More Republican shenanigans.. via supermajority

[zsdersw]

Why is government in the marriage business?

At all? Good question. If it is to be involved, it should be involved because there is a compelling interest in recognizing and incentivizing beneficial relationships that "promotes the general welfare".

- Since marriage for heterosexual couples forms an ideal environment for raising children, it is a beneficial relationship.

- Since marriage for homosexual couples represents an ideal arrangement that reduces the spread of disease, reduces drug abuse, and reduces crime, in addition to providing an environment that's better for raising children than a no-parent or single-parent situation, it is a beneficial relationship.

This is a logical and conservative argument for supporting gay marriage and/or civil unions.

The only other logical alternative is for the government to not recognize anyone's marriages/relationships.

 

[werepossum]

Homosexuals will still cohabit without benefit of marriage, so the only practical effect of banning gay marriage is to weaken the family bonds of gay households, essentially making all gay parents single parents. The only way to protect children from gay cohabitation would be to give government power over everyone's children, so that government could rip children away from loving, providing parents who are gay and place them in foster care. G-d help us all, there are otherwise good and loving people quite willing to give government this power, quite confident it would never be used against them, and quite convinced they would be helping society in doing so.

 

[Linflas]

At all? Good question. If it is to be involved, it should be involved because there is a compelling interest in recognizing and incentivizing beneficial relationships that "promotes the general welfare".

- Since marriage for heterosexual couples forms an ideal environment for raising children, it is a beneficial relationship.

- Since marriage for homosexual couples represents an ideal arrangement that reduces the spread of disease, reduces drug abuse, and reduces crime, in addition to providing an environment that's better for raising children than a no-parent or single-parent situation, it is a beneficial relationship.

This is a logical and conservative argument for supporting gay marriage and/or civil unions.

The only other logical alternative is for the government to not recognize anyone's marriages/relationships.

Personally I would remove government totally from marriage, if the benefits of it are as you state above, and I agree they are, then government really needs to do nothing to encourage what humans have been doing absent government sanction pretty much throughout human history. Government actually got into the marriage business late in the game and it is largely for tax purposes.

 

[bamacre]

Government actually got into the marriage business late in the game and it is largely for tax purposes.

Loss of economic freedom ----> loss of social freedom

 

[her209]

If government - state, in this case - wasn't in the business of marriage, then what happens in cases like Terri Schiavo? What if one of the spouses decides to leave the other but takes all the money they were saving together with them leaving the other one with nothing.

 

[werepossum]

Personally I would remove government totally from marriage, if the benefits of it are as you state above, and I agree they are, then government really needs to do nothing to encourage what humans have been doing absent government sanction pretty much throughout human history. Government actually got into the marriage business late in the game and it is largely for tax purposes.

Assuming you agree that protecting rights is a valid federal government function, the federal government will never be able to get completely free of marriage. Some states (my own included) and certainly many individuals will insist on denying basic courtesies and rights to homosexuals, and government action will be needed to counteract that. It would make government less powerful though, and I can support that.

Ironically, government (at least under Democrats) has in recent decades discriminated against as well as for married couples. Using the justification that married couples "need" less, government feels entitled to take more in taxes from a married couple than from two independent singles with the same joint income. The Republicans ended the marriage penalty, but at least in some areas (like Obamacare) the Democrats reinstated this disparity. Getting the federal government out of the marriage business would end this too; can't punish what you don't track.

 

[bamacre]

If government - state, in this case - wasn't in the business of marriage, then what happens in cases like Terri Schiavo? What if one of the spouses decides to leave the other but takes all the money they were saving together with them leaving the other one with nothing.

Perhaps people might actually have to be careful when it comes to deciding who they marry.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps people might actually have to be careful when it comes to deciding who they marry.

Asking for people to make those sorts of projections is pretty ridiculous.

 

[zsdersw]

Perhaps people might actually have to be careful when it comes to deciding who they marry.

Probably have to wait for a future generation for that. Such carefulness requires that their parents teach them things like common sense and personal responsibility... and that's definitely not been what generations Y and Next were taught, as our divorce rates verify. (present company exempted, of course)

 

[Fear No Evil]

Obama could have pretty quickly resolved this issue at a national level. But we've had that discussion.

 

[bamacre]

Asking for people to make those sorts of projections is pretty ridiculous.

Asking government to cover those bets is pretty ridiculous. Especially when it gives them authority to decide who and who cannot get married.

If you read my statement again, you'll see the irony of having to make it.

 

[her209]

Perhaps people might actually have to be careful when it comes to deciding who they marry.

Perhaps we should say the same when it comes to business partners...? You guys crack me up.

 

[zsdersw]

Obama could have pretty quickly resolved this issue at a national level. But we've had that discussion.

No. He could've altered what the federal government does.. but not what each state does.

Answer me this: how does Obama's inactions in the federal government excuse Republicans for doing sh** like this in NH?

 

[bamacre]

Probably have to wait for a future generation for that. Such carefulness requires that their parents teach them things like common sense and personal responsibility... and that's definitely not been what generations Y and Next were taught, as our divorce rates verify. (present company exempted, of course)

I'm glad that if the parents fail to teach their kids some common sense and responsibility, the government is there to do the job. God knows they have the credentials and track record.

 

[her209]

No. He could've altered what the federal government does.. but not what each state does.

Answer me this: how does Obama's inactions in the federal government excuse Republicans for doing sh** like this in NH?

Fear No Evil is just trolling. He's alluding to his beliefs on Obama's beliefs of gay marriage.

 

[bamacre]

Perhaps we should say the same when it comes to business partners...? You guys crack me up.

I'm not sure of your point.

 

[zsdersw]

Fear No Evil is just trolling.

When is he not?

 

[her209]

I'm not sure of your point.

Contract Law

 

[fskimospy]

Asking government to cover those bets is pretty ridiculous. Especially when it gives them authority to decide who and who cannot get married.

If you read my statement again, you'll see the irony of having to make it.

The government most certainly does not cover the bets, they don't make you whole if something goes wrong. They DO provide a legal framework for the parties to enforce judgments against each other however, but in order to do so there must be a legal recognition of entering into such an arrangement.

 

[bamacre]

Contract Law

I'm still not sure why you are using business partnerships and/or contract law as an analogy here.

 

[JS80]

At all? Good question. If it is to be involved, it should be involved because there is a compelling interest in recognizing and incentivizing beneficial relationships that "promotes the general welfare".

- Since marriage for heterosexual couples forms an ideal environment for raising children, it is a beneficial relationship.

- Since marriage for homosexual couples represents an ideal arrangement that reduces the spread of disease, reduces drug abuse, and reduces crime, in addition to providing an environment that's better for raising children than a no-parent or single-parent situation, it is a beneficial relationship.

This is a logical and conservative argument for supporting gay marriage and/or civil unions.

The only other logical alternative is for the government to not recognize anyone's marriages/relationships.

If it's a beneficial relationship, why am I penalized for it with higher taxes?

 

[her209]

I'm still not sure why you are using business partnerships and/or contract law as an analogy here.

Perhaps people might actually have to be careful when it comes to deciding who they enter into business partnerships with.

 

[zsdersw]

If it's a beneficial relationship, why am I penalized for it with higher taxes?

That's a question for those who created and altered the tax code.

 

[bamacre]

The government most certainly does not cover the bets, they don't make you whole if something goes wrong. They DO provide a legal framework for the parties to enforce judgments against each other however, but in order to do so there must be a legal recognition of entering into such an arrangement.

Most people do not perceive marriage as a legal contract. Most people get married because they are in love with each other, or think that's the case at least.

 

[fskimospy]

Most people do not perceive marriage as a legal contract. Most people get married because they are in love with each other, or think that's the case at least.

While people may not strictly view it as a legal contract, the vast majority of adults are well aware of the legal consequences of such an arrangement. They know the scope, if not the letter of the law.