Judge Strikes Down Calif. Marriage Law

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: Vic
?

Regardless, your argument is childish and illogical*. In the opinions of the pro-traditional marriage people, it is the gay crowd who is trying to oppress them, by taking away their sacred tradition of marriage. .

There's nothing "sacred" about marriage in modern America. The divorce rate, adultery rates, etc clearly show the propensity for treating marriage as nothing even close to sacred.

Anyway, there are 2 types of marriage: religious and civil. This is true whether the conservatives want to admit it or not. The government applies certain tangible benefits, rights, and responsibilities to those people who get "married". Religious institutions apply their own flavor to marriage as well. Without declaring that inequality is ok, there is no logical way to deny gays the right to marry at the civil level. By the same token, there is no logical way a government policy could require a religious institution to peform the ceremony.

Some conservatives would have you create a "civil union" but just not call it "marriage" - for some reason, their sensibilities would be offended by sharing the word with people they don't like. Fact of the matter is, they'd be "married" for all legal/civil/earthly intents and that's all that matters - A rose by any other name and all that.

Ultimately, the conservatives don't have a legal leg to stand on for denying marriage rights to gay couples. They can scream and kick and whine about "sacredness" all they like but as arguments go ... well, we have a saying here in the south: you can't polish a turd.

R

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Is it any different than those who want to penalize those who DON'T have children in favor of those who DO? I've seen on *this board* where NeoCon crackpots have argued that people without children should be taxed at higher rates in order to *encourage* people to have children! I've seen people argue that without incentives of that kind people will actually *not reproduce*, thus threatening the solvency of the entire nation! People actually BELIEVE that tripe!

Tripe? :roll: Why shouldn't they believe it? I know it. The biggest single reason that my SO and I have decided not to have children is because it is so financially disadvantageous. For years, the biggest single reason why we didn't get married is because it would have cost us significantly more in taxes. This financial disadvantage was levelled recently, but still provides no incentive.

Well, I'm not married yet, but probably will be in the next year (gulp), but even so I have no intention of having more children. I *had* one with someone who turned out to be a nutjob and kidnapped him and I haven't seem him since; I see no reason to have more and risk that kind of trauma again

That said, I also see no reason why *I*, choosing not to have a bunch of booger-eaters of my own, should have to *subsidize* those who do choose to. I find the idea that people won't procreate without enough tax incentives to be bogus at best; that there are anomalies like you or I is immaterial: the average person is motivated far more by their hormones than their sense, financial or otherwise, and they're going to dump their load in the bimbo without thinking of the consequences more often than not. That may change as they get older (it certainly did for me but the young ones=dumb as rocks. Or as the age-old saying goes, "Young, dumb and full of cum!"

Jason

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Vic
Yawn. And judges legislating from the bench is somehow better, more constitutional, and/or more in line with protecting individual freedoms than voters legislating from the polls? Both are wrong IMO.

That's what I hate about this issue. It's trivial, divisive, and exclusionary... from both sides. But it does IMO highlight just how much the liberals desire to penalize those couples who choose to have children, and to reward those who don't.

What do you mean about liberals penalizing couples that have children ?

First of all, I don't think the issue of gay marriage is a liberal one, it's a matter of civil rights.

Secondly, the tax benefits of having children, wouldn't be changed by gays marrying.

Thirdly, gay people can and do have children.


edit- and I also tend to agree with you and Jason that it might be better if the government wasn't in the marriage business, the children business, or the real estate business, but on the other hand the messy system we have has apperently delivered us a reasonalbe amount of prosperity, and I would be worried about unintended consequences of undoing it.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ELP
How is it penalizing those who choose to have children?

This isn't forcing anything on anybody. It's just allowing those that want to get married to do so. What is wrong with that?

I'm really interested in how straight couples are penalized. This should be good...

Because economics are relative. Right now, we extend various financial benefits (tax breaks, government benefits, etc.) to married couples with the supposed intent of encouraging them to have children. Gay marriage would extend those same benefits to couples who cannot have children. This would effectively negate the value of those benefits to those who already receive them.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Anyway, this is all easily avoided: The government needs to DROP the marriage business altogether, tax people as INDIVIDUALS and leave the marriages to the churches. Let people shop around for the church that will fit their marriage fancy and let the market decide.

On this note, you and I are in COMPLETE agreement. In fact, your statement here is essentially my entire position on this issue. My problem with gay marriage, as it is currently being proposed, is not that I disagree with gays getting married (more power to 'em) but that I see it as an expansion of government's involvement in the marriage business. And I am greatly opposed to that.
So many people get too rabidly polarized by certain issues IMO, and it blinds them. A person may oppose your particular favorite issue for reasons other than why you think they oppose it.

Many churches btw, particularly the Unitarians, have been marrying gays for years (not for economic reasons, but because of their beliefs), and I fully support them in that. A perfect example of how it should be.

I certainly can agree that I don't want the government's fingers *more* in the pie than they already are. My point is just that, if they are going to have their fingers in the marriage pie, they're obligated, morally and constitutionally, to treat everyone in that pie on equal footing.

I default back to my preferred position: The government *ought* to get out of the marriage business altogether and tax solely INDIVIDUALS.

Jason

 

[Tab]

No, they should not get out of the marriage business. What they need to do is rename "marriage" to "civil union". That's in reality, what it really is. Our goverment doesn't require love, it's requires only consent. That's the difference between marriage and civil union.

Our goverment should promote hetro and homo -sexsuals living together. There are more things than JUST creation of a human being. It's very benifical to your mental health to be able to live with the ones you love. They should even extended it futher to things like being a simple caretaker. In France, even if you just live with someone you can still recieve some kind of benifits.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Tabb
No, they should not get out of the marriage business. What they need to do is rename "marriage" to "civil union". That's in reality, what it really is. Our goverment doesn't require love, it's requires only consent. That's the difference between marriage and civil union.

Our goverment should promote hetro and homo -sexsuals living together. There are more things than JUST creation of a human being. It's very benifical to your mental health to be able to live with the ones you love. They should even extended it futher to things like being a simple caretaker. In France, even if you just live with someone you can still recieve some kind of benifits.

Conservatives believe homosexuality is deviant behavior. Why would they want gays to benefit at all? They would rather have them die out - if there was a single gene for gay, they would stomp it out in a second. Too bad for them there isn't.