and he'd answer "no." What kind of choice is it to go get an illegal abortion?
So when you say "the government should be out of the whole marriage topic" this is simply a meaningless statement. How could it be out of the topic? The government is out of the topic of whether I want orange juice or apple juice for breakfast because the government is already totally in that topic by guaranteeing me that both choices are legal.

First, explain how the government guarantees that orange and apple juice are legal.

aggroculture
03-07-2013, 12:34 PM
There's a variety of government agencies that regulate food: the FDA, Dept of Agriculture, etc. A quick internet search suggests there are 15 such federal agencies.

Jinsai
03-07-2013, 12:56 PM
I'm also curious as to whether or not Snaapz is getting married in an unofficial ceremony that is not legally recognized, Braveheart-style.

DigitalChaos
03-07-2013, 01:39 PM
There's a variety of government agencies that regulate food: the FDA, Dept of Agriculture, etc. A quick internet search suggests there are 15 such federal agencies.
That doesn't grant you the right to the food. That's just oversight into the quality of the food that is made for sale. You would still be able to drink your juice without the regulation. Hell, you can grow your own fruit and press your own juice and have completely unregulated juice, and it's still legal!

Your right to fruit juice is implicit. Your right to associate and form any relationship you want with others is also implicit. The moment the government decided to get involved in marriage, they created an explicit definition. Now, you are fucked if you don't match that definition. This shit always happens when government get involved.

Removing government from marriage is going to be pretty damn hard at this point. Marriage status is integrated into so much. The right thing to do, for now, is widen the explicit definition of marriage to include any two people. What about the people who choose to be involved with more than 1 partner? That would probably give an unfair financial benefit to those people. Though, a married couple has an unfair financial benefit over two single people. I would like to see a long-term process that involves removing the integration of marriage status. Tax benefits, insurance dependency etc. it's all bullshit that shouldn't be tied to marriage status.

aggroculture
03-07-2013, 08:19 PM
You are kind of missing my point. You can grow oranges and make your own juice (though you may not sell it without adhering to the regulations).
But you may not grow marijuana and eat pot brownies for breakfast without considerable risk.
Saying "oh you can do anything, legal or not" is not giving any kind of meaningful choice. It's a red herring in the argument for same-sex marriage.
The issue is that heteronormative marriage discriminates against same-sex couples. Calling the benefits married people receive "unfair", and arguing against marriage in general, is again, besides the point. The best way, as you seem to agree, since marriage itself isn't going anywhere any time soon, is to make marriage more inclusive, and take it from there.

DigitalChaos
03-07-2013, 11:41 PM
I'm not missing the point. You wanted to understand how "get the government out" makes sense. I'm explaining it! You generally have more freedom by keeping the government out of the picture. You need to be very selective in government involvement.

Marijuana growth and consumptions was an implicit legality. The government got involved and explicitly outlawed it. That is also bullshit. The government needs to end the drug war.

See the recurring pattern? You can, implicitly, do whatever you want until the government gets involved and starts explicitly defining freedoms. This needs to be the foundation though (what the US Constitution was meant to be). Once you start pulling the government into the picture and relying on it, it becomes much harder to just remove them in any rapid way.

littlemonkey613
03-08-2013, 12:41 AM
I would like to see a long-term process that involves removing the integration of marriage status. Tax benefits, insurance dependency etc. it's all bullshit that shouldn't be tied to marriage status.

This is my dream world as well! I think gay marriage is a necessity as long as marriage plays such a big role in our society and federal government but I'd like to see it phased out. I don't want "marriage" to be a thing in the government at all....I think its ridiculous...Sexual contracts within government dear god WHY (and thats the tip of the ice berg for me).

DigitalChaos
03-08-2013, 01:10 AM
This is my dream world as well! I think gay marriage is a necessity as long as marriage plays such a big role in our society and federal government but I'd like to see it phased out. I don't want "marriage" to be a thing in the government at all....I think its ridiculous...Sexual contracts within government dear god WHY (and thats the tip of the ice berg for me).
Absolutely. I am straight, married, and have a kid. I really would have preferred to not register my relationship with the state but... well Penn Jillette sums it up perfectly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGomedbMcoY

Jinsai
03-08-2013, 01:27 AM
The problem? He doesn't acknowledge that the struggle to get gay marriage equally respected in legal or popular opinion to straight marriage is improbable, and that the movement against it is a mobilized political force. He doesn't acknowledge that people have to fight bigotry, or that his favorite politicians want to leave this civil rights issue "up to the states," no matter how bigoted those states popularly poll to be. His opinion is additionally hampered by his libertarian misanthropy towards government institutions, and if we listen further, we'll just go insane because he's arguing with Piers Morgan, who is a strawman unless he's put up against the likes of the American ra-ra gun lobby, in which case he comes across like a well reasoned gentleman.

DigitalChaos
03-08-2013, 02:17 AM
The problem? He doesn't acknowledge that the struggle to get gay marriage equally respected in legal or popular opinion to straight marriage is improbable, and that the movement against it is a mobilized political force. He doesn't acknowledge that people have to fight bigotry, or that his favorite politicians want to leave this civil rights issue "up to the states," no matter how bigoted those states popularly poll to be. His opinion is additionally hampered by his libertarian misanthropy towards government institutions, and if we listen further, we'll just go insane because he's arguing with Piers Morgan, who is a strawman unless he's put up against the likes of the American ra-ra gun lobby, in which case he comes across like a well reasoned gentleman.
All of your assumptions of Penn and libertarians here are false. More importantly, if any of it were true, it would all be irrelevant if government wasn't involved in marriage.

Jinsai
03-08-2013, 03:51 AM
No it's not. Give me an example where a libertarian politician (who thinks that the issue of gay marriage should be left up to the states) has admitted that it's highly likely that most states will currently reject the idea of gay marriage simply due to intolerance.

heroicraptor
03-08-2013, 05:34 AM
It's baffling to me that states are allowed to regulate federal tax laws.

aggroculture
03-08-2013, 05:36 AM
You generally have more freedom by keeping the government out of the picture.

On what evidence do you say that? Since the 1980s big business and bankers have argued, lobbied, and fought hard for deregulation in their field. "Leave it to us! Let us self-regulate. All these rules and regulations are choking our potential. Give us more freedom!" The result: the widest wealth disparity and economic uncertainty in a century. I think 2008 revealed this so-called "freedom" to be something of a false dogma, and a good cover for unethical capitalism.
Once an area has been regulated it seems to be very hard, even naive, to believe we can just step back and de-regulate that area again. Even in the economic case it wasn't so much of making less laws, but making more lax ones which went to Wall St's (short term) advantage.
In the case of marriage the idea of deregulation (let's abolish all marriage!) seems utopian and far-fetched. A far more realistic and achievable goal would be to extend the franchise to a section of the population who actively want it extended to them, and their allies with them.

allegro
03-08-2013, 09:06 AM
Throughout history, marriage was not about love or sex; it was (and still is) a financial contract. Contracts often involve courts to settle disputes, and the UCC dictates basic contract rules to protect people, etc. The state is involved in marriage only so far as licensing (which is basically just recognition so that it falls within the court's jurisdiction) and dissolution.

DigitalChaos
03-08-2013, 01:18 PM
most states will currently reject the idea of gay marriage simply due to intolerance.
What part of "government out of marriage" is that hard for you to grasp? Is government reliance so heavily imprinted on you that you cannot let it go, even for theoretical discussion? holy shit...

DigitalChaos
03-08-2013, 01:22 PM
On what evidence do you say that? Since the 1980s big business and bankers have argued, lobbied, and fought hard for deregulation in their field. "Leave it to us! Let us self-regulate. All these rules and regulations are choking our potential. Give us more freedom!" The result: the widest wealth disparity and economic uncertainty in a century. I think 2008 revealed this so-called "freedom" to be something of a false dogma, and a good cover for unethical capitalism.
Once an area has been regulated it seems to be very hard, even naive, to believe we can just step back and de-regulate that area again. Even in the economic case it wasn't so much of making less laws, but making more lax ones which went to Wall St's (short term) advantage.
In the case of marriage the idea of deregulation (let's abolish all marriage!) seems utopian and far-fetched. A far more realistic and achievable goal would be to extend the franchise to a section of the population who actively want it extended to them, and their allies with them.

I've already said that it becomes very hard to step backward once you get govt involved. It's just the ideal target. It can be done in the long-term but probably not the short-term.
Also, every single situation where personal choice cannot harm others yet we have govt involvement is a prime location to reduce govt. Each of those situations is my evidence. Marriage, drugs, sex, religion, etc.

DigitalChaos
03-08-2013, 01:28 PM
Throughout history, marriage was not about love or sex; it was (and still is) a financial contract. Contracts often involve courts to settle disputes, and the UCC dictates basic contract rules to protect people, etc. The state is involved in marriage only so far as licensing (which is basically just recognition so that it falls within the court's jurisdiction) and dissolution.
Yup, but if we kept things at this minimal level we wouldn't have the problems of today. A binding contract between consenting individuals, that's all there is to it. I don't know of any other contract that discriminates on sex, sexuality, etc. Too bad they don't discriminate marriage contracts based on religion though. That structure would be torn to the ground by now.

littlemonkey613
03-08-2013, 02:14 PM
[/QUOTE]
Throughout history, marriage was not about love or sex; it was (and still is) a financial contract. Contracts often involve courts to settle disputes, and the UCC dictates basic contract rules to protect people, etc. The state is involved in marriage only so far as licensing (which is basically just recognition so that it falls within the court's jurisdiction) and dissolution.

That is what makes it so gross and wonky. It is a sexual contract though it is not written in the law, the sexuality comes out in the weirdest places. For instance in 30 states theres still exemptions for marital rape.

Also there's the fact that because it is to be an assumed sexual contract,who is allowed to marry is entirely based on whether its acceptable for those people to be having sex. "Marriage" is inherently discriminatory. If its all inclusive its not marriage.It is also the government's endorsement of monogamy (inherently discriminative) and as long as marriage is so dominant within our institution, it will be strongly culturally imposed as it is now, which I find deplorable.

Marriage has always been about sex b/c it's a patriarchal institution, and if it is a financial contract then it shouldn't have anything to do with what we associate with marriage, aka should not be marriage. Institutionalized rape is one of the most important historical aspects of marriage to pay attention to, because it still institutionalizes many aspects of rape culture.
(Have ya'll ever googled "what to do in a sexless marriage", "withholding sex from a spouse" or "spouse withhold sex")
To put things in perspective here are 2 liberal sources whom published articles narrating abuse and coercion who don't even realize it because its within the confines of marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/sexless-marriage-when-sex_b_2280062.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2251074/The-sexless-marriage-Should-leave-arent-getting-asks-FEMAIL-Sexpert-Tracey-Cox.html

Like holy shit our society.

There's also the fact that it doesn't even function like a normal contract. You are entering into a predetermined status that was not ultimately decided by either party on an individual basis. Most people don't even know the kinds of rights they are giving up and what the totality of that contract determines. Like the fact that in most those 30 states you give your spouse the right to rape you if they don't "have to use force", like if you are sleeping or disabled.

Without the sexual aspect institutionally, marriage literally ceases to be. It is a financial contract, but wrapped in dominant understandings of sexuality, "morally superior" sexual practices, mythos surrounding love, endorsement of monogamy, and reproductive control. These things all inherently discriminate against those of us whose equality will not be gained when gay marriage inevitably passes nor as long as the institution exists as marriage within the federal government.

Jinsai
03-08-2013, 03:05 PM
you say..


What part of "government out of marriage" is that hard for you to grasp? Is government reliance so heavily imprinted on you that you cannot let it go, even for theoretical discussion? holy shit...

and then you go on to say


Yup, but if we kept things at this minimal level we wouldn't have the problems of today. A binding contract between consenting individuals, that's all there is to it.

That's what marriage is. What entity, if not the government, is going to be there to legitimize the binding contract?

icklekitty
03-08-2013, 03:18 PM
To put things in perspective here are 2 liberal sources whom published articles narrating abuse and coercion who don't even realize it because its within the confines of marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/sexless-marriage-when-sex_b_2280062.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2251074/The-sexless-marriage-Should-leave-arent-getting-asks-FEMAIL-Sexpert-Tracey-Cox.html



I completely agree with the point you're making, but thought it's worth pointing out that the Daily Mail is about as far from liberal as you can get in the mainstream - it's FOX news written down.

littlemonkey613
03-08-2013, 03:37 PM
^^^My bad!:p

DigitalChaos
03-08-2013, 03:37 PM
you say..



and then you go on to say



That's what marriage is. What entity, if not the government, is going to be there to legitimize the binding contract?

The legal system is what enforces contract. I'm not proposing absolute anarchy here... Two (or more) people signing a piece of paper (entirely defined by them) that, if needed, can be used in court to enforce the agreement is VERY different than what marriage is today. Currently, there is way more government involved in marriage than a simple contract.

Satyr
03-08-2013, 07:39 PM
I think the government should keep their noses out of marriage. I also think that marriage by itself shouldn't yield any government (tax) benefits.

Civil unions should be what provides benefits. not marriage as marriage is traditionally a religious thing and government shouldn't really be involved.

BRoswell
03-08-2013, 07:42 PM
I think marriage in general should be done away with. People should just date forever.

And I'm completely serious about that.

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
03-08-2013, 09:25 PM
marriage is traditionally a religious thing
It's not, though its anti-gay 'defenders' would love you to think so, and this is a terrible argument besides: ignoring for a moment that marriage is a human rather than religious construct, these things, once released into the culture, can't be taken back just because you don't like what someone else's done with 'em. Like the Pope should issue a decree, 'You guys can't have angels any more, because we don't like that you make them into cheap trinkets sold at road-side carts and, *blurgh*, Hummels.'

littlemonkey613
03-09-2013, 01:06 AM
Civil unions should be what provides benefits..

Civil Unions are still the government endorsing and giving rights on the basis of conforming with monogamous practices. A more "legal" term doesn't make that go away. It's still discriminatory. The types of relationships this "benefits" are really fucking specific and the cultural dominance makes people forget their privileged position. Not everyone dates. Not everyone has sex. Not everyone's romantic and sexual orientations can ever be compatible with the requirements of Civil Unions. People should not be benefitting simply because they enter a romantic status and the state should not be giving such incentives. It's ridiculous but hard to explain how ridiculous to people who can even seeing themselves be married one day. If it is a financial, asset, medical rights contract then it should function like one. It doesn't. The fact that you have to go out of your way if you want to individualize it should make it obvious. Civil Unions are still wrapped in SEX. But yeah what I want to see is marriage become so inclusive it pretty much ceases to exist in any recognizable way. This is that "slippery slope" the religious right is always talking about. They are right and thank God. Gay marriage is the first step to the end of marriage. Praise Jesus Mary and Joseph. It won't be long until more people start to question why such a specific kind of relationship is shoved down their throats from birth until death and start to challenge the very foundations of the established hierarchy of "love".

Satyr
03-09-2013, 07:02 AM
Civil Unions are still the government endorsing and giving rights on the basis of conforming with monogamous practices. A more "legal" term doesn't make that go away. It's still discriminatory. The types of relationships this "benefits" are really fucking specific and the cultural dominance makes people forget their privileged position. Not everyone dates. Not everyone has sex. Not everyone's romantic and sexual orientations can ever be compatible with the requirements of Civil Unions. People should not be benefitting simply because they enter a romantic status and the state should not be giving such incentives. It's ridiculous but hard to explain how ridiculous to people who can even seeing themselves be married one day. If it is a financial, asset, medical rights contract then it should function like one. It doesn't. The fact that you have to go out of your way if you want to individualize it should make it obvious. Civil Unions are still wrapped in SEX. But yeah what I want to see is marriage become so inclusive it pretty much ceases to exist in any recognizable way. This is that "slippery slope" the religious right is always talking about. They are right and thank God. Gay marriage is the first step to the end of marriage. Praise Jesus Mary and Joseph. It won't be long until more people start to question why such a specific kind of relationship is shoved down their throats from birth until death and start to challenge the very foundations of the established hierarchy of "love".

Do you think there should be tax incentives for having children?

slave2thewage
03-09-2013, 07:42 AM
Do you think there should be tax incentives for having children?
There definitely shouldn't be, the world's overpopulated as it is.

icklekitty
03-09-2013, 10:24 AM
There already are, aren't there? You certainly get money from the government if you've got them here (and I think it's across the board - my mum got 60 a month until I was 18).

There should be incentives for adoption. Save existing life, save on resources.

allegro
03-09-2013, 10:53 AM
Without the sexual aspect institutionally, marriage literally ceases to be. It is a financial contract, but wrapped in dominant understandings of sexuality, "morally superior" sexual practices, mythos surrounding love, endorsement of monogamy, and reproductive control. These things all inherently discriminate against those of us whose equality will not be gained when gay marriage inevitably passes nor as long as the institution exists as marriage within the federal government.
I understand what you are saying and I absolutely agree that rape in any situation is unacceptable, but I don't agree that sex is the sole reason for marriage. You're omitting dowries (http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399301/obo-9780195399301-0014.xml;jsessionid=EE0CC7FC8C0C339106BD5C02955CD8 A7), and that the women's "sphere" was the home, and that the marital relationship was an economic and business relationship wherein the man agreed to take over (from the wife's father) the financial responsibility of the wife and the husband worked and "provided" financially for the family, and the wife bore children (produced preferably-male heirs) and kept the home and cooked and cleaned and made sure the kids went to church, etc. Haven't you ever read any JANE AUSTEN???? (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pptopic2.html#protofem3) ;)

I took this photo at the With Liberty and Justice for All (http://www.thehenryford.org/museum/liberty/) exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan:
259


Regarding gay marriage, I still believe that the push-back is primarily financial and not entirely moral: If all of this country was suddenly required to provide financial benefits, tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc. to gay couples, it would cost the government and big business a lot of money. Big business doesn't give a rat's ass about morality; it only cares about money.

littlemonkey613
03-09-2013, 12:19 PM
Do you think there should be tax incentives for having children?I think there should be tax breaks for people who have minors dependent on their income. Allegro, it is precisely that kind of thing I am thinking/talking about I'm not saying it was all about rape I'm saying it was inherent to the institution until quite recently. (and it still is in a lot of ways) Also the trading of women as property, which always implies rape, was also inherent to the institution, which should make people feel really weird about it. Jane Austen is one of my faves haha I'm studying Victorian Lit. Hollah! I feel like people approach marriage intellectually like, "well of course marriage didn't recognize women back then, no one did." When really it was based and formed around that idea. Marriage would have never happened without the dehumanization and enslavement of women. It's very existence depended on it and its structure could never come out of another society. Look at the role that sex plays in this institution, what is going on?! Why should sexual relationships be recognized as opposed to others? Why is everything so strictly defined still?

allegro
03-09-2013, 12:31 PM
Patriarchal society. Male/Male and Female/Female unions don't "belong" in a patriarchal society.

I still get grief for not taking my husband's surname, in either of my two marriages. I cannot, as a feminist, in good conscience, participate in this practice, no matter how much it has allegedly "changed." It's already patriarchal enough that I ended up with my father's surname.

p.s. Jane Austen and the Regency period, so much fun - Especially when applying Feminist Lit Crit!! :-)

DigitalChaos
03-09-2013, 12:39 PM
Well said about the dependents. I'm unsure if there should be any benefit to "family" status but if there is, the line should be drawn at financial dependents.

Question- Should it go beyond tax breaks? Should various govt social programs be giving money for every kid you have? I've personally seen that system abused to absurd levels. The various family status indicators run very deep in our social & govt systems. It's not just tax breaks.

icklekitty
03-09-2013, 12:47 PM
To add to that, one of my friends is in a panic because they're thinking of introducing something whereby those who earn over 50,000 get their taxes hiked up. Which I agree with, on the face of it, but she's not a single high-flying city type. She runs a school and has two teenage kids, and they all live in a two bedroom flat - her bedroom doubles as the living room.

allegro
03-09-2013, 02:07 PM
This all isn't really related to DOMA, though, is it?

Jinsai
03-09-2013, 03:50 PM
I'm fine with polygamy, but I don't really even think that's something that large groups are lobbying for at this point. Honestly I think the fact that we're bringing up polygamy here is somewhat of a distraction. I mean, why don't we up the ante and point out that while we're ok with polygamy, we're ok with gay polygamy. We're going to get completely lost along the way, but we might as well put that out there.

Part of what I think is disconcerting about these discussions is that the "solutions" provided by some people are actually distractions from the point. I can't say this with any certainty, but I think a large part of the fight for legalizing gay marriage is that the precedent will serve to further reinforce the equal status of homosexuals. That seems to me to be the obvious reason that homosexuals reject the idea that they could be granted "marriage" as long as it isn't called marriage. The point is that they want their civil rights to be respected, and for their consensual loving relationships to be given equal treatment to straight couples.

When somebody approaches the issue with "well I have a solution, how about we completely change the way that marriage works in our society so that the institution is no longer the same thing, and this will be a great way to get gays to be libertarian-curious" it seems to be obviously dodging the issue. If you want to get the government out of the institution of marriage (and everything else), that's fine, but it doesn't address the issue at hand, even if you think you're providing a solution (no matter how completely unrealistic this libertarian utopia is).

Gay people aren't interested in getting government out of marriage, they just want to be afforded the same civil rights as straight people. Going through these arguments sometimes feels like people are just ignoring the elephant in the room.

allegro
03-09-2013, 09:01 PM
I think most everybody here knows exactly what's happening, and supports positive change. You're mostly preaching to the choir.

Jinsai
03-09-2013, 09:36 PM
I think most everybody here knows exactly what's happening, and supports positive change. You're mostly preaching to the choir.

Sure, except when I'm talking to the libertarians who want to throw out their infeasible image of a perfect utopia in response to gay people saying "we'd like to get married."

Everyone on this board agrees, more or less, that gay people should have the same rights as straight people. Some people on here, however, have completely outlandish strategies to achieve equal rights, and they come by way of their transparent ulterior political motives.

We can remove government involvement from marriage later (in a strange alternate universe that will never fucking happen), but first how about we just let gay people get married.

DigitalChaos
03-09-2013, 11:38 PM
Sure, except when I'm talking to the libertarians who want to throw out their infeasible image of a perfect utopia in response to gay people saying "we'd like to get married."

Everyone on this board agrees, more or less, that gay people should have the same rights as straight people. Some people on here, however, have completely outlandish strategies to achieve equal rights, and they come by way of their transparent ulterior political motives.

We can remove government involvement from marriage later (in a strange alternate universe that will never fucking happen), but first how about we just let gay people get married.

http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1141-The-Marriage-Rights-Thread?p=74490#post74490

Jinsai
03-10-2013, 12:05 AM
what. the. fuck.

How could you miss the point of what I'm saying so spectacularly? Fuck you.

DigitalChaos
03-10-2013, 12:19 AM
what. the. fuck.

How could you miss the point of what I'm saying so spectacularly? Fuck you.
You seem to have some massive comprehension issues. Let me simplify it even more for you:




I think most everybody here knows exactly what's happening, and supports positive change. You're mostly preaching to the choir.

Sure, except when I'm talking to the libertarians
...
We can remove government involvement from marriage later (in a strange alternate universe that will never fucking happen), but first how about we just let gay people get married.






... Removing government from marriage is going to be pretty damn hard at this point. ... I would like to see a long-term process that involves removing the integration of marriage status.


I suppose you will now have some sort of mental block on the fact that I said the exact same thing as you 2 days earlier.

Jinsai
03-10-2013, 12:21 AM
Yes, you would like to see a "long term solution," but in the meantime, you're going to jump on your libertarian soapbox, and roll your eyes when people say "fuck this, you're missing the point."


Let me simplify this for you.

You are missing the fucking point

DigitalChaos
03-10-2013, 12:25 AM
In this thread Jinsai argues with himself


laughing so hard right now

http://i.imgur.com/KRvnSys.gif

Jinsai
03-10-2013, 12:32 AM
I'm not. I understand your argument. I'm saying it's impossible, and it's a distraction from realistic options

So when you bring it up as a solution to the issue of civil rights being intruded upon, it's ridiculous. Do I need to drag your attention to your point about "long term"?

YOUR "LONG TERM" solution is NOT going to ever happen.

So rather than deal with reforming government in general and the way that it plays into our daily lives, I'd rather just have the government recognize gay marriage on an equal level with heterosexual marriage, which is a VERY VIABLE THING. Something that might actually happen, with a solution that doesn't involve changing the government's involvement in marriage.

let me simplify this further before you "laugh your ass off" further

You are not going to see the US govt removed from the institution of marriage while your grandchildren are still alive.

how about this: get the current functioning form of government to legalize gay marriage, then, AFTER THAT HAS HAPPENED, talk about your libertarian utopia.

The end result of this sort of argument is that it hijacks the point. We start off talking about legalizing gay marriage, and then somehow we end up talking about polygamy and getting government out of the marriage business. The same thing happens when you try to talk to a libertarian about legalizing marijuana. They'll agree that it should be legal, and then the fucking conversation quickly moves to how the government shouldn't be involved in regulating anything that we put in your bodies, and how all drugs should be legal, and before you know it, the discussion is no longer about legalizing marijuana, but whether or not anything bad would happen if you could buy PCP at the grocery store.

DigitalChaos
03-10-2013, 12:52 AM
YOUR "LONG TERM" solution is NOT going to ever happen.


We have a black president who was born during the days of Jim Crow laws. We also just saw Obamacare actually happen. But this.. noo... this could NEVER happen! Nevermind the fact that we all agree on the path to fix the issue... let's set a depressingly low bar for improvement just so we can still disagree!

I don't know if it's your fixation on government dependence or your absolute insistance on disagreeing with anything "libertarian" (even when you said the exact same thing) but you are a great representation of the state of our government right now. Hold the party lines at all costs and expand government for every problem! Gridlock and debt!



PS - I know plenty of gay people who would much rather see the marriage situation gutted from government than be forced into an antiquated religiously rooted formality designed for straight people just so they can share health benefits with their partner(for example). It's sort of like being forced to swear on a bible when you are atheist.

Jinsai
03-10-2013, 01:02 AM
who was arguing we'd never have a black president? Obamacare DIDN'T actually happen, it was a ridiculous compromise. I'm not "dependent on government," I just know we're not going to wrest ourselves free of it. And being realistic isn't necessarily "depressing," it's just not living in a fucking fantasy world where you hope you're going to legalize crack and prostitution (sorry if I was assuming those were your primary motivations). Your libertarian promises are silly.

PS: Oh, do you know plenty of gay people?! WOW!

Really though, and this is a note added upon later consideration, but it's incredibly irritating when libertarians equate their "struggle" with the civil rights movement. "Oh, you say our libertarian fantasy world will never become a reality, but it wasn't too long ago that the thought of a black president was outlandish." Give me a break.

DigitalChaos
03-10-2013, 01:45 AM
Keep going Jinsai. Throw it all at the wall in hopes that something will stick. Maybe if you put that much energy into helping the oppressed in ways beyond the bare minimum we could accomplish something. The fact that you are willing to fight so much just to do the minimum is giving me flashbacks to many of the GOP stances in the past.

Maybe you need to create a "I hate libertarians" thread to get your issues out. Can we get back on topic? There were certainly some (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1141-The-Marriage-Rights-Thread?p=74593#post74593) other people (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1141-The-Marriage-Rights-Thread?p=74774#post74774) who have "opposing" views to you. Everyone else seems capable of having actual discussion in this discussion subforum that holds this discussion thread meant for discussing topics instead of... pedantic bitching for the sake of bitching.

DigitalChaos
03-10-2013, 01:57 AM
That is what makes it so gross and wonky. It is a sexual contract though it is not written in the law, the sexuality comes out in the weirdest places. For instance in 30 states theres still exemptions for marital rape.

Also there's the fact that because it is to be an assumed sexual contract,who is allowed to marry is entirely based on whether its acceptable for those people to be having sex. "Marriage" is inherently discriminatory. If its all inclusive its not marriage.It is also the government's endorsement of monogamy (inherently discriminative) and as long as marriage is so dominant within our institution, it will be strongly culturally imposed as it is now, which I find deplorable.

Marriage has always been about sex b/c it's a patriarchal institution, and if it is a financial contract then it shouldn't have anything to do with what we associate with marriage, aka should not be marriage. Institutionalized rape is one of the most important historical aspects of marriage to pay attention to, because it still institutionalizes many aspects of rape culture.
(Have ya'll ever googled "what to do in a sexless marriage", "withholding sex from a spouse" or "spouse withhold sex")
To put things in perspective here are 2 liberal sources whom published articles narrating abuse and coercion who don't even realize it because its within the confines of marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/sexless-marriage-when-sex_b_2280062.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2251074/The-sexless-marriage-Should-leave-arent-getting-asks-FEMAIL-Sexpert-Tracey-Cox.html

Like holy shit our society.

There's also the fact that it doesn't even function like a normal contract. You are entering into a predetermined status that was not ultimately decided by either party on an individual basis. Most people don't even know the kinds of rights they are giving up and what the totality of that contract determines. Like the fact that in most those 30 states you give your spouse the right to rape you if they don't "have to use force", like if you are sleeping or disabled.

Without the sexual aspect institutionally, marriage literally ceases to be. It is a financial contract, but wrapped in dominant understandings of sexuality, "morally superior" sexual practices, mythos surrounding love, endorsement of monogamy, and reproductive control. These things all inherently discriminate against those of us whose equality will not be gained when gay marriage inevitably passes nor as long as the institution exists as marriage within the federal government.

So, what is your ideal proposal to fix all of this? It sounds a lot like you are leading toward: People create their own agreement terms (not the governments) and voluntarily sign it. Then our legal system recognizes it as a binding contract. Would that contract recognition also plug into the systems that currently recognize marriage (tax, insurance, etc)?

allegro
03-10-2013, 10:31 AM
The government doesn't have any "terms." Each state has rules as to who can enter a marriage contract (age limit, not first cousins, etc) (there are also general contract laws that affect all contracts, like you can't be drunk or a minor or insane and enter into a contract). Marriage can be dissolved by the parties in a court of law according to the marital laws of that state (irreconcilable differences is pretty much nationwide as an available cause, now; you used to have to prove things like adultery or abandonment or alienation of affection etc, which are all pretty much breach of contract).

But the more modern marriages involve ante-nuptial agreements (better known as pre-nups) and even time limits that can be extended if desired, e.g. five years, ten years, etc. The state doesn't care about any of this until you end up in court to dissolve the marriage contract that you created, then the court adheres to your pre-agreed contract and dissolves the marriage.

Re "marital rape:" No state has laws giving a spouse the "right" to rape a spouse; some states lack specific criminal laws outlawing such behavior, or have criminal laws that are intended to prevent such behavior that are vague, and the people of those states need to introduce and pass specific criminal laws outlawing the behavior. This is not indicative of the state providing the "right" to abuse; instead, it's indicative of the evolution of criminal law (not marital law), which is a constant and never-ending process. For further example, Spousal privilege (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege) is a law relating to the rules of evidence, not marital law. Marital law mostly relates to the equitable distribution of property, defining and identifying marital property, child and spousal support, etc. which is all related to laws of equity. Most courts don't even call it marital law, anymore; it's called "Domestic Relations." (http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ABOUTTHECOURT/CountyDepartment/DomesticRelationsDivision.aspx). The Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois has a separate and specific Domestic Violence Division (http://www.statesattorney.org/index2/domestic_violence.html).

Jinsai
03-10-2013, 11:19 AM
Maybe you need to create a "I hate libertarians" thread to get your issues out. Can we get back on topic?

The irony here is so extreme it hurts, coming from the person who pretty much only posts in the "headlines" section of this forum to cheerlead for libertarian causes, and the same person who turned the Sandy Hook shooting thread into a "this is my favorite ammo!" discussion telling people to stay on topic.

littlemonkey613
03-10-2013, 10:12 PM
So, what is your ideal proposal to fix all of this? It sounds a lot like you are leading toward: People create their own agreement terms (not the governments) and voluntarily sign it. Then our legal system recognizes it as a binding contract. Would that contract recognition also plug into the systems that currently recognize marriage (tax, insurance, etc)?

Well marriage becoming more and more inclusive is always a good in my eyes. I actually don't think a top to bottom approach is a good way to look at it and it definitely leaves no realistic options. I think we all need to pay attention to subtle socialization and I think this is happening more on a large scale as marriage is becoming less and less dominant statistically. People's individual needs are being met less and less by marriage and that is why marriage as an institution is becoming less and less popular. The more individualism is promoted when it comes to thinking about sexuality and love the more we will see this break down of marriage. Everything's already going in the right direction in my eyes so I align myself with the LGBT movement, gay marriage and all that jazz. My hope is that the social conservative prediction does become a reality in terms of gay rights leading to a complete break down of how our society functions when it comes to marriage. I see this already happening so I'm pretty hopeful and optimistic.

icklekitty
03-11-2013, 04:18 AM
The Queen's apparently going to do a speech that's pro-gay marriage and pro-feminism today. My beady eyes are peeled for that one!

Jinsai
03-12-2013, 02:32 PM
The Queen's apparently going to do a speech that's pro-gay marriage and pro-feminism today. My beady eyes are peeled for that one!

So what happened with this one?

allegro
03-12-2013, 03:07 PM
The Queen still has gastroenteritis.

allegro
03-20-2013, 04:22 AM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/viewpressreleases.aspx?FileName=pr_03-19-13.html


The Court will provide the audio recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, March 26, and United States v. Windsor, scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, March 27, on an expedited basis through the Court's Website.

The Court will post the audio recordings and unofficial transcripts as soon as the digital files are available for uploading to the Website. The audio recordings and transcripts should be available no later than 1 p.m. on March 26 and no later than 2 p.m. on March 27.

Anyone interested in the proceedings will be able to access the recordings and transcripts directly through links on the homepage of the Court's Website. The homepage currently provides links to the orders, briefs, and other information about the cases. The Court's Website address is www.supremecourt.gov.

Jinsai
03-29-2013, 09:24 PM
Well, that's a first, when Rush Limbaugh concedes that his "side" will lose on this issue...

Also, this was a pretty interesting moment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/sonia-sotomayor-gay-marriage_n_2965105.html

DigitalChaos
03-29-2013, 10:48 PM
Saying that he will lose doesn't mean he agrees. I'll have to look up the video but I bet anything that he went on about how he is losing because of how horrible the liberals are and how right he was about them, etc.

I am REALLY enjoying the moral purists get so angry about it.

Jinsai
03-29-2013, 11:02 PM
Saying that he will lose doesn't mean he agrees. I'll have to look up the video but I bet anything that he went on about how he is losing because of how horrible the liberals are and how right he was about them, etc.

I did not suggest that he agreed with it. If he agreed with it, he wouldn't be conceding that HIS SIDE was going to lose the issue.

littlemonkey613
04-05-2013, 03:02 PM
After listening to the recordings of the oral arguments a few things struck me as really interesting for DOMA:

1. How the pro gay marriage side utilized the state's rights argument more than anything, thus making it pretty impossible for the court to rule nationally for gay marriage if it wanted to. In order to say gay marriage should be applied to all states the opposition to DOMA would have to give up its strongest legal argument. The judges went hard on this and were pretty (bad assley) relentless on this part of the questioning.

2. How the marriage inherently discriminates against others. Attacks on polyamory, and anything other than a traditional idea of fidelity were constantly thrown out by gay marriage proponents. I understand why and I get its necessary ( I guess) in this stage of the game but god damn is it annoying. The way they romanticize the institution and completely obliterate its fucked up history is so aggravating. Again necessary (I guess) I know! But ugh ugh UGH.

Again I'm pro gay marriage and I have even campaigned for it but I found a post that sums up my thoughts very nicely if ya'll are interested.

http://q4ej.org/beyond-marriage-executive-summary

allegro
04-05-2013, 04:23 PM
Yup, good points and you correctly interpreted it, littlemonkey613.

It's hard to call, but it seems like the SCOTUS may throw the Prop 8 back to the lower court's ruling (which ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional) and may very well strike down DOMA based on the state's right issue but also on the federal financial discrimination being suffered by parties legally married in their own states (Edie Windsor). Which isn't the overall "win" that the LBGT community seems to want, but as the SCOTUS implied, this is a process that is evolving.

slave2thewage
04-14-2013, 08:21 AM
Looks like Ireland is the next country to have same-sex marriage. What this result means is that there will be a referendum and the last poll put public support at around 74%, so...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXbggRIXyeA

Alexandros
04-18-2013, 10:24 AM
New Zealand ratified gay marriage yesterday. The prime minister seems an alright guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDEiaoEP2U

Pillfred
05-20-2013, 04:53 PM
Minnesota just passed their bill a couple weeks back. Now only if ND will pull their head out of the shale long enough to get an actual clue...

leo3375
05-20-2013, 05:25 PM
Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota all passed bill granting recognition to same-sex marriages this month. Illinois looks like it's next. I think the Dakotas and Wisconsin may decide to undo their constitutional amendments when they see how beneficial equal marriage is to Iowa and Minnesota.

allegro
06-24-2013, 08:22 AM
Your virtual watercooler. The #SCOTUS liveblog is up: http://t.co/PRvMQ2WzK8 https://t.co/pXFHXi1JsS

edit: Crap, no decision on these cases will be issued today. They'll be back tomorrow.

slave2thewage
06-26-2013, 09:20 AM
DOMA's been ruled as unconstitutional.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/26/usa

allegro
06-26-2013, 09:28 AM
SCOTUS Opinion (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf).

Edie Windsor is a hero!

slave2thewage
06-26-2013, 09:38 AM
And Prop 8 has been struck down (see the link in my previous post). I'm not even American and I'm smiling. It's a good day for OUR KIND.

leo3375
06-26-2013, 09:43 AM
The Prop 8 ruling only reinstates marriage rights in California. Many equal-marriage advocates would have preferred a more sweeping ruling that would strike down all marriage bans, but it is a step in the right direction. And odds are that if a federal court rules a marriage ban in, say, Texas is unconstitutional, it would mot make it to the SCOTUS as the Prop 8 ruling would apply.

allegro
06-26-2013, 09:49 AM
It's a good day for OUR KIND.
This isn't just about gay marriage; this is about striking down a stupid and unconstitutional law that clearly violated this country's separation between church and state (and violates the Fifth Amendment, per SCOTUS).

Every time I see somebody on television blathering on about how "GOD defines marriage," I want to scream "BUT GOD DIDN'T WRITE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND GOD DOESN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY!"

This is a good day for equality and for smacking down the religious right.

This is also a day of joy even for us straight people. Bravo.

DigitalChaos
06-26-2013, 11:04 AM
Finally. This took way too long. I cannot wait for the rage to come pouring out of Fox News. Delicious schadenfreude.

but a few things....

DOMA -
Section 2, which allows states not to recognize gay marriages of other states, still stands.

Prop8 -
Chief Justice Roberts said: "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here." This seems like it could be a potentially dangerous precedent.

DigitalChaos
06-26-2013, 11:10 AM
Every time I see somebody on television blathering on about how "GOD defines marriage," I want to scream "BUT GOD DIDN'T WRITE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND GOD DOESN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY!"
Not to mention the fact that you can no longer sell your daughter for 3 goats and a cow means we have already redefined marriage.

october_midnight
06-26-2013, 02:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2w2TRxSLxw

Jinsai
06-26-2013, 02:46 PM
I'm all for laughing at Alex Jones' insanity, but can't we just have a couple minutes where we can all be happy that sanity won?

DigitalChaos
06-26-2013, 02:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2w2TRxSLxw

cant

stop

laughing

holy fuck. that might be the first alex jones video that made me laugh without heavy overtones of anger toward him. Except for that fucking gasden flag on his shirt... fuck him for trampling all over the history of that flag.

slave2thewage
06-26-2013, 02:54 PM
I don't know who that is. Is he some kind of village idiot?

Jinsai
06-26-2013, 03:19 PM
I don't know who that is. Is he some kind of village idiot?

He's a libertarian.

allegro
06-26-2013, 03:52 PM
DOMA -
Section 2, which allows states not to recognize gay marriages of other states, still stands.
Yes, because of state's rights.


Prop8 -
Chief Justice Roberts said: "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here." This seems like it could be a potentially dangerous precedent.
No, no precedent was set at all. Deliberately.

Here's the timeline:

* Gay marriage becomes legal in California via Proposition 22, winning with 61 percent of CA voters.

* Then nobody wants to honor it.

* Then the California Supreme Court rules that denying same-sex marriage violates the Constitution of the State of California, thereby making same-sex marriages legal in California

* Then Prop 8, outlawing gay marriage, is submitted and voted on and wins with 52 percent of the vote (even though Prop 22 already won with 61 percent of CA voters)

* Then US District (Federal) Court rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and violates rights

* Then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the District Court's ruling

* Then the Prop 8 supporters file a petition for writ of certiorari (petition for SCOTUS to hear the case) and writ is granted (SCOTUS agrees to hear the case)

* Then the State of California opts not to appear before the SCOTUS to argue on behalf of Prop 8, because the State of California honors the Appellate Court's ruling

* Today, the SCOTUS rules that (1) there is no adequate precedent (prior case law) for them to use for this case and (2) it doesn't matter, anyway, because they should have never granted the writ (agreed to hear this case), because (3) the State of California isn't working to uphold Prop 8 (the State accepts the Federal court ruling declaring Prop 8 to be unconstitutional per the constitution of the State of California) and a private party (not the state) filed to uphold Prop 8 but that private party has no right to do that (no standing, see below). So SCOTUS is saying that the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision is the ruling decision and that the SCOTUS has no business deciding about California's constitution when the State of California has already accepted that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. See below.

TODAY'S DECISIONS IN PLAIN ENGLISH (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/a-home-run-but-not-a-grand-slam-for-gay-marriage-advocates-in-plain-english/).

"the sponsors of the law lacked a legal right to defend the initiative [Prop 8] after a federal district court struck it down"

"For a lawsuit to proceed in federal court, both sides must have (among other things) “standing” – a legal term for a real and specific injury that can be cured by a court decision in your favor. In this case, the two same-sex couples won in the federal trial court, and the state officials who would have otherwise enforced the law didn’t appeal that decision because they agreed that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Only the sponsors of the initiative wanted to appeal – but the district court hadn’t ordered them to do (or not to do) anything, so they “had no ‘direct stake’ in the outcome of their appeal.” Simply disliking the law, the Court explained, is not enough to create “standing.” Nor does California law justify allowing the sponsors to participate in the case: California election laws don’t give them a special role in enforcing Proposition 8, and a ruling by the California Supreme Court that state law allowed the sponsors to appear in court on behalf of the state doesn’t help them here. The Supreme Court, it explained, “ha[s] never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to.” Thus, it continued, it “decline[d] to do so for the first time here.”"

DigitalChaos
06-26-2013, 04:15 PM
I don't know who that is. Is he some kind of village idiot?
The king of conspiracy nuts. He was once a republican candidate in Texas but politics has very little to do with what he is.
A quick look at the films he is associated with tells you everything you need to know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Films

Jinsai
06-26-2013, 04:21 PM
The king of conspiracy nuts. He was once a republican candidate in Texas but politics has very little to do with what he is.

and even though "politics has very little to do with what he is" he will repeatedly work in the fact that libertarians are the true patriots of America, that they're the victims of a grand government conspiracy, and the only solution to ward off the illuminati is to secure a libertarian majority.

So... you could say that politics has very little to do with his viewpoint or the affiliation of his listeners, but only if you don't view "libertarian" as a political stance. Meanwhile, "true" libertarians will point to his supporters as "stepping stones" to gaining a majority.

DigitalChaos
06-26-2013, 04:23 PM
Yes, because of state's rights.
totally. just saying that this thread will live on and there will be more battles to be fought. It's going to be WAY better now that people can handle this at the state level though. So happy to see federal out of one more thing.



No, no precedent was set at all. Deliberately.

...

That makes sense then. What I was reading seemed to indicate that lack of state officials in support was THE justification. That seemed wrong.

SCOTUS seems to be the only branch of government that is healthy and functioning as designed. It's fascinating to follow along (or try to).

DigitalChaos
06-26-2013, 04:36 PM
and even though "politics has very little to do with what he is" he will repeatedly work in the fact that libertarians are the true patriots of America, that they're the victims of a grand government conspiracy, and the only solution to ward off the illuminati is to secure a libertarian majority.

So... you could say that politics has very little to do with his viewpoint or the affiliation of his listeners, but only if you don't view "libertarian" as a political stance. Meanwhile, "true" libertarians will point to his supporters as "stepping stones" to gaining a majority.

He also calls himself a conservative. Most people that disagree with him call him right-wing.

Alex Jones dislikes gays and is against gay marriage. The libertarian platform has been for gay marriage since it formed in 1971. (http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-applauds-doma-strikedown)

no more alex jones shit please

allegro
06-26-2013, 05:02 PM
totally. just saying that this thread will live on and there will be more battles to be fought. It's going to be WAY better now that people can handle this at the state level though. So happy to see federal out of one more thing.
I disagree, actually. I believe that denying gay marriage is a civil rights violation, and that we need a Federal law (trumping state law) that makes gay marriage legal in all states, like Loving v. Virginia. That will happen, eventually. Maybe not through case law but through legislation.

Jinsai
06-26-2013, 05:02 PM
no more alex jones shit please

I can agree with that much


I disagree, actually. I believe that denying gay marriage is a civil rights violation, and that we need a Federal law (trumping state law) that makes gay marriage legal in all states, like Loving v. Virginia. That will happen, eventually. Maybe not through case law but through legislation.

and this

DigitalChaos
06-26-2013, 05:14 PM
I disagree, actually. I believe that denying gay marriage is a civil rights violation, and that we need a Federal law (trumping state law) that makes gay marriage legal in all states, like Loving v. Virginia. That will happen, eventually. Maybe not through case law but through legislation.
Well, until that happens, I feel like marriage equality will move forward faster across various states. In fact, that would eventually lead to more support for a federal bill.

Constitutional question for you on DOMA... Obama refused to "defend" DOMA but continued to "enforce" it. He continued enforcing because not doing so would be unconstitutional (I agree). What is the difference between defending and enforcing from a constitutional level? Many have tried to say that not defending DOMA was also potentially unconstitutional.

slave2thewage
06-26-2013, 06:51 PM
the killing of "thousands of astronauts".
Well, alright then.

And to make this on-topic, in the international side of gay marriage the Irish referendum (we love these over here) has been more or less confirmed as happening next year (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum-on-gay-marriage-to-be-held-in-2014-29364000.html). I can't wait to land me a doctor or an oil baron.

allegro
06-26-2013, 08:39 PM
Constitutional question for you on DOMA... Obama refused to "defend" DOMA but continued to "enforce" it. He continued enforcing because not doing so would be unconstitutional (I agree). What is the difference between defending and enforcing from a constitutional level? Many have tried to say that not defending DOMA was also potentially unconstitutional.
SEE THIS (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us/politics/for-obama-tricky-balancing-act-in-enforcing-defense-of-marriage-act.html?pagewanted=all). ....

Fixer808
06-26-2013, 09:55 PM
I don't know who that is. Is he some kind of village idiot?

He's a libertarian.
Semantics...

Jinsai
06-27-2013, 12:37 AM
The libertarian platform has been for gay marriage since it formed in 1971. (http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-applauds-doma-strikedown)

ah joy, now it works...

gotta love that last sentence, "A recent poll from ABC News/Washington Post (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage/) shows that 58 percent of Americans support marriage equality, a rapid change from just a decade ago, when only 39 percent supported it. Americans are coming around to the Libertarian view that big government does not belong in our lives, whether it’s our bedrooms or our wallets."

Yes libertarians, this is all about you and your "get your pesky big government away from my freedom" bullshit.

Kodiak33
06-27-2013, 07:13 AM
My stupid state's (Indiana) Governor is trying to pass an amendment to the Indiana constitution next year. Mike Pence is awful.

Magtig
06-29-2013, 09:50 PM
SUCK A BIG GAY DICK COVERED IN RAINBOWS, PROP 8 GUY FROM CHAPMAN! (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-backers-make-emergency-effort-to-block-samesex-marriages-20130629,0,1828948.story)

(Prop 8 lawyers are STILL trying to get an injunction to stop all the gay marriages happening today)

"It is part and parcel of the utter lawlessness in which this whole case has been prosecuted," Eastman, of Chapman University, said. "

...
"Tonight it is chaos and lawlessness, and anyone who is concerned about the rule of law ought to be deeply troubled by what happened here," Eastman said.



Oh sweet lawless schadenfreude.

allegro
06-29-2013, 10:20 PM
^^ Ugh, you know, if you look at news footage from the time when black kids got to go to white schools, or when black people got the right to vote, you will see a bunch of crazy religious white people screaming and ranting about all that and nobody listened to them, then, either. Eventually their tantrum burns out and they go lay down.

(I hope.)

Magtig
06-30-2013, 02:46 PM
...aaand their request has already been denied by the SCOTUS. (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-supreme-court-rejects-petition-to-halt-samesex-marriages-20130630,0,6507765.story)

allegro
06-30-2013, 05:06 PM
They're just too stupid for words.

DigitalChaos
06-30-2013, 05:18 PM
...aaand their request has already been denied by the SCOTUS. (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-supreme-court-rejects-petition-to-halt-samesex-marriages-20130630,0,6507765.story)
ahahaha
I really hope someone delivered a great big "HAHA FAGGOT!" when he got denied.

DigitalChaos
06-30-2013, 05:37 PM
As of right now, we've had over 500 same sex marriage certs issued in San Francisco since friday afternoon.

Fixer808
07-01-2013, 01:54 AM
...aaand their request has already been denied by the SCOTUS. (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-supreme-court-rejects-petition-to-halt-samesex-marriages-20130630,0,6507765.story)
Their argument of "It's ruining my life/marriage because I can't stop picturing those newly wedded gay couples having sex" didn't fly with the Supreme Court, then...

Jinsai
07-11-2013, 05:21 PM
Vladamir Putin signs a law which would fine citizens (and tourists) for "homosexual propaganda," and additionally threatens to arrest and detain people for being gay (or pro-gay) for up to 14 days, after which point they will be banned from the country (http://www.travelandescape.ca/2013/07/russia-says-it-will-arrest-openly-gay-tourists/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferc7df4&utm_medium=twitter)

Elke
07-12-2013, 08:32 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOWqvH-CUAAs7RW.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/tilda-swinton-rainbow-flag-russia-_n_3550360.html)

Kodiak33
07-12-2013, 10:02 AM
Vladamir Putin signs a law which would fine citizens (and tourists) for "homosexual propaganda," and additionally threatens to arrest and detain people for being gay (or pro-gay) for up to 14 days, after which point they will be banned from the country (http://www.travelandescape.ca/2013/07/russia-says-it-will-arrest-openly-gay-tourists/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferc7df4&utm_medium=twitter)

Wow, what horse shit.

Pillfred
07-27-2013, 02:23 PM
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/407290/group/Opinion/

My mind, it hurts.

"Each of us has to work out his own life as best he can; some things we do should be done privately, and not for public consumption."
Yes, yes we do, now please shut the fuck up.

allegro
11-05-2013, 09:00 PM
Today, Illinois became the 15th state to legalize gay marriage!! I'm so proud of Illinois right now!!!

leo3375
11-05-2013, 10:35 PM
Wisconsin is practically surrounded by states with equal marriage now. Here's hoping that they realize how much money they're losing with their stupid amendment and bring in a state Legislature that will work to repeal the amendment and get it in line with its neighbors to the west and south. (Yes, I know I'm in Minnesota. Considering how similar Minnesota and Wisconsin are culturally, I would not be surprised if the majority of Sconnies now support marriage equality.)

allegro
11-05-2013, 11:45 PM
Our new law repealed our legal "one man and one woman" definition, as well. I was afraid this wouldn't pass because so many Bible-thumping state representatives had been on TV saying that God didn't think gay people should marry (and I kept screaming at the television).

leo3375
11-06-2013, 12:05 AM
If Illinois has the same sorts of exemptions that Minnesota and Iowa have, there shouldn't be any problems. In Minnesota, religious groups and non-profits that don't receive state funding can be as discriminating as they damn well please. However, a florist or venue owner can't turn away a potential client because of religious reasons. It isn't violating the Freedom to Marry Act (the law in Minnesota that grants marriage right to all consenting adults) but it is violating the state Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on a number of issues, including sexual orientation. The Minnesota law also explicitly applies to civil marriage; that is, a marriage that is validated by the state via marriage license. As long as you've got that piece of paper from the state you're good.

allegro
11-06-2013, 07:06 AM
Well, technically, all state laws refer to civil marriage LICENSES. The state doesn't care where or how you perform the marriage so long as you have the state-issued license and the person officiating (minister, judge, friend, circus performer, comedian, DJ,, whatever) has the power vested by the state to perform the marriage ceremony. I don't think any state can force, say, the Catholic Church into performing a gay marriage.

My point (^) was that many Illinois state representatives would not recognize the separation of church and state and did not want to revise Illinois law's marriage definition of "one man and one woman" because God said it should be one man and one woman and God is the one defining Illinois law. Which of course is nuts. Thankfully, they were outnumbered by smarter minds.

slave2thewage
11-07-2013, 08:58 AM
Referendum in Ireland on gay marriage "within 18 months" was confirmed a few days ago. All political parties are in favour, and the first poll after announcement puts it at 76% for bringing it in (http://www.thejournal.ie/opinion-poll-same-sex-marriage-1164428-Nov2013/). SOON, MY PRETTIES, SOON.

tony.parente
11-07-2013, 10:09 AM
Is it safe to say Russia is slowly becoming the Nazi Germany for homosexuals?

slave2thewage
11-07-2013, 10:16 AM
Is it safe to say Russia is slowly becoming the Nazi Germany for homosexuals?
Pretty accurate, in my opinion.

DigitalChaos
11-07-2013, 12:18 PM
In Minnesota, religious groups and non-profits that don't receive state funding can be as discriminating as they damn well please. However, a florist or venue owner can't turn away a potential client because of religious reasons.
Which is still bullshit. The private businesses aren't receiving funding either. Yet, the churches are tax exempt. They are basically getting a free ride on that one from the tax payers. They still get to use all the tax payer funded services without paying their share.

The tax exempt orgs should be more obligated to remove discrimination than the non exempt. How fucked is it that you foot the bill for an org that gets to deny you service?

allegro
11-07-2013, 12:58 PM
Which is still bullshit. The private businesses aren't receiving funding either. Yet, the churches are tax exempt. They are basically getting a free ride on that one from the tax payers. They still get to use all the tax payer funded services without paying their share.

The tax exempt orgs should be more obligated to remove discrimination than the non exempt. How fucked is it that you foot the bill for an org that gets to deny you service?
It's touchy because religious organizations still have the right to their religious beliefs; Rome isn't about to change their stance on gay marriage, and U.S. Catholic churches can't make up their own rules re gay marriage. I doubt that any gay couple would even think to demand to be married in a Catholic church.

Florists denying a gay couple (or a black couple, or a mixed race couple, or whatever) service is just plain old discrimination, since the business isn't being asked to actually perform a marriage.

It's kinda like this issue about Catholic organizations being required to provide health insurance to employees that includes birth control. The Archdiocese is claiming that this violates their religious beliefs, but a lot of Catholic organizations (e.g. Catholic universities providing health insurance to professors) already provide this coverage because they distance themselves via a disconnect between Church and insurance provider. The Church can't really do that, though, in performing a gay marriage. To the church, it's kinda like asking the Catholic church to perform an abortion. Catholic hospitals do not perform any abortions, nor are they required to by law. To my knowledge, no church in the country can be forced to perform a gay marriage. If they refused to perform an interracial marriage, however, they'd be in big trouble because there is no valid argument in favor of this kind of discrimination from a religious standpoint.

DigitalChaos
11-07-2013, 04:20 PM
It's touchy because religious organizations still have the right to their religious beliefs; Rome isn't about to change their stance on gay marriage, and U.S. Catholic churches can't make up their own rules re gay marriage. I doubt that any gay couple would even think to demand to be married in a Catholic church.

Florists denying a gay couple (or a black couple, or a mixed race couple, or whatever) service is just plain old discrimination, since the business isn't being asked to actually perform a marriage.

It's kinda like this issue about Catholic organizations being required to provide health insurance to employees that includes birth control. The Archdiocese is claiming that this violates their religious beliefs, but a lot of Catholic organizations (e.g. Catholic universities providing health insurance to professors) already provide this coverage because they distance themselves via a disconnect between Church and insurance provider. The Church can't really do that, though, in performing a gay marriage. To the church, it's kinda like asking the Catholic church to perform an abortion. Catholic hospitals do not perform any abortions, nor are they required to by law. To my knowledge, no church in the country can be forced to perform a gay marriage. If they refused to perform an interracial marriage, however, they'd be in big trouble because there is no valid argument in favor of this kind of discrimination from a religious standpoint.

Definitely. But there is more than one direction you can take this. I think this is exactly why churches SHOULD pay taxes. It's up to them... pay taxes or be inclusionary. pick one! Want to be exclusionary to the public? Ok, then you cant get a free ride from the public. You can't mooch off someone's taxes while excluding them from the benefits. You want to contribute your share, like everyone else, ok fine.. be a bigot all you want. At least then people can boycott you. How the fuck do you boycott something when you are forced by the state to support them?

Meanwhile, most of those asshole will bitch about the poor who are freeloading off the tax money of others. Yeah yeah... churches do charitable shit. Well, if those charities are not exclusionary, then sure... give a tax deduction for it.

allegro
11-07-2013, 06:27 PM
I've always contended that churches should pay property taxes. But that's a separate topic than that of this thread.

tony.parente
12-19-2013, 09:55 AM
So yeah, lots of butthurt caused by the Duck Dynasty dude.
Then again who is taking a person like him seriously to begin with? Is anyone shocked a white trash bible belt redneck doesn't agree with gay marrage/sex?

Frozen Beach
12-19-2013, 11:17 AM
As long as he's not going around doing anything violent towards gay or trying to make people "act straight", I really don't see why anyone fucking cares.

onthewall2983
12-19-2013, 11:33 AM
And you just know A&E will bring him back on once the "controversy" dies down and the ratings start to dip.

leo3375
12-19-2013, 11:54 PM
Welcome to the club, New Mexico! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/19/new-mexico-high-court-rules-same-sex-couples-have-right-to-marry/?hpt=us_c2)

leo3375
12-20-2013, 11:34 PM
ADDENDUM: Federal court rules Utah's amendment banning same-sex marriage violates US constitution and is based in unfounded fears. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/justice/utah-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews) Needless to say Utah's governor and attorney general are planning an appeal. Interestingly enough, there is no stay on the ruling pending appeal. People are rushing to get married in the meantime.

Hey Mormons! Just because Utah has to recognize same-sex marriages at the government level doesn't mean that you have to as well. Separation of Church and State, you know.

allegro
12-21-2013, 11:44 AM
ADDENDUM: Federal court rules Utah's amendment banning same-sex marriage violates US constitution and is based in unfounded fears. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/justice/utah-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews) Needless to say Utah's governor and attorney general are planning an appeal. Interestingly enough, there is no stay on the ruling pending appeal. People are rushing to get married in the meantime.

Hey Mormons! Just because Utah has to recognize same-sex marriages at the government level doesn't mean that you have to as well. Separation of Church and State, you know.

A Utah Federal Judge also just declared cohabitation elements of Utah's anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/14/21903224-federal-judge-strikes-down-key-parts-of-utahs-polygamy-law-in-sister-wives-ruling?lite). Congrats, Brown family!

kel
05-14-2014, 02:39 PM
this friday, may 16th, my partner of over 16 years and i will finally be legally tying the knot in our home state of idaho.

allegro
05-14-2014, 02:47 PM
this friday, may 16th, my partner of over 16 years and i will finally be legally tying the knot in our home state of idaho.

CONGRATULATIONS!! That is awesome!!!

orestes
05-14-2014, 09:27 PM
Marriage equality in Arkansas. (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2014/05/14/arkansas-supreme-court-denies-emergency-stay-of-marriage-ruling-but-says-another-statute-prohibiting-clerks-from-issuing-licenses-to-same-sex)

kel
05-15-2014, 12:04 AM
CONGRATULATIONS!! That is awesome!!!thank you :)

i'm overwhelmed. we didn't expect idaho to be 18th. and as of right now there is little chance of judicial resistance. even the courthouse in twin falls (where i grew up, southeast of boise, a largely conservative city) will have an ordained minister on site.

Tony Gordon
05-18-2014, 12:46 PM
Separation of Church and State, you know.


You know Republicans hate that idea with a passion. If you ever visit the south, you're stepping foot in fascist wasteland. At least that is how Alabama is.

theruiner
05-20-2014, 08:16 PM
And now Pennsylvania.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/us/judge-strikes-down-pennsylvania-ban-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

Demogorgon
05-21-2014, 08:25 AM
ohio will be next, I'm fairly certain. people have been pushing really, really hard here, especially in the larger cities. It's only a matter of time.

onthewall2983
06-25-2014, 05:06 PM
Judge strikes down ban in Indiana (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-indiana-ban-on-gay-marriage/2014/06/25/1f8f9ef4-fc81-11e3-9b05-7ec49dc09d97_story.html)

DigitalChaos
07-02-2014, 09:40 PM
so many wins!

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/

http://gregstoll.dyndns.org/marriagemap/

DigitalChaos
08-01-2014, 02:47 PM
Boom

Uganda

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/us-uganda-homosexuals-idUSKBN0G13TN20140801?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

They aren't touching marriage, but this is progress.

Sarah K
10-06-2014, 09:32 AM
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/breaking-supreme-court-action-means-marriage-equality-for-five-states-by-de


In a surprise move, the nine justices of the Supreme Court have declined to hear any of the cases pending before them challenging state bans on marriage for same-sex couples. This allows the circuit court decisions striking down the bans to stand, meaning same-sex couples in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana will soon be able to legally marry. In addition, it leaves in place the circuit court rulings from the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits, meaning couples in West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming will soon be able to marry as well

Swykk
10-06-2014, 06:12 PM
Hooray for Indiana! Something good finally happened here despite our Teatarded governor's efforts.

Sarah K
10-06-2014, 06:22 PM
My most favorite part about this is that it is almost ALL red states. Glorious.

As I understand it, every state that doesn't have equality has Supreme Court cases pending at the time. So, if the circuit courts continue to rule the bans unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court continues to refuse cases, it shouldn't be long before ALL states are included, right? |

It's possible that I'm missing something, though.

nvr_mind
10-06-2014, 08:26 PM
I'm from Virginia and my facebook feed was full of dumb asses being so angry about this quoting the bible and shit. Fuck I can't stand people like that. Honestly, why do they care so much. I mean, no one calls them out for picking and choosing their rules and practicing a bastardized version of Christianity and only follow the rules that are convenient for them.

Sarah K
10-06-2014, 08:33 PM
I mean, no one calls them out for picking and choosing their rules and practicing a bastardized version of Christianity and only follow the rules that are convenient for them.

I do. Like, all the time.

kel
10-07-2014, 03:41 PM
idaho and nevada bans struck the fuck down! YES!

#idahome

green
10-07-2014, 07:50 PM
So those of you who believe gay marriage should be legal, do you also believe same sex couples deserve the tax incentives received through normal marriage? Or, is it that you just want that word 'marriage' included in their/your union? I use normal in the traditional sense, not as a derogatory meme.

Sarah K
10-07-2014, 07:53 PM
So those of you who believe gay marriage should be legal, do you also believe same sex couples deserve the tax incentives received through normal marriage? Or, is it that you just want that word 'marriage' included in their/your union? I use normal in the traditional sense, not as a derogatory meme.

Yes... They should get all of the same benefits.

green
10-07-2014, 07:56 PM
Yes... They should get all of the same benefits.
Did you know the main reason our (US) government incentivizes marriage, is to add economic value through reproduction?

Sarah K
10-07-2014, 08:16 PM
That's grasping at straws. In that case, it would be necessary to question every couple before they got married if they had a desire for children. It would also mean that people who aren't able to reproduce due to illness, age, or just unfortunate luck, shouldn't not be able to be married, either.

Perhaps it started out that way once upon a time. But the purpose of marriage is most definitely not breeding.

allegro
10-07-2014, 08:22 PM
So those of you who believe gay marriage should be legal, do you also believe same sex couples deserve the tax incentives received through normal marriage? Or, is it that you just want that word 'marriage' included in their/your union? I use normal in the traditional sense, not as a derogatory meme.
They already receive inheritance tax incentives via the Windsor Opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor). I believe the financial benefits to be the primary reason, personally. I don't much care about all the romantic shit. The state isn't in the business of caring about romance. To the state, marriage is a legally-binding contract with the state having jurisdiction over that contract. The only way the state cares about children is when the contract is broken and the assets are divided and the state steps in regarding the care and control of the children.

The IRS provides additional writeoffs for "dependents" but that is separate from the marriage contract. A single person can file with a dependent.

Here is the IRS's definition of a "Qualifying Child:"

Uniform Definition
A “qualifying child” may enable a taxpayer to claim several tax benefits, such as head of household filing status, the exemption for a dependent, the child tax credit, the child and dependent care credit and the earned income tax credit. Prior to 2005, each of these items defined a qualifying child differently, leaving many taxpayers confused.
The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 set a uniform definition of a qualifying child, beginning for Tax Year 2005. This standard definition applies to all five of the tax benefits noted above, with each benefit having some additional rules.
In general, to be a taxpayer’s qualifying child, a person must satisfy four tests:
Relationship — the taxpayer’s child or stepchild (whether by blood or adoption), foster child, sibling or stepsibling, or a descendant of one of these.

green
10-07-2014, 08:24 PM
That's grasping at straws.

No, it's literally what marriage is for. Love has nothing to do with it, otherwise the gov. would hand out benefits to everyone who decides to live together.

In that case, it would be necessary to question every couple before they got married if they had a desire for children.
Reproduction is the norm; it's a given.

It would also mean that people who aren't able to reproduce due to illness, age, or just unfortunate luck, shouldn't not be able to be married, either.
If you enter into marriage knowing you can't reproduce, then you shouldn't receive a tax credit. Same with homosexuals. Personally, I think a same sex couple who adopts a child should receive benefits, since they are contributing to the economic growth. But I'm not in charge, and common sense seems mythical in this day and age.


Perhaps it started out that way once upon a time. But the purpose of marriage is most definitely not breeding.
You're absolutely wrong.

Sarah K
10-07-2014, 08:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States#Law

So your belief is that women who are past menopause should no longer be able to marry?

Also, MORE people should be making the choice to not reproduce. Check out the nightmare that is our foster care system. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. The ability to self evaluate and recognize this should be praised, not put down.

allegro
10-07-2014, 08:38 PM
You're absolutely wrong.
No, she's absolutely not wrong. I was a Domestic Relations litigation paralegal for 13 years, and I guarantee you that the Court system does not give one flying fuck about anything except the contract of marriage. The State makes you get a license, first, to make sure that both parties reside within the state (giving the state jurisdiction over the contract), and then the marriage is a formal contract to be nullified only by the state. 80-yr-olds get married with a legal marriage license. All the time. Marriage has always been nothing more than a financial contract. Period. Originally, for most of history, it was a way to insure that females were financially provided for by males, because females couldn't enter into contracts, even AFTER they were married, and females were unable to earn their own living. This is why females take their HUSBAND's name; they were nothing more than chattel property. It denotes ownership.

Haven't you ever read any Jane Austen for Christ sake?

p.s. -- There is no big tax credit for marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty). You're not really up on this IRS stuff, are you? (I've known high-earning couples who got DIVORCED to save money on income taxes.)

The biggest IRS benefit to being married is Estate Taxes, which you can also avoid with a good trust fund, or moving to a state that doesn't have inheritance taxes.

green
10-07-2014, 08:45 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States#Law

So your belief is that women who are past menopause should no longer be able to marry?
They shouldn't get benefits, they can marry as many times and whatever sex they want. My exact words: If you enter into marriage knowing you can't reproduce, then you shouldn't receive a tax credit.


Also, MORE people should be making the choice to not reproduce. Check out the nightmare that is our foster care system. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. The ability to self evaluate and recognize this should be praised, not put down.
Even more reason and incentive to provides subsidies to those who adopt.


No, she's absolutely not wrong. I was a Domestic Relations litigation paralegal for 13 years, and I guarantee you that the Court system does not give one flying fuck about anything except the contract of marriage. The State makes you get a license, first, to make sure that both parties reside within the state (giving the state jurisdiction over the contract), and then the marriage is a formal contract. Nothing more. 80-yr-olds get married with a legal marriage license. All the time. Marriage has always been nothing more than a financial contract. Period. Originally, for most of history, it was a way to insure that females were financially provided for by males, because females couldn't enter into contracts, even AFTER they were married. This is why females take their HUSBAND's name; they were nothing more than chattel property. It denotes ownership.
And this applies to homosexuals, how? Do you think people who decide to live together 'forever' deserve government subsidies, more importantly do you understand where those credits come from?

Sarah K
10-07-2014, 08:52 PM
What is your reason for wanting to deny folks tax credits? I don't really understand that bit. I mean, I know(hope) you're just playing devil's advocate. But the people who fight against equal rights are usually the same "Smaller government", "Stay away from my rights", "More tax breaks" crowd.

green
10-07-2014, 08:54 PM
What is your reason for wanting to deny folks tax credits? I don't really understand that bit. I mean, I know(hope) you're just playing devil's advocate. But the people who fight against equal rights are usually the same "Smaller government", "Stay away from my rights", "More tax breaks" crowd.
I don't believe in handing over my money to the gov. so they can hand it out to people living together for no other reason, than love.

allegro
10-07-2014, 08:56 PM
And this applies to homosexuals, how? Do you think people who decide to live together 'forever' deserve government subsidies, more importantly do you understand where those credits come from?
It applies to anybody. The state doesn't give a rat's ass if you're straight or gay. The only reason organizations are fighting this is about MONEY. Don't let the religious shit fool you; nobody wants to fork over the additional insurance, pension benefits, etc. Some gay dude getting married doesn't affect the state's marriage contract any more than 1/2 the het marriages ending in divorces and broken families costing the state and overtaxing the court systems and costing taxpayers millions of dollars in the family court system with Guardian ad Litems and custody battles and shrinks and mandatory parenting certificates through the county and the state having the track down deadbeat dads who won't pay child support and taxpayers supplementing the deadbeat dads, and repeated court dates post-decree bloating the system, etc. It ain't like the straight couples with kids are flying the flag of righteous Jesus childrearing. Basically, they mostly suck at it and I've been there to bear witness to their disgusting child-rearing behavior. If the straights can't even begin to get it right, then who fucking cares if gays want a shot at it, too. It ain't affecting you or anybody else, they may actually end up being better at it. Bottom line, I don't fucking care. Ain't my problem. It's nice that they get rights, but I don't get why people are so fucking upset about this. There are far bigger issues out there.

People who live together doesn't belong in this thread: that's drift. We stick to the topic on this board, them's the rules, since 2002.

allegro
10-07-2014, 09:01 PM
What is your reason for wanting to deny folks tax credits? I don't really understand that bit. I mean, I know(hope) you're just playing devil's advocate. But the people who fight against equal rights are usually the same "Smaller government", "Stay away from my rights", "More tax breaks" crowd.
Drift drift drift. Let's stay on the topic of the thread. When in doubt, read the topic header.

green
10-07-2014, 09:05 PM
It ain't like the straight couples with kids are flying the flag of righteous Jesus childrearing. Basically, they mostly suck at it and I've been there to bear witness to their disgusting child-rearing behavior. If the straights can't even begin to get it right, then who fucking cares if gays want a shot at it, too. It ain't affecting you or anybody else, they may actually end up being better at it. Bottom line, I don't fucking care. Ain't my problem. People who live together forever don't get shit, btw. Don't want to argue that in this thread, that's drift. We stick to the topic on this board, them's the rules, since 2002.
Not sure why you keep bringing religion into this or feel you need to bash straight couples, but okay. As to your comment: It ain't affecting you or anybody else, well you're wrong. Where do you think those subsidies come from?


People who live together forever don't get shit, btw
They do if they're married, slick. Which the whole point of my gay marriage op. This isn't personal, stop trying to make it so. lol

edit:
Drift drift drift. Let's stay on the topic of the thread. When in doubt, read the topic header.
I did read the topic headed, have you read the very first post?

allegro
10-07-2014, 09:08 PM
Not sure why you keep bringing religion into this or feel you need to bash straight couples, but okay. As to your comment: It ain't affecting you or anybody else, well you're wrong. Where do you think those subsidies come from?
First, I'M FEMALE AND I'M MARRIED. TO A DUDE. So I'm not bashing straight couples. Second, I already stated that I was a divorce paralegal so I've seen the scummy side of this that I'm guessing you haven't. Also, again, I can most assuredly tell you that married couples do not receive "subsidies." I already provided you with one link and an example, I can provide dozens more.

I'm not making it personal, slick.

allegro
10-07-2014, 09:10 PM
I did read the topic headed, have you read the very first post?
I didn't quote you, I quoted Sarah.

Tax credits having to do with gay marriage is okay. But, there is no such thing. Go show me where there is a gay marriage tax credit. Go ahead. I'll wait here.

Also, THE FIRST POST WAS FROM FUCKING 2012. LOTS HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN. AND HE WAS QUOTING A FUCKING KOCH BROTHER.

I suggest you re-read this post (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1141-The-Marriage-Rights-Thread?p=218902#post218902) including the link.

Sarah K
10-07-2014, 09:16 PM
I find this a really bizarre stance. I'll just say that there are TONS of things that I don't enjoy my tax dollars going towards. But working together is a part of being a civilized society.

Also, I'm really unsure about this "subsidy" you're talking about. Can you link me to something? Do people get a check cut to them when they're married now? If so, I might consider it!

green
10-07-2014, 09:20 PM
I didn't quote you, I quoted Sarah.

Tax credits having to do with gay marriage is okay. But, there is no such thing. Go show me where there is a gay marriage tax credit. Go ahead. I'll wait here.
Gay marriage is the same as normal marriage now, so it's the same tax credit. Do you need a link for that?


Also, THE FIRST POST WAS FROM FUCKING 2012. LOTS HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN. AND HE WAS QUOTING A FUCKING KOCH BROTHER.
Then what does topic header have to do with anything?


LOTS HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN
Oh I see now, so when the subject matter is something you agree with, it's okay to have that discussion. But if you're even accidentally uncomfortable, it's drift drift drift. Got it.

green
10-07-2014, 09:21 PM
I find this a really bizarre stance. I'll just say that there are TONS of things that I don't enjoy my tax dollars going towards. But working together is a part of being a civilized society.

Also, I'm really unsure about this "subsidy" you're talking about. Can you link me to something? Do people get a check cut to them when they're married now? If so, I might consider it!
Taxes. They don't appear from thin air.

allegro
10-07-2014, 09:21 PM
Also, I'm really unsure about this "subsidy" you're talking about. Can you link me to something? Do people get a check cut to them when they're married now? If so, I might consider it!

Subsidy is a new hip word for "penalty"

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Marriage-Penalties.cfm

Marriage Penalty

A “marriage penalty” occurs in the tax system when a wife and husband pay more income tax filing jointly as a couple than they would if they had remained single and filed as individuals. Conversely, a “marriage bonus” occurs if a couple pays less tax filing jointly than they would if they were not married and filed singly. Couples with marriage bonuses far outnumber those incurring marriage penalties but precise estimates are not available.
Source: For Better or for Worse: Marriage and the Federal Income (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/0xx/doc7/marriage.pdf)

Marriage penalties and bonuses result from the combination of progressive tax rates and taxation of a married couple as a single tax unit. With progressive taxes (which impose higher rates on higher incomes), combining spouses’ incomes can result in some income incurring higher rates than if incomes were taxed separately, but only if joint tax brackets are less than twice as wide as individual brackets.

Couples in which spouses have similar incomes are most likely to incur marriage penalties. Couples in which one spouse earns all of the couple’s income never incur a marriage penalty and almost always receive a marriage bonus.
Marriage penalties are not confined to the tax system. Married couples often receive lower benefits from government programs than they would if they had not married.
Source: The Widespread Prevalence of Marriage Penalties (http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=9731)

Tax legislation since 2001 has substantially reduced marriage penalties and increased marriage bonuses by raising the standard deduction for couples to twice that for single filers and by setting the income range of 10 and 15 percent tax brackets for couples to twice that for individuals. Legislation also raised the starting point for the EITC phaseout range by $3,000 for married couples.
Source: Major Enacted Tax Legislation Since 2000 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/2000.cfm)

Marriage penalty relief is costly. The TPC estimates that extending the marriage penalty reductions from their scheduled sunset in 2010 through 2017 would cost more than $130 billion. Much of the cost results from raising marriage bonuses.
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1429

Much of the benefit of marriage penalty relief goes to the wealthiest taxpayers. According to TPC estimates, the average taxpayer in the top income quintile will receive $1, 064 in 2010 due to marriage penalty tax cuts, compared to just an $83 benefit for middle quintile taxpayers. Proportional to income, marriage penalty relief affects taxpayers similarly; the marriage penalty cuts taxes by about 1 percent across all income quintiles.
Source: Table T07-0028 - Extend Marriage Penalty Relief, Pre-EGTRRA Baseline with AMT Fix (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1431)

Despite the recent reductions, many aspects of the tax code perpetuate penalties. For example, joint filer brackets for tax rates above 15 percent are not twice as wide as single brackets; income limits on some tax subsidies are less than twice as high for couples as for single filers; and alternative minimum tax (AMT) parameters for couples are the same as or less than twice those for unmarried individuals.
Taxpayers who might qualify for the earned income tax credit (EITC) can suffer particularly large marriage penalties if the income of one spouse disqualifies the other from getting the credit. At the same time, marriage can increase the EITC if a nonworking parent marries a low-earning worker.

Source: The Hefty Penalty on Marriage Facing Many Households with Children (http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=9417)

green
10-07-2014, 09:24 PM
There's nothing hip about it. It's the monies taken in taxes, and then used for entitlements.

Sarah K
10-07-2014, 09:27 PM
green, if you scroll back up, she quoted me when she was talking about getting off topic.

I don't think that the topic is making anyone uncomfortable. This board, by and large, is very much in support of equality.

Is is your opinion basically that everyone should simply be granted domestic partnerships more or less, with no benefits? And only those who are able AND want to reproduce should be granted any financial breaks?

allegro
10-07-2014, 09:29 PM
Then what does topic header have to do with anything?
No, you were talking about "living together" which is cohabiting which in legal terms means "not married." Which is a different topic.

Look, for the record, my partner and I cohabited for SIXTEEN fucking years and got married only a few years ago so I could get his health insurance. But, that's our bullshit system. And you ain't gonna fix it anytime soon.

And if gay people wanna suddenly go buy into that system (and get health insurance), hey, whatever. Insurance sucks, I can't believe we NEED the shit, and we gotta get married to get cheaper insurance? I bet we don't need that shit if we don't live IN THE FUCKING UNITED STATES. But moving ain't an option right now so whatever. I'M WAY THE FUCK BEYOND CHILDBEARING YEARS, WE DON'T WANT ANY FUCKING KIDS, BUT WE GOT MARRIED SO I DON'T GET RAPED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES. Okay, and we're life partners who also plan to get old together but we probably wouldn't have needed the whole "state license of approval" bullshit.

And we CERTAINLY didn't get any fucking tax breaks (we are in the "tax penalty" category, go look up "AMT"). If anything, you tax payers are BENEFITING from us getting married, and we're taking it up the ass.

green
10-07-2014, 09:35 PM
No, you were talking about "living together" which is cohabiting which in legal terms means "not married." Which is a different topic.
Yeah, that's what gay marriage is and since we both agree marriage isn't about love, then the gov. is literally giving benefits to people who live together who just happen to have sex. I can do that, can I have some of your taxes so I can buy a new television?


@green (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4856), if you scroll back up, she quoted me when she was talking about getting off topic.
I know, but it was about me.

Sarah K
10-07-2014, 09:41 PM
Yeah, that's what gaymarriage is and since we both agree marriage isn't about love, then the gov. is literally giving benefits to people who live together who just happen to have sex.

I fixed that for ya.

Also, that is the legal side of marriage - a financial contract. However, that isn't why people usually get married anymore. They do it because they love one another, and have a desire to build their lives together. Yeah, the government doesn't give two shits about that. But let's not act like people are getting married solely for tax reasons. That's silly.

allegro
10-07-2014, 09:44 PM
The only people who get tax benefits are single-income tax couples. When both people in a marriage work and make equal money, they get fucked in taxes.

Swykk
10-07-2014, 09:51 PM
Oh snap, you've summoned allegro! I love it when she talks law :)

kel
10-07-2014, 11:24 PM
anywho, the 9th circuit responded to gov. otter's attorneys with "the mandate shall issue forthwith."

read: "did we fucking stutter?"

we're getting our license thursday. i've mentioned it here before, BUT ALMOST 17 YEARS, y'all! our anniversary is on january first.

i'm so very proud (and it better stick this time) to be an idahoan right now.

allegro
10-07-2014, 11:26 PM
Wait, weren't you already married???

You're just getting married now, finally?

CONGRATS! You'll finally get each other's insurance!!!!! :-)

kel
10-07-2014, 11:30 PM
Wait, weren't you already married??,??
and otter received the stay literally two hours after i celebrated here, spent a million of our tax dollars and put us back a few months.

this is different. it's done and the court doesn't care to hear from the governor's attorneys.

it's happening.

edit: thank you! :)

Jinsai
10-08-2014, 12:55 AM
They do if they're married, slick.
"Slick?" Really?

icklekitty
10-08-2014, 06:34 AM
Did you know the main reason our (US) government incentivizes marriage, is to add economic value through reproduction?

The US government is known for making excellent decisions.

green
10-08-2014, 08:26 AM
The US government is known for making excellent decisions.
It's also known for rewriting the Constitution to accommodate a minority of the population, at the expense of the majorities' rights. They are a silly lot.

Sarah K
10-08-2014, 08:30 AM
It's also known for rewriting the Constitution to accommodate a minority of the population, at the expense of the majorities' rights. They are a silly lot.

How does allowing everyone to marry infringe on your rights?

allegro
10-08-2014, 08:45 AM
Slavery was such a fun thing.

green
10-08-2014, 09:57 AM
Slavery was such a fun thing.
That's a bit insensitive to joke around with. You should feel ashamed.

allegro
10-08-2014, 10:26 AM
That's a bit insensitive to joke around with. You should feel ashamed.

It was sarcasm. Of course. You said, "It's also known for rewriting the Constitution to accommodate a minority of the population, at the expense of the majorities' rights. They are a silly lot."

green
10-08-2014, 10:32 AM
It was sarcasm. Of course. You said, "It's also known for rewriting the Constitution to accommodate a minority of the population, at the expense of the majorities' rights. They are a silly lot."
I know, allegro.

Sarah K
10-08-2014, 11:18 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/justice-kennedy-blocks-same-sex-ruling-in-idaho.html?_r=0

What is this fuckery?

kel
10-08-2014, 11:47 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/justice-kennedy-blocks-same-sex-ruling-in-idaho.html?_r=0

What is this fuckery?
more disappointment ... sad beyond sad ...

allegro
10-08-2014, 11:49 AM
Law. It's a complicated thing. Stay tuned, it doesn't mean it's over.

slave2thewage
10-08-2014, 08:31 PM
I am dreading putting up the "YES" posters for our referendum on SSM. It'll be January, and freezing, and climbing up poles with a screwed up leg is not going to be fun. At least I'll have my sister and her boyfriend to assist me.

icklekitty
10-09-2014, 06:29 AM
climbing up Poles

Why break the habit of a lifetime?

Deepvoid
10-09-2014, 09:53 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/justice-kennedy-blocks-same-sex-ruling-in-idaho.html?_r=0

What is this fuckery?

Apparently, it was a mistake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/same-sex-marriage-nevada_n_5958756.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016

kel
10-09-2014, 11:29 AM
Apparently, it was a mistake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/same-sex-marriage-nevada_n_5958756.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016
meanwhile here in idaho ...

Deepvoid
10-09-2014, 11:50 AM
meanwhile here in idaho ...

Gee I thought the "mistake" applied for both states. Sorry about the confusion. Should have read more carefully.

kel
10-10-2014, 05:30 PM
no matter, WE'RE HEADED TO THE COURTHOUSE RIGHT NOW! :)

edit: aaaand we have to wait until tuesday. that's okay. from what i understand, every legal leg the governor had to stand on is gone.

weird that licenses are being granted in twin falls, though.

orestes
10-12-2014, 06:13 PM
Federal judge strikes down Alaska's ban on same sex marriage. (http://touch.towleroad.com/all/2014-10-federal-judge-strikes-down-alaskas-ban-on-gay-marriage.html?oswbuild=b0.29&mediaKey=towleroad&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FaGUugtirx2&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.towleroad.com%2F2014%2F10% 2Ffederal-judge-strikes-down-alaskas-ban-on-gay-marriage.html&oswts=1413155483288&width=320&height=504&size=small&olcts=1413155483798)

kel
10-16-2014, 01:17 AM
we did it, y'all. :)

officiation on friday (fun fact: i got ordained this afternoon, too).

thank you to this amazing ets community for the support in all the false starts and disappointments.

all is right in our (small) world :)

theruiner
10-17-2014, 12:05 PM
About damn time. Arizona marriage ban has been struck down by a federal judge.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/17/judge_strikes_down_arizona_s_gay_marriage_ban_with _sass.html

kel
10-17-2014, 07:39 PM
About damn time. Arizona marriage ban has been struck down by a federal judge.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/17/judge_strikes_down_arizona_s_gay_marriage_ban_with _sass.html
and jan dumbfuck brewer is freaking the fuck out.

good! congrats, az!

theruiner
10-17-2014, 09:43 PM
It was AWESOME to see all the happy couples getting married on the local news. Awesome.

And yeah, Brewer's an idiot. Glad she's on her way out of office. She's bellyaching because "Arizona wanted gay marriage banned and this meanie of a judge came in and overturned THEIR right to trample on a minority! It's just TERRIBLE, I tell you! Terrible!" She's a complete imbecile.

DigitalChaos
10-19-2014, 06:27 PM
Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364


uhh, can't the government simply revoke their ability to perform state-recognized marriage ceremonies? That seems like a much better idea to me. The moment anyone starts to use a state-sanctioned role to discriminate, they should lose it. Jail and fines seems a bit excessive unless those conditions were built into the agreement for ceremony rights.

allegro
10-19-2014, 06:32 PM
Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364


uhh, can't the government simply revoke their ability to perform state-recognized marriage ceremonies? That seems like a much better idea to me. The moment anyone starts to use a state-sanctioned role to discriminate, they should lose it. Jail and fines seems a bit excessive unless those conditions were built into the agreement for ceremony rights.
This is, however, a total violation of the separation between church and State. A judge can perform the marriage.

DigitalChaos
10-19-2014, 06:46 PM
This is, however, a total violation of the separation between church and State. A judge can perform the marriage.
wait, what is a violation? revoking their ministerial credentials? Wouldn't that simply say "you aren't allowed to discriminate with the power of the state, if you want to discriminate inside the bubble of your private bullshit, go for it, but you don't get to bring the state into it" Anyone who gets married in that church would then have to make sure they go and make it legal with the state later.

Receiving jail or fines seems like it would have a much higher chance of violating the church vs state separation.

And yea, a judge can perform the legal marriage and they sure aren't allowed to discriminate either.

allegro
10-19-2014, 06:51 PM
wait, what is a violation? revoking their ministerial credentials? Wouldn't that simply say "you aren't allowed to discriminate with the power of the state, if you want to discriminate inside the bubble of your private bullshit, go for it, but you don't get to bring the state into it" Anyone who gets married in that church would then have to make sure they go and make it legal with the state later.

Receiving jail or fines seems like it would have a much higher chance of violating the church vs state separation.

And yea, a judge can perform the legal marriage and they sure aren't allowed to discriminate either.
What is a violation? Both. They are allowed to discriminate, in this case, because it violates long-held religious beliefs. It's not the same as the caterer refusing to cater a gay wedding; the caterer isn't PERFORMING the wedding. This isn't the same as an interracial marriage because that isn't a long-held clear religious belief (a minister can't refuse to marry an interracial couple based on his-her "religious" beliefs).

This is more like forcing a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion. Can't do that, either. You can't force Catholic priests to perform same-sex marriages. SCOTUS will totally affirm that.

The judge IS the state, so there is no conflict, there.

DigitalChaos
10-19-2014, 07:07 PM
What is a violation? Both. They are allowed to discriminate, in this case, because it violates long-held religious beliefs. It's not the same as the caterer refusing to cater a gay wedding; the caterer isn't PERFORMING the wedding. This isn't the same as an interracial marriage because that isn't a long-held clear religious belief (a minister can't refuse to marry an interracial couple based on his-her "religious" beliefs).

This is more like forcing a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion. Can't do that, either.

The judge IS the state, so there is no conflict, there.

But isn't the minister acting as an agent of the state for the portion of his role that includes creating legal marriage? Hell, a minister could officiate the wedding but refuse to conduct the rest of the ceremony.

And this is definitely very different from the caterer situation. I've always thought that a completely private business should be able to reject whoever they want, just as a person should be able to say whatever they want. The moment they start getting the state involved with things like non-profit/charity status, that changes (another reason the church pisses me off).

allegro
10-19-2014, 07:12 PM
But isn't the minister acting as an agent of the state for the portion of his role that includes creating legal marriage?
That's not his/her job, no.

He/she signs a marriage certificate by the authority vested in him/her by the state (that is "officiating" the wedding) but people can get married by a LOT of people who have that authority. Forcing Rome to change a tenet that's thousands of years old ain't happening. And the state never intended for that to happen, either. That's why we have the separation between church and state; the state doesn't tell the church what to do, and the church isn't supposed to tell the state what to do.

Private people CAN'T reject whomever they want. Restaurants can't refuse you service because you're black or gay. Caterers can't refuse to cater your wedding because you're black. That's discrimination.

DigitalChaos
10-19-2014, 07:13 PM
Actually, it looks like this specific chapel may be classified as a business, and thus falls under the city's non discrimination laws. So I guess it is very similar to the caterer situation. But still... fuck the church's have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too bullshit where they straddle their religious exemption while operating state duties.


edit:


That's not his/her job, no.

He/she signs a marriage certificate by the authority vested in him/her by the state, but people can get married by a LOT of people who have that authority. Forcing Rome to change a tenet that's thousands of years old ain't happening. And the state never intended for that to happen, either. That's why we have the separation between church and state; the state doesn't tell the church what to do, and the church isn't supposed to tell the state what to do.

It's the opposite; private people CAN'T reject whomever they want. Restaurants can't refuse you service because you're black or gay. Caterers can't refuse to cater your wedding because you're black. That's discrimination.

They could really fix that whole thing by having the legal marriage and religious marriage process completely separate.

People should be able to refuse service to bigots too!

allegro
10-19-2014, 07:29 PM
Actually, it looks like this specific chapel may be classified as a business, and thus falls under the city's non discrimination laws. So I guess it is very similar to the caterer situation. But still... fuck the church's have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too bullshit where they straddle their religious exemption while operating state duties.

They could really fix that whole thing by having the legal marriage and religious marriage process completely separate.

People should be able to refuse service to bigots too!

If it's a marriage "business" and not an actual church, and they're "ministers" only to perform marriages, they're in deep doodoo, yes. That's discrimination. We're gonna see a lot of this shit. Yes, we're going to see legal marriage and church marriages separated, and a fucking "Hitching Post" ain't a fucking church.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HitchingPost.gif

Here's the thing, though: If I was a lesbian and I wanted to get married, the LAST FUCKING PLACE I'd wanna get married is at THAT fucking place by two fucking hillybilly backwoods prejudiced hateful ignorant assholes. They can stick it up their hillbilly ignorant breeding asses. I'd paint that wood with a bunch of gay fucking rainbows.

DigitalChaos
10-21-2014, 05:15 PM
So, I think I have this whole thing sorted out, but please crush it @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76)...

Lots of the religious right are suddenly interested in "getting govt out of marriage" despite never mentioning it until equality started gaining traction. Yes, it would certainly take time to strip marriage from all the places it is embedded. BUT one thing that could happen RIGHT NOW is for the churches (an the businesses claiming religious rights) to remove themselves from the state. It's really simple. Just stop executing the state-recognized component of the ceremony. I'm unaware of any religion where their ceremony is somehow tainted by not having a state document attached to it.

Of course, the churches won't actually do this because they benefit from having this component. Their cries for getting govt out of marriage has NOTHING to do with religious sanctity. It's about the money and the monopoly. I really wish more people would call them on this.


SO... The states could very easily require that if anyone wants the ability to officiate a marriage license, they need to accept the requirement that it is done with zero discrimination. If the officiant doesn't agree with this, then they can simply skip that tiny step and conduct a purely religious ceremony. The couple would then have to follow up with a state-sanctioned officiant if they want a legally recognized marriage.

allegro
10-21-2014, 05:20 PM
So what are you suggesting? The 2-step process, like in Italy, where you have to get a state marriage, first, then you get it sanctified by the church?