The Marriage Rights Thread

[Jinsai]

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]

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]

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]

It's baffling to me that states are allowed to regulate federal tax laws.

[aggroculture]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[/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-...b_2280062.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...racey-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]

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]

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-...b_2280062.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...racey-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]

^^^My bad!

[DigitalChaos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

There definitely shouldn't be, the world's overpopulated as it is.

[icklekitty]

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]

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, 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????

I took this photo at the With Liberty and Justice for All exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan:
Attachment 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This all isn't really related to DOMA, though, is it?

[Jinsai]

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]

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

[Jinsai]

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.