Gay marriage: Both sides are fighting the wrong fight

[CZroe]

Obviously, this pertains to the US government, but I'm sure it can apply to many others.

OK, people keep arguing about a "right to marriage" in a way that clearly shows that they don't understand the government's role in recognizing a marriage and it's clear to me that even the opposition to gay marriage does not understand the reason why the government should not support it.

Let me spell it out: Marriage is a RELIGIOUS or CULTURAL ceremony. The government should not be involved in affirming religious ceremonies, dictating culture/customs, or deciding who they apply to. Any two people are free to make a monogamous commitment to each other without the government's involvement EVEN NOW.

So, why is the government involved in marriage between a man and a woman? Think about it because the answer is key to everything. What is the purpose to giving a tax break to a married couple? When you know the answer to this question, you know why government recognition does not and should not apply to just any married couple.

The answer is that Social Security and other government programs require a GROWING population to even possibly work. Our entire monetary and economic system counts on a growing population and it's the only reason we aren't bankrupted by inflation already. The tax breaks are an incentive to a potential child-producing unit of people to go ahead and create a child. It's as simple as that. Why else do you think that combining resources gets you a break from taxes despite the savings from shared resources? It's not for the sake of a suffering child that doesn't exist yet, it's for the one that likely never would otherwise.

Now, I know that many people get married with no intentions of having kids and many same-sex couples would like to start a family, adoptive, inseminated, or otherwise. What that says is that same-sex couples are fighting the wrong battle. As stated earlier, they can already make a promise/commitment to each other without the involvement of the government, so they have their "right to marriage" already. Instead of fighting for the government to recognize it, they should be fighting for a new tax status for those who intend to raise a family and removing recognition from currently recognized alternate sex marriages that don't intend to (married child-less couples with vasectomies, tied tubes, barren with no intentions to adopt, having abortions, etc). Remember, the government's only business in marriage in the first place is giving an incentive to reproduce, not in affirming some "right" that they have no authority to grant or interfere with.

I just seethe with anger when I see someone say that they don't support gay marriage just because they were "raised that way" or "believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." So what business does the government have in supporting your "belief" without reason when they are not supposed to be involved in matters of religion?! What stings the most is that I agree with them for completely different and defensible reasons. The problem is, I ONLY see their side represented in the media without a single mention of the logic and reasoning behind the government even recognizing heterosexual marriages. It as if it's just taken for granted that it has to be government-recognized to be "real" despite existing in pretty much every culture ever with or without a government. It's just like those parents who think that there is something morally wrong with giving an 18 year old alcohol just because the government chose not to allow sales to them until 21 (there is no law against younger consumption or parents buying it for their teens. Since when did the government have the authority to dictate morality?

 

[Ancalagon44]

Its an interesting theory, but I think you are assuming too much of the lawmakers in the US. They probably dont think of the stuff you do when they discuss tax breaks - I think most of the reason why the law is the way it is, is that its just how its always been. It just evolved over time.

Back in the day, you would probably find that religious recognition of a marriage and state recognition of a marriage amounted to the same thing. Later, the state probably became more involved for record keeping purposes - to work out who begat who.

 

[dmcowen674]

Gay marriage: Both sides are fighting the wrong fight

Since when did the government have the authority to dictate morality?

What?

Where have you've been or what country are you in?

Morality is big business in the U.S.

Prohibition

Marijuana illegal

Sodomy and Gay Marriage illegal

It's always been that way.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason why the government is involved in marriage is that it is a contract between two parties. One of the primary functions of government is to adjudicate contract disputes, etc between people, therefore the government must be involved.

There are tons of inheritance issues, child custody issues, etc, all of which the government may be called upon to resolve, therefore it has a legal framework from which to do so. So no, the only purpose or government interest in a marriage is most certainly not simple reproduction.

Since that seems to be the premise for your whole argument, it's got a pretty big hole in it.

 

[soulcougher73]

The reason why the government is involved in marriage is that it is a contract between two parties. One of the primary functions of government is to adjudicate contract disputes, etc between people, therefore the government must be involved.

There are tons of inheritance issues, child custody issues, etc, all of which the government may be called upon to resolve, therefore it has a legal framework from which to do so. So no, the only purpose or government interest in a marriage is most certainly not simple reproduction.

Since that seems to be the premise for your whole argument, it's got a pretty big hole in it.

Pretty much this.

As to this quote:

The answer is that Social Security and other government programs require a GROWING population to even possibly work. Our entire monetary and economic system counts on a growing population and it's the only reason we aren't bankrupted by inflation already.

Id think they would want a WORKING population to support those things yet they seem to be doing everything they can do destroy that. The growing will come naturally regardless of government insentives.

 

[Atreus21]

Obviously, this pertains to the US government, but I'm sure it can apply to many others.

OK, people keep arguing about a "right to marriage" in a way that clearly shows that they don't understand the government's role in recognizing a marriage and it's clear to me that even the opposition to gay marriage does not understand the reason why the government should not support it.

Let me spell it out: Marriage is a RELIGIOUS or CULTURAL ceremony. The government should not be involved in affirming religious ceremonies, dictating culture/customs, or deciding who they apply to. Any two people are free to make a monogamous commitment to each other without the government's involvement EVEN NOW.

So, why is the government involved in marriage between a man and a woman? Think about it because the answer is key to everything. What is the purpose to giving a tax break to a married couple? When you know the answer to this question, you know why government recognition does not and should not apply to just any married couple.

The answer is that Social Security and other government programs require a GROWING population to even possibly work. Our entire monetary and economic system counts on a growing population and it's the only reason we aren't bankrupted by inflation already. The tax breaks are an incentive to a potential child-producing unit of people to go ahead and create a child. It's as simple as that. Why else do you think that combining resources gets you a break from taxes despite the savings from shared resources? It's not for the sake of a suffering child that doesn't exist yet, it's for the one that likely never would otherwise.

Now, I know that many people get married with no intentions of having kids and many same-sex couples would like to start a family, adoptive, inseminated, or otherwise. What that says is that same-sex couples are fighting the wrong battle. As stated earlier, they can already make a promise/commitment to each other without the involvement of the government, so they have their "right to marriage" already. Instead of fighting for the government to recognize it, they should be fighting for a new tax status for those who intend to raise a family and removing recognition from currently recognized alternate sex marriages that don't intend to (married child-less couples with vasectomies, tied tubes, barren with no intentions to adopt, having abortions, etc). Remember, the government's only business in marriage in the first place is giving an incentive to reproduce, not in affirming some "right" that they have no authority to grant or interfere with.

I just seethe with anger when I see someone say that they don't support gay marriage just because they were "raised that way" or "believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." So what business does the government have in supporting your "belief" without reason when they are not supposed to be involved in matters of religion?! What stings the most is that I agree with them for completely different and defensible reasons. The problem is, I ONLY see their side represented in the media without a single mention of the logic and reasoning behind the government even recognizing heterosexual marriages. It as if it's just taken for granted that it has to be government-recognized to be "real" despite existing in pretty much every culture ever with or without a government. It's just like those parents who think that there is something morally wrong with giving an 18 year old alcohol just because the government chose not to allow sales to them until 21 (there is no law against younger consumption or parents buying it for their teens. Since when did the government have the authority to dictate morality?

To some extent I agree, but if the government isn't to be involved in marriage, how is it to get involved in divorce law? Should that be adjudicated by the institution which provided the marriage? (Not a terrible idea). If that institution renders a decision which one party feels is unfair, what then?

Getting the government out of marriage would mean getting out of issues which are corollary to marriage, such as children, birth records, who knows what else.

I'm all in favor of scaling back government from issues in which it has no legitimate interest. But I'm not sure marriage is not a legitimate government interest. Stable marriages, and stable families, are the building blocks of a healthy society. I think the state ought to encourage that.

 

[Craig234]

Yet another 'the government shouldn't decide who can marry' thread.

Standard response: good luck with that, stop discriminating while they do.

 

[waggy]

The reason why the government is involved in marriage is that it is a contract between two parties. One of the primary functions of government is to adjudicate contract disputes, etc between people, therefore the government must be involved.

There are tons of inheritance issues, child custody issues, etc, all of which the government may be called upon to resolve, therefore it has a legal framework from which to do so. So no, the only purpose or government interest in a marriage is most certainly not simple reproduction.

Since that seems to be the premise for your whole argument, it's got a pretty big hole in it.

/this

 

[CZroe]

The reason why the government is involved in marriage is that it is a contract between two parties. One of the primary functions of government is to adjudicate contract disputes, etc between people, therefore the government must be involved.

There are tons of inheritance issues, child custody issues, etc, all of which the government may be called upon to resolve, therefore it has a legal framework from which to do so. So no, the only purpose or government interest in a marriage is most certainly not simple reproduction.

Since that seems to be the premise for your whole argument, it's got a pretty big hole in it.

Umm, those issues are born of the reproductive incentive and ensuring that it is taken care of after the marriage as well. Want to ensure to the best of your ability that the child is taken care of after a divorce? Give her the house and establish child support. Offer food stamps+welfare checks to single mothers and provide tax breaks and earned income credit.

Violate pretty much any private contract and you can get the government involved by using the courts to mount a lawsuit... no prior government involvement and oversight beyond public laws.

To some extent I agree, but if the government isn't to be involved in marriage, how is it to get involved in divorce law? Should that be adjudicated by the institution which provided the marriage? (Not a terrible idea). If that institution renders a decision which one party feels is unfair, what then?

Getting the government out of marriage would mean getting out of issues which are corollary to marriage, such as children, birth records, who knows what else.

I'm all in favor of scaling back government from issues in which it has no legitimate interest. But I'm not sure marriage is not a legitimate government interest. Stable marriages, and stable families, are the building blocks of a healthy society. I think the state ought to encourage that.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be. I'm saying why they are and why it doesn't apply directly to same-sex marriages.

Yet another 'the government shouldn't decide who can marry' thread.

Standard response: good luck with that, stop discriminating while they do.

Except that's not at all what I said. The government CAN decide who it can legally marry and that nothing is stopping those who aren't legally recognized from exercising their "right."

 

[cybrsage]

The government should shift to civil unions only and do a find-replace on all the derivatives of the word marriage and replace with with in a civil union. Same rights given to all and the government gets one step further out of legislating religion.

Everyone wins.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Government recognition of marriage bestows a wealth of benefits and privileges on the couple that you either ignore or ignorant of.

The idea that government recognition of marriage is for increasing the population is ludicrous. Would you bar infertile couples from marriage?

IMHO, you don't seem to know enough about the issue to form a rational opinion.

 

[Pens1566]

Then they should prevent infertile couples from getting married or force them to divorce if they don't procreate. And you left out the contractual aspect as already pointed out.

/fail

 

[zsdersw]

The government should shift to civil unions only and do a find-replace on all the derivatives of the word marriage and replace with with in a civil union. Same rights given to all and the government gets one step further out of legislating religion.

Everyone wins.

I agree, but there's less support for this than for "gay marriage".

 

[bfdd]

The problem with the contract thing though eskimospy, is that it's a personal life style choice. So why should you get put into a different class of citizen for that? It is unfair to married people and to single people. The Federal Government should, imo, view and treat everyone as an individual.

 

[DrPizza]

The reason why the government is involved in marriage is that it is a contract between two parties. One of the primary functions of government is to adjudicate contract disputes, etc between people, therefore the government must be involved.

There are tons of inheritance issues, child custody issues, etc, all of which the government may be called upon to resolve, therefore it has a legal framework from which to do so. So no, the only purpose or government interest in a marriage is most certainly not simple reproduction.

Since that seems to be the premise for your whole argument, it's got a pretty big hole in it.

This. And, in one response, the OP apparently doesn't realize that the section I bolded would be a pretty long list.
Joint ownership of property, patient advocate in cases where the patient cannot advocate for themselves, survivor benefits when one dies, etc. These are things that are not simply part of a contract.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem with the contract thing though eskimospy, is that it's a personal life style choice. So why should you get put into a different class of citizen for that? It is unfair to married people and to single people. The Federal Government should, imo, view and treat everyone as an individual.

So should everyone be able to visit an unconscious person in the hospital, regardless of if they even know them or not? Should we all need to sign separate agreements?

 

[woolfe9999]

The reason why the government is involved in marriage is that it is a contract between two parties. One of the primary functions of government is to adjudicate contract disputes, etc between people, therefore the government must be involved.

There are tons of inheritance issues, child custody issues, etc, all of which the government may be called upon to resolve, therefore it has a legal framework from which to do so. So no, the only purpose or government interest in a marriage is most certainly not simple reproduction.

Since that seems to be the premise for your whole argument, it's got a pretty big hole in it.

This point, which I made in another thread, cannot be stated strongly enough. It is totally impractical for the state not to recognize marriage as a legal compact. If such were not the case, it would be nigh impossible to disentangle assets and settle custody matters upon dissolution, among other things. In theory, if every couple had a pre-nuptual agreement, the state's sole role could be just to enforce said contract by way of the courts much as they do any other contract. However, this points to where marriage is unique among contractual relationships: most couples don't view it as a legal contract but rather as a personal matter and hence most do not actually execute such a contract. Accordingly, the state has to have rules which apply by default where there is no agreement, or where there is an agreement but it doesn't govern every possible future dispute between the parties. If the state doesn't recognize the legal compact, there is no basis to determine if such rules apply. Couples would then have no legal mechanism to resolve the issues. Think about this: such matters as who retains assets or child custody could turn on who physically arrives at the bank first, or who is able to more swiftly grab the child and run off with him.

 

[CZroe]

The government should shift to civil unions only and do a find-replace on all the derivatives of the word marriage and replace with with in a civil union. Same rights given to all and the government gets one step further out of legislating religion.

Everyone wins.

Did you even read? We all lose. It would ruin the tax system and threaten the economy. The government is only supposed to recognize rights. It is not supposed to grant them.

Government recognition of marriage bestows a wealth of benefits and privileges on the couple that you either ignore or ignorant of.

The idea that government recognition of marriage is for increasing the population is ludicrous. Would you bar infertile couples from marriage?

IMHO, you don't seem to know enough about the issue to form a rational opinion.

I discussed that. What do you think "barren" means? I specifically said that that is precisely the issue homosexual couples should be taking up. They should be arguing for equal status for child-rearing units regardless of gender and consider not granting said status to heterosexual marriages that will deliberately not produce such a thing. Anything else should be outside the scope of government involvement without violating the separation of Church and State. They should be asking the government to DISASSOCIATE itself from marriage in general and directly address the civil pairing they intended all along. Because adoption is always an option for barren individuals with means who didn't lose that right from unlawful behavior, it does not exclude anyone truly deserving.

Then they should prevent infertile couples from getting married or force them to divorce if they don't procreate. And you left out the contractual aspect as already pointed out.

/fail

I did not leave it out in my follow-up. Read my response. You ignored the fact that prior involvement is NOT necessary for contract enforcement. The fail is yours.

This. And, in one response, the OP apparently doesn't realize that the section I bolded would be a pretty long list.
Joint ownership of property, patient advocate in cases where the patient cannot advocate for themselves, survivor benefits when one dies, etc. These are things that are not simply part of a contract.

...but easily could be if things were to change. Seriously.

 

[CZroe]

This point, which I made in another thread, cannot be stated strongly enough. It is totally impractical for the state not to recognize marriage as a legal compact. If such were not the case, it would be nigh impossible to disentangle assets and settle custody matters upon dissolution, among other things. In theory, if every couple had a pre-nuptual agreement, the state's sole role could be just to enforce said contract by way of the courts. However, this points to where marriage is unique among contractual relationships: most couples don't view it as a legal contract but rather as a personal matter and hence most do not actually execute such a contract. Accordingly, the state has to have rules which apply by default where there is no agreement, or where there is an agreement but it doesn't govern every possible future dispute between the parties. If the state doesn't recognize the legal compact, there is no basis to determine if such rules apply. Couples would then have no legal mechanism to resolve the issues. Think about this: such matters as who retains assets or child custody could turn on who physically arrives at the bank first, or who is able to more swiftly grab the child and run off with him.

No one said that there can't be an alternate status that is not marriage but still provides these default contractual obligations. There could be marriage with tax breaks (with or without a cultural marriage ceremony), civil unions with matters of consent and property assumed (with or without a cultural marriage), and registered child-rearing union, which grants full tax and welfare benefits/obligations. Then we could begin working the first into the last and eliminating government involvemnet in anything that we call "marriage." Married persons raising kids would have to apply to be a child-rearing unit with benefits the same as a same-sex union adopting kids.

 

[Ausm]

Damn you would think Lawyers would be lobbying FURIOUSLY for marriage equality...just image how much fucking cash they could rake in when some of those relationships crash and burn!

 

[woolfe9999]

No one said that there can't be an alternate status that is not marriage but still provides these default contractual obligations. There could be marriage with tax breaks (with or without a cultural marriage ceremony), civil unions with matters of consent and property assumed (with or without a cultural marriage), and registered child-rearing union, which grants full tax and welfare benefits/obligations. Then we could begin working the first into the last and eliminating government involvemnet in anything that we call "marriage." Married persons raising kids would have to apply to be a child-rearing unit with benefits the same as a same-sex union adopting kids.

Well, then you needed to clarify that in your OP. There is a massive world of difference between saying the state's role would remain unchanged except for the semantic designation of it and saying the state has no role. The semantic change would be fine, IMO, so long as it is an equal change. Under the present system, for some arbitrary reason it must be called "civil union" if the couple is gay, and then of course, in many states there isn't even the civil union.

 

[jackstar7]

Let me spell it out: Marriage is a RELIGIOUS or CULTURAL ceremony.

You are quite simply wrong.

Go look up the definition of marriage and which comes up first: law or religion/cultural ceremony?


I'll help:

M-W: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

 

[manimal]

Unless its fair for everyone they should take all benefits away from marriage and make it as some want a purely religious ceremony. Funny thing is we would find that if Marriage didn't have these extra perks the religious right would throw a fit because way too many people would not even bother....



Its funny to me that people wear the constitution these days like a members only jacket but fail to respect its most basic tenants like equal protection under the law.

Since the 14th amendment isnt convenient we should throw it away right>?

 

[Munky]

We do not have a population shortage, nor are we in danger of having one. You can certainly make an argument that the government programs like Welfare and SS are ponzi schemes which depend on an ever-increasing numbers of young suckers to tax in order to fund the unsustainable promises to the beneficiaries of such programs... but that would happen with or without marriage.

 

[ElFenix]

You are quite simply wrong.

Go look up the definition of marriage and which comes up first: law or religion/cultural ceremony?


I'll help:

M-W: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

historically from the time of the norman invasion until the reformation the government (the king's court) asked the church (the ecclesiastic courts) if someone was married.

so they aren't necessarily inseparable.