The Marriage Rights Thread

[DigitalChaos]

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/commu...4490#post74490

[Jinsai]

what. the. fuck.

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

[DigitalChaos]

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]

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]

In this thread Jinsai argues with himself


laughing so hard right now

[Jinsai]

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]

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]

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]

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 other people 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]

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.

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]

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 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.". The Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois has a separate and specific Domestic Violence Division.

[Jinsai]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The Queen still has gastroenteritis.

[allegro]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicin..._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]

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/2013/0...n_2965105.html

[DigitalChaos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[Alexandros]

New Zealand ratified gay marriage yesterday. The prime minister seems an alright guy:

[Pillfred]

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]

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]

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]

DOMA's been ruled as unconstitutional.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/26/usa

[allegro]

SCOTUS Opinion.

Edie Windsor is a hero!

[slave2thewage]

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.