Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, July 19, 2010 21:02
VIEWED: 5559
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,Quote:
"So do you believe that a married couple should be kept apart for reasons of citizenship? "
No. What an awful thought.Quote:
"regardless what makes "romantic commitments" between two people different in essence from any other type of commitment between two people?"
Because financial commitments are about money or property, and romantic commitments are about people and feelings and desires. The ways that people choose to enjoy each other's company should not be regulated or enforceable by any law under the sun. Do you really want the government to tell you who you can make a romantic commitment to, or when and how you can choose to end that commitment?
And yet we let the government tell us these things. This, so we can get a special set of privileges set aside for people who form relationships according to government preference. Or, put another way, to avoid punitive measures taken against people who fail to form these government-approved relationships.
Couple of points:
Romantic commitments, such as marriage, especially when there are children involved, are financial commitments. Because of, but not only because of that, I find your distinction rather arbitrary and intangible.
Should the government be able to tell a child and an adult they can't enter into a romantic relationship? What about people in positions of power over another, such as teacher and student?
Lastly:
You say that it's an awful thought that a government could keep two people apart for reasons of citizenship, and I agree. But the end of preventing that, and keeping government completely out of "Romantic Commitments" would seem to be incompatible. If immigration policy and marriage are completely separate, how is one to affect the other? How is a government that has no legally recognised marriage supposed to cater for people gaining citizenship through marriage? Unless of course it just does away with immigration altogether, opens it's borders and lets anyone gain citizenship without caveat.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Romantic commitments, such as marriage, especially when there are children involved, are financial commitments. Because of, but not only because of that, I find your distinction rather arbitrary and intangible."
Hello,
There are child support laws that exist independent of marriage. There are partnership and corporate and business laws independent of marriage. If we reject the idea that government ought to be rewarding or punishing specific romantic and living arrangements, then we find that we have all the financial laws we need to deal with financial matters.
"Should the government be able to tell a child and an adult they can't enter into a romantic relationship? What about people in positions of power over another, such as teacher and student?"
There are already laws governing age of consent that exist independent of marriage laws. Again, they have nothing to do with rewarding, punishing, or recognizing particular romantic arrangements. They instead deal with the basic issue of when a person is free to decide things for themselves. As soon as they reach that age of consent, the government responsibility to govern their couplings ends. These laws are distinct from marriage laws in that they are in place to protect the citizenry, which is the role of government. Adults need no such protection from their own choices.
"You say that it's an awful thought that a government could keep two people apart for reasons of citizenship, and I agree. But the end of preventing that, and keeping government completely out of "Romantic Commitments" would seem to be incompatible. If immigration policy and marriage are completely separate, how is one to affect the other? How is a government that has no legally recognised marriage supposed to cater for people gaining citizenship through marriage? Unless of course it just does away with immigration altogether, opens it's borders and lets anyone gain citizenship without caveat."
The incompatibility is an illusion. There is no need for citizenship and marriage to be connected in order for people to be together. There are legal ways for aliens to visit and live in this nation. There are ways for people to obtain citizenship. If someone wants to visit or live here or become a citizen, they should be free to do so. Any 'caveats' in doing so should be based on a willingness to follow our laws and show a basic ability and willingness to support themselves.
Marriage serves no official government purpose, other than mandating the lives of citizens and encouraging them to conform to moral philosophies adopted from religious belief systems.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.
This already happens. It's called a domestic partnership, though as I understand there's some age limitation.
There's a pretty good reason for this kind of arrangement to exist, say you're estranged from your family, or they're dead, or live far away, and you end up in the hospital. Even if you aren't intimate with a domestic partner, the idea is that you've both discussed what you want to have happen to you.
I'd have to look into the tax law to understand what the reasoning is for the tax breaks and credits such an arrangement gets, nothing comes to mind immediately. But they do get tax breaks for some reasons, so yeah, there's already plenty of unions and partnerships based more on convenience and tax purposes than anything else.
I don't particularly see anything wrong with that, though like I said, I have to think about whether applying a tax break to the situation is valid or if it makes any sense. But being a person who myself is not very affectionate, I'm going to end up dying alone, and I can see why maybe other people might want to take steps to prevent that. Romantic commitment doesn't even enter into the equation for me, from my perspective it's all about commitment, period, which may carry with it some manner of financial commitment (again, have to think about it).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There are child support laws that exist independent of marriage. There are partnership and corporate and business laws independent of marriage.
Ah, so marriage would be a "business partnership", presumably with a contract drawn up by a lawyer.
I can see it now:
"Do you take this man as your contractually obligated partner, to administer and liaise with in matters of personal arrangements, for as long as your nuptial contract may last?"
"Then I now pronounce you Mr and Mrs Jones PLC"
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If we reject the idea that government ought to be rewarding or punishing specific romantic and living arrangements, then we find that we have all the financial laws we need to deal with financial matters.
Yeah, but I reject your notion that marriage is not a special case, simply two people deciding to share a house and to stop having sex, and I reject the idea that it deserves no place in law.
You seem very anxious to portray marriage as a punishment, but it's not, it's a legal arrangement, one a lot more useful and robust than any business partnership, especially in this context. Some minorities in some governments have managed to get themselves an unrepresentative say in enforcing their personal view over the changing societal view, but deciding marriage should just be wholesale converted into some sort of business partnership, and destroying any legal representation of marriage is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm perfectly happy to remove an marriage incentive. I don't see why two people should pay less tax because of a marriage certificate, where you lose me is with your assumption that it's impossible for legal marriage to exist and it not be a tool of government social engineering. Replacing purpose built and robust marriage laws with some vague idea of using existing business partnerships because you don't like married tax relief is like blowing up your house to get rid of ants. I think you'd also find it would be profoundly counter-productive.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Should the government be able to tell a child and an adult they can't enter into a romantic relationship? What about people in positions of power over another, such as teacher and student?"
There are already laws governing age of consent that exist independent of marriage laws.
Yeah, and there's already laws about marriage and they predate the laws you're talking about. Saying "these already exist" when talking about abolishing something that already exists is a silly argument. It can work if you're talking about adding a law, but not here.
Anyway:
So you do believe government has a place in regulating "romantic commitments". You just want to call it something else...
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The incompatibility is an illusion.
It really isn't an illusion, and I note that you've not actually answered the question:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There is no need for citizenship and marriage to be connected in order for people to be together. There are legal ways for aliens to visit and live in this nation. There are ways for people to obtain citizenship. If someone wants to visit or live here or become a citizen, they should be free to do so. Any 'caveats' in doing so should be based on a willingness to follow our laws and show a basic ability and willingness to support themselves.
You've really skated around the point, and done so by bringing up stuff I've already addressed. What if someone doesn't meet the criteria for entering into the country? They don't have the amount of money or qualifications etc, the fact that they're married to someone can't be taken into account because you've decided that it has no legal status, so if they don't meet the citizenship requirements on their own, they don't get in and that couple will have to live apart. Unless you've also decided that entry requirements should be scrapped, which
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
firstly i'm suprised at how civil all the posts have been. it's kind of refreshing.
anyway, marriage (from the outside) appears to be just people that love each other (supposedly) committing to each other. (i say supposedly because the divorce rate speaks for itself.) as i subscribe to the lennonist idea of "all you need is love" i hope everbody (especially me) finds someone to be with, gay, straight or bisexual, and that they should be able to express that however they wish.
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Ah, so marriage would be a "business partnership", presumably with a contract drawn up by a lawyer.
I can see it now:
"Do you take this man as your contractually obligated partner, to administer and liaise with in matters of personal arrangements, for as long as your nuptial contract may last?"
"Then I now pronounce you Mr and Mrs Jones PLC"
...Why not? I know this is mockery, but as someone without romantic inclinations, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. Requiring a romantic attachment seems like an emotional argument, which I don't see as having any basis in a modern system of law. An emotional appeal does not make for a very good definition (or limitation) of any legal arrangement.
I don't understand, I thought before, I heard you say that it bothered you about work-related benefits and double standards applies to single people versus married people. Something about saying "I do."
As for the citizenship argument, I don't particularly care about illegal immigration. What, they're looking for jobs? Cool. If their employer withholds tax from their paycheck, maybe they'll stop social security expenses from exploding long enough for us to fix it into something workable. Or maybe the set aside money could help to cut down on medical expenses. If they're not illegal, maybe they'll feel free enough to turn in the criminals that come in with them and prey on them, like the coyotes. Maybe not being illegal will prevent their employers from exploiting them, while at the same time providing much needed cheap labour our companies have been looking overseas for. We've had plenty of immigrant waves in the past, and plenty of fears that they were somehow taking over the country at the time. Why should I be caring about this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or, the better question Nix...
Why do we have to reorganize our society to placate a small percentage of the population?
Reorganize society? Wow. You never fail to bring the stupid in force.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.
Straight people do that now, so what's the issue? You're right in there with the Wulftard.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or, the better question Nix...
Why do we have to reorganize our society to placate a small percentage of the population?
Reorganize society? Wow. You never fail to bring the stupid in force.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
I don't get how gay marriage would "reorganize society", either. I get how CIVIL UNIONS and DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS could reorganize society, because now, for every contingency, you need one set of laws written for "married" people, another set for "civil union'd" people, yet another set for "domestic partners", and ANOTHER set for "unattached" or "single" people.
Why not just streamline the process, and call marriage a civil and/or religious contract between two consenting adults not currently married to other people? Boom. Done. Now you've got a set of laws that applies to everyone who's in a legally binding relationship.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Yeah, but I reject your notion that marriage is not a special case, simply two people deciding to share a house and to stop having sex, and I reject the idea that it deserves no place in law."
Hello,
I haven't heard anything that makes marriage something special or unique or different. You may reject my notion, but I haven't seen why my notion is reject-able other than that it offends some kind of sensibility. If we remove the notion of social engineering, the financial problems of a marriage are completely handled by financial laws that exist outside the purview of marriage. If you want something sentimental, you are free to supplement your arrangement with a religious or non-religious ceremony of your choosing. The government and the law should take no interest in your sentiments.
"You seem very anxious to portray marriage as a punishment"
You are not comprehending my words. Government is either punishing those who fail to get married or rewarding those who do (depending on your point of view.) I have never suggested marriage was a punishment.
"because a married couple has no standing in law, their marriage cannot be taken into account in a citizenship application, so married couples will, at times, be forced to live apart because one partner can't gain citizenship."
I have already explained what I think the citizenship law should be (this was somehow overlooked. Yes, I did advocate change.)
But why you think someone should need to be a citizen anyway to be with their loved ones is beyond me. The decision to be a citizen should be independent of the decision to marry. It should be possible to marry and also to choose not to be a citizen. You keep trying to suggest that if you're not a citizen, you can't be here. I'm not sure where you get that notion. There are lots of foreign citizens in this country at all times, without being married to citizens.
You keep using fanciful hyperbole like blowing up a house to kill ants and throwing babies out with bathwater. But I haven't heard any reason why marriage is needed as a government institution.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME