Marriage Debate

[Meadmaker]

Nova Land,
You're right. Elderly marriages serve no societal purpose. And when they happen, an awful lot of people are frequently upset by them, especially when estates are involved. People definitely view them differently than marriage between young people, and their validity is frequently challenged. Try convincing INS that the 65 year old woman who marries a foreigner (of any age) that they are "really" married.

On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to change the status quo to get rid of them. They are tradition, and they don't do any harm I'm aware of.

 

[bluess]

Nova Land,
You're right. Elderly marriages serve no societal purpose. And when they happen, an awful lot of people are frequently upset by them, especially when estates are involved. People definitely view them differently than marriage between young people, and their validity is frequently challenged. Try convincing INS that the 65 year old woman who marries a foreigner (of any age) that they are "really" married.

On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to change the status quo to get rid of them. They are tradition, and they don't do any harm I'm aware of.

You just one harm. They can lead to financial distress for prior progeny who have expectations on the estate. (Won't someone think of the children!).

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You called wedding vows "personal", and that is a common view today, but historically, there is a reason they were stated in public in the presence of witnesses.

You're absolutely right in that, historically, wedding vows were taking in public, and the marriage was consumated with witnesses because the woman was viewed as property, and the husband's family wanted to make sure everything was above board, and that the good were undamaged.

Since we don't treat woman as baby machines or appliances for opperating the kitchen any longer, but instead recognize that they're people too, entitled to all the same rights and priviliages as men, we have aknowledged their right to marry as they please.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And...................



You can't have it both ways.

Why do you want government to sanction same-sex marriage if you agree that:

1) Marriage predates government, and
2) If government has no power over enforcing the government sanctioned marriage vows?

Only because the government already sanctions marriage for heterosexual couples. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all, but as long as it is, it should also sanction same-sex marriage.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It creates no obligations. It provides no protections.

So? Should the government provide protections personal promises? If so, why only heterosexual promises?

You called wedding vows "personal", and that is a common view today, but historically, there is a reason they were stated in public in the presence of witnesses.

We live in the present, not in the past. However, if you want to reference history, why do you ignore the fact that marriages have had different make-ups since the beginning of time?

 

[bluess]

Zig:

As I stated before, I find your attempts to argue rationally for the anti-SSM refreshing and worthwhile.

However, having listened to 'Focus on the Family' on the way in to work, I have to say that there is no reasoned approach to desire to amend the Constitution to limit marriage to one man/one woman. James Dobson and his cohorts specifically state that this is a religious and moral crusade. They might make mention of the needs of the children, but their focus is their bible's prohibition of homosexual relations.

 

[Hardenbergh]

Zig:

As I stated before, I find your attempts to argue rationally for the anti-SSM refreshing and worthwhile.

However, having listened to 'Focus on the Family' on the way in to work, I have to say that there is no reasoned approach to desire to amend the Constitution to limit marriage to one man/one woman. James Dobson and his cohorts specifically state that this is a religious and moral crusade. They might make mention of the needs of the children, but their focus is their bible's prohibition of homosexual relations.

Actually, there are arguments other than just from a Biblical standpoint:

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm

As well as other articles:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp

It's quite obvious that Dr. Dobson and his staff have been working tirelessly to protect marriage.

 

[Darat]

Actually, there are arguments other than just from a Biblical standpoint:

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm

As well as other articles:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/

Can you be more specific which ones aren't religious arguments?

 

[Hardenbergh]

Can you be more specific which ones aren't religious arguments?

4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
7. Social Security will be severely stressed.

 

[Darat]

4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.

How? Some states in the USA apparently allow same sex couple to adopt now.

5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.

You mean there will be more possible foster care homes? Surely that's a good thing?

6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.

How - it will mean more people are covered by family insurance policies - it should mean more people will be entitled to better health care coverage then is now the case.

7. Social Security will be severely stressed.

Again it should mean less strain on SS since there will be less people eligible to claim it (e.g. previously even if two people considered themselves a same-sex couple they would have been assessed as two single people, so if one earned a million bucks a year the other may still have been eligible for SS, once married they would be be assessed as a couple.)

 

[bluess]

4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
7. Social Security will be severely stressed.

4. Really? You mean that the current state/country requirements for a home study will be obviated? How?

5. Yep, the limited pool of people who are willing to take on the staggering job of temporarily caring for a child coming from a less than optimal home will be increased. Wait .... isn't that a good thing?

6. Really? So that means the actual population of SS relationships is enormous. Doesn't that mean that the stance that homosexuality and lesbianism is aberrant behavior?

7. I agree with this one. Social Security is already severely stressed, and additional partnership benefits would be difficult. Oh, wait. Wouldn't those SS-couples be paying into the system? Aren't they already?

Try again.

 

[Ziggurat]

No where in there do I see a justification that procreation or the ability to procreate is an absolutly relevent factor and not just the current fad "most important" factor of the day. Did I miss it or are you not claiming that anymore?

You're still not getting the argument. It doesn't matter if procreation is only something of interest now or not. That's simply beside the point. The question is, is it a LEGITIMATE interest of the state? And the answer, quite clearly, is yes. And that stands in contrast to something like interracial marriages, where the state does not, never had, and CANNOT have a legitimate interest.

Yes, the criteria has changed. The concern with interracial couples was that they would produce a mixed race child (considered a bad thing, back in the day). The concern with the same sex couple is that they cannot produce a child through the usual heterosexual means (which you consider a bad thing, I suppose?).

Uh, no. It's not about whether or not something is bad, it's about whether or not the state has an interest in the matter. The state has NO interest in the race of the child, regardless of what it was "considered" by some in whatever day. The state DOES have an interest in the existence of a child. It's as simple as that. I understand that you want to tie racism to homophobia, and certainly both prejudices are arbitrary and capricious, but that's simply not the legal question at stake.

This is exactly my point. The situations are identical: give impossible criteria for your opponent to meet (mixed race couple => white baby, same-sex couple => naturally conceived baby) and use that as a reason to not let them participate with the majority.

That's simply NOT equivalent, though. A same sex couple CANNOT produce a child of any kind. One person in a same sex couple can become pregnant, but ONLY through a relationship of some kind outside that couple (be it with another person or a fertility clinic). That's the facts. Therefore, the situation is simply NOT equivalent. It's not about natural conception being better, it's about a relationship which can produce conception at all being different from one that cannot. And same-sex relationships CANNOT produce children.

You aren't judging the babies differntly, you're judging the couples differently and that is discrimintory.

But the couples ARE different, and in a substantive way. That's the facts. You're upset by what you perceive as my response to that difference, but that's a different question. And the fact that you can't understand that distinction only demonstrates that you still haven't understood the argument. And it's not that I'm claiming anyone who disagrees doesn't understand, because there have been a few people in the thread who get the argument, and have provided good and substantive counterarguments. You haven't done so, and you won't be able to do so until you understand what my argument really is.

 

[bluess]

Darn, Darat, you must using your sooper sekret admin powers to pre-post on me.

 

[bluess]

Zig -

Can you think of a reasoned approach for why Dobson et al. would want to amend the Constitution?

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting theory that you are putting forward -- that it is a lack of desire to support non-procreative marriage, rather than active hostility to same-sex marriage, which is at the root of some significant portion of the opposition. Let's see if we can test that theory out.

There's actually a distinction which needs to be made here. What I've presented is one argument against same-sex marriage. I am well aware that this argument is not shared by all opponents. In fact, it doesn't actually matter whether or not this argument is shared by most opponents, or only a few: the real question is whether or not it's a valid basis for opposition. This distinction matters for the same reason that the case for gay marriage should be based on the strongest arguments for it, and should not be allowed to be discredited by any fringe elements.

But there is one heterosexual category for which this is not a problem: the elderly.

Sure. And the simplest reason marriage is allowed for the elderly is that they represent a large and powerful special interest group, which is generally quite successful in making sure they receive government entitlements.

We know there is a minimum age below which people are legally forbidden from getting married. For the purpose of this discussion, let's consider a proposal to establish a maximum age of 65 as well. As someone who who believes marriage is about more than procreation, I oppose such a restriction. But those who believe that "the state's only interest in promoting marriage is to encourage and support procreation" should be as supportive of a ban on over-age marriage as they are on same-sex marriage.

Actually, I never argued that procreation was the state's only interest. I said it was AN interest. Which, in fact, leaves an opening for proponents of SSM's which few people in this thread seem to have noticed: namely, that this doesn't actually preclude the possibility of other interests. So if you can come up with another state interest in promoting marriage, and can show how this interest is advanced by allowing same sex marriage, you've made a strong counterargument. But for the same reason, while I agree that the case I made doesn't favor allowing old people to marry, neither does it preclude them from marrying - there may be some other interest which is served there. But old people will be allowed to marry, regardless of the state interest, because they can successfully lobby for their own entitlements. That it happens says nothing about whether or not it should, nor does the fact that an entitlement was extended to one group beyond the state's interest mean it should be extended to another group.

If you can pass any any of those tests, I will agree you have a valid point. Until then, the evidence indicates to me that it is animosity toward homosexuals rather than interest in procreation which is the main motivation to ban same-sex marriage.

Quite possibly, but also somewhat beside the point, as I alluded to earlier. The question I've been probing (largely by playing devil's advocate here) is whether or not there is AN argument against gay marriage which can stand up to scrutiny. Whether that's what drives most opponents is a separate question, not nearly so important from a legal standpoint, and kind of hard to measure objectively anyways.

 

[Upchurch]

You're still not getting the argument. It doesn't matter if procreation is only something of interest now or not. That's simply beside the point. The question is, is it a LEGITIMATE interest of the state? And the answer, quite clearly, is yes. And that stands in contrast to something like interracial marriages, where the state does not, never had, and CANNOT have a legitimate interest.

Okay, you think it is clear, but I don't. Please explain to me why the state does not have a legitimate interest in having more stable family units. Or why the state does not have a legitimate interest in having more child rearing environments made available for orphans and children in the foster care system?

Why does the state have a lagitimate interest in creating more citizens when we are unable to take care of the ones we already have?

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig -

Can you think of a reasoned approach for why Dobson et al. would want to amend the Constitution?

First off, let me state again that I think this issue should be handled by the legislative process. I think there's no constitutional right for gay marriage, but that it is instead something within the power of the state to decide as a matter of law. That position does not in any way determine what the optimal solution actually is for what the state should decide. It's more a belief that this question falls within the category of issues that the electorate should be deciding, even if they're deciding it wrongly.

Given that, I oppose the idea of a constitutional amendment on procedural grounds. I think it's got no business in there, and I'd feel the same way about a constitutional amendment requiring gay marriage. I see it as totally unjustified.

Now, it's a different question as to why THEY would want such an amendment, and there the reason is a little more clear and actually quite logical (given that they oppose gay marriage), though quite cynical. And basically, the reason is that they think they can win the issue on a national level, but know that they'll lose in some places on a state level. Since marriage law has traditionally been the purview of the state, the only way to win completely, really, is a constitutional amendment which would bypass all those pesky states rights issues. And that's what motivates some of the proponents of gay marriage to turn to the courts as well: they want to bypass the normal state legislative process, though in their case they're going through the state courts instead.

 

[Snide]

13 pages in and the anti ssm advocates haven't convinced me that there is a compelling reason to deny folks the opportunity to have a ssm.

I would go one step further. They have helped me see even less reason to deny SSM.

 

[bluess]

First off, let me state again that I think this issue should be handled by the legislative process. I think there's no constitutional right for gay marriage, but that it is instead something within the power of the state to decide as a matter of law. That position does not in any way determine what the optimal solution actually is for what the state should decide. It's more a belief that this question falls within the category of issues that the electorate should be deciding, even if they're deciding it wrongly.

Given that, I oppose the idea of a constitutional amendment on procedural grounds. I think it's got no business in there, and I'd feel the same way about a constitutional amendment requiring gay marriage. I see it as totally unjustified.

Now, it's a different question as to why THEY would want such an amendment, and there the reason is a little more clear and actually quite logical (given that they oppose gay marriage), though quite cynical. And basically, the reason is that they think they can win the issue on a national level, but know that they'll lose in some places on a state level. Since marriage law has traditionally been the purview of the state, the only way to win completely, really, is a constitutional amendment which would bypass all those pesky states rights issues. And that's what motivates some of the proponents of gay marriage to turn to the courts as well: they want to bypass the normal state legislative process, though in their case they're going through the state courts instead.

Cynical, yes.
Is this state against SSM? State's rights!
Is this state for SSM? Federal protections!

So far, the only argument against that has any value in my eyes is the Social Security issue. So that means we should discourage all marriages.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, you think it is clear, but I don't. Please explain to me why the state does not have a legitimate interest in having more stable family units.

I never said the state didn't have such other interests. In fact, I left the door open for you to introduce other state interests in marriage (and in a post above, actually suggested that advocates of SSM do exactly that), but you contented yourself with banging your head against the interest in procreation, rather than pursuing this alternate strategy which I really thought should have been obvious. But don't blame me because I didn't make your counterargument for you.

Why does the state have a lagitimate interest in creating more citizens when we are unable to take care of the ones we already have?

Are you serious? Because forty years from now, we're going to need new citizens to take care of the citizens we already have who will be too old to do so, and we cannot get those new citizens by immigration alone. Because we don't want to suffer demographic collapse, because that spells doom for a country. Because we don't want to follow on the heels of Russia. Because while everyone knows where babies come from, it seems like people are forgetting where adults come from.