Marriage Debate

[Earthborn]

I'm just reacting to the persistent notion that marriage is some bag of goodies that married people get from the government, but it's only available if you are heterosexual.

It's a persistent notion, but not one that is necessarily promoted by advocates of same sex marriage. Rather it is a notion that perpetuated by opponents of same sex marriage by ascribing that view to the proponents.

Here's what I mean: this PDF claims to debunk the notion that "marriage comes with 1000 federal benefits". They argue that many of those regulations are not benefits at all. At the end is a link to a website where they say they got the claim about the 1000 federal benefits. This PDF is probably where they got it from, but notice however that this website repeatedly states "benefits and responsibilities". Looks to me like the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy tries to pull a strawman.

Also note that it does not mention the benefits that are mentioned in Marriage Equality PDF, and dismisses 'benefits' that are concentrated towards the end life as unlikely to be economic incentives to marry. But that may not be true of many older gay couples who want have the security of marriage after many years of commitment to eachother.

If thay's the case, I must be doing something wrong, because I never received my goodie bag.

Whether it is a goodie bag or a load of burdens is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion and I think it is more important to consider why some couples are treated differently than others.

There are a few 'goodies' though: tax incentives to stay together.

Enforceability.

So you are basically saying that civil marriage does not come with responsibilities, only the enforceability of responsibilities? That's not entirely true though.

Marriage is a commitment made. It consists of freedoms lost, not gained.

And what we are talking about here is the freedom to make those commitments and give up those freedoms.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Not at all. It makes perfect sense when recognized.

I'm just reacting to the persistent notion that marriage is some bag of goodies that married people get from the government, but it's only available if you are heterosexual. If thay's the case, I must be doing something wrong, because I never received my goodie bag.

But you did get a bag and the goodies are in the eye of the beholder, as you say:

Marriage is a commitment made. It consists of freedoms lost, not gained. The benefit of this arrangement to the one making the sacrifice is the security gained, because the partner gives up the same freedoms. Meanwhile, if you really want to be married, the sacrifices don't seem like sacrifices (i.e. it doesn't upset me that I can't sleep with other women or have sole title to my house). Meanwhile, if my beloved secretly harbors dreams of an amorous nature with someone not myself, the legal incentives to avoid such things might prevent her from acting upon that impulse, and I won't have to deal with that issue.

It’s a trade, but a more than fair trade, particularly if you’re in my shoes and have already gladly “forsaken all others” for all time.

You know, there are many other things you probably got too. Your wife got automatic, tax free, first-in-line claim to your assets, even if you change your mind. She can also get on your insurance (why would anyone want to pay another’s way ?). And so on. All those things may hurt you if you were a selfish individual, but I doubt they ever will.

Some of those goodies can keep a parent home and kids in their care through the early years. I know many more gay parents would be stay-at-home parents if they could get on their breadwinner’s health insurance (not to mention a claim on their assets, so they don’t have to worry as much about abandonment). While we’ll do it either way, the break and peace of mind would be nice (we’ve had to go months without my partner being insured due to certain changes in our situation that would have been unnecessary if the law didn’t care about his sex).

Maybe the best thing you got is the peace of mind, from my perspective. You know if you’re killed tomorrow in a car crash, your wife will be treated as your wife, as family. The powers of sisters, cousins or even parents pale in comparison, at the hospital, morgue, or in financial matters. We paid a good deal to make our estate as tight as possible. We have our binder of documents ready to take to the hospital if needed (just hope the conscious one remembers them , if it’s a panic). But we keep coming across challenges to such arrangements, some where the gay partner looses (or at least stays in expensive legal limbo for years) and even our planner keeps giving us disclaimers. Something like “the law says you’re just not kin, and we’ll do our best, but it’s nothing like a marriage license”.

Just last month or so I found out the new home we just built together over the last year so the kids could have a larger yard is on a lot zoned for “single families”. And we, as there are 4 of us and no legal marriage license while in our state, don’t fit that definition in the law. A heterosexual couple in Black Jack Missouri is being evicted from a home they bought for the same reason right now (at least they could get married), and our neighbor city has just started looking at enforcing such laws. Seems we too are currently living in violation of our zoning laws and could actually be evicted from our home if a neighbor makes a fuss. Such things keep me up at night, and it would be a big goodie to be free from such a worry.

I just don’t get the impression you realize the full extent of your “goodie bag”, in peace of mind alone.

 

[Ausmerican]

I have not read this whole thread so forgive me if someone has mentioned this before. The idea that marriage is/was/ has always involved a man and a woman is ridiculous. The church itself has long supported interspecies marriage. Are not nuns referred to as "brides of christ?" So if you can be married to a god, who by definition must be gender neutral since its a non human, omnipotent entity, why should marrying the same sex be a big deal?

 

[Meadmaker]

Then, what basis is there for an objection to homosexual marriage that doesn't invoke imaginary friends or tradition?

Most people who oppose it would invoke one of those.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's a persistent notion, but not one that is necessarily promoted by advocates of same sex marriage. Rather it is a notion that perpetuated by opponents of same sex marriage by ascribing that view to the proponents.

ID talked about "equal rights and privileges".

I want my privileges, dammit.

There are a few 'goodies' though: tax incentives to stay together.

Where? If my wife were a dependent instead of a spouse, I'd be better off. And if she works, we pay higher taxes than if we shack up. Am I doing my taxes wrong?

 

[Meadmaker]

I just don’t get the impression you realize the full extent of your “goodie bag”, in peace of mind alone.

Good points, as usual. As you know, I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to make the same arrangements I have. I'm just reacting to the notion that I get a lot of free stuff that isn't available to others.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Most people who oppose it would invoke one of those.

Then don't be one of those people. Surprise us by comming up with a factually based objection devoid of logical fallacies which neither invokes imaginary friends nor tradition.

 

[Darat]

ID talked about "equal rights and privileges".

I want my privileges, dammit.

...snip...

You've already had it. You've been allowed to marry the person you wish.

 

[ZirconBlue]

To refrain from sexual intercourse with anyone other than your spouse.

This is a requirement of most, but not all marriages, and is not a legal requirement.

To love your spouse.

This is not a legal requirement of marriage, and is a fairly recent development, historically speaking. Please see: arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, etc.

To share your property with your spouse.

This one is legally protected by default, but can be at least partially nullified by use of prenuptial agreements.

To care for your spouse if sick. (That's why those hospital visits are so important, ya know.)

I don't believe there is any legal requirement to care for your sick spouse. That you are granted the legal authority to do so, is more "privilege" than "responsibility"

You know, to have and to hold. For better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, and to keep yourself only to him/her, forsaking all others, as long as you both shall live.

What do you think? Those words were written by Hallmark?

I don't know who came up with them. There's certainly no obligation to make those particular vows in a civil marriage ceremony.

Sadly, an awful lot of people also don't realize that those words matter, and their force in law has been diminished as a result.

I think you are conflating the vows and commitments that people make to each other in marriage with the actual legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.

It is my opinion we are the worse for failing to teach our children, like you, that marriage is not a set of privileges.


If you care to, pick any "privilege" of marriage, and I will show you that it is probably an unrecognized responsibility, or, at least, it is correlated with a paired responsibility.

I actually agree with you, but it seems to me that those homosexual couples fighting for legal recognitions of their marriages are already living with the "responsibilities" you detailed above, and are just looking to add the "privileges" part. And I'm sure there are currently plenty of legal heterosexual marriages that don't include some (or any) of the above "responsibilities".

 

[HeavyAaron]

Nevermind bluess, Hardenbergh's made the irrelevant appeal to tradition for you.

230 year ago we had no Social Security...

That's the best argument FOR tradition I've ever seen!

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

With the exception of the amendment to prohibit alcoholic consumption, it is my understanding that the amendments to date specifically identify rights which have been historically denied. You know, like a woman's right to vote. Because when the constitution was drafted, who would think that someone wearing skirts could possibly be involved in such a male-oriented matter.

As I've had to point out before this is simply not so. You could, of course, look up the amendments yourself, have paid attention to me on the previous thread, or just realized this isn't so. But to quote myself on a rundown of how most all of the amendments have restricted the rights of all or some citizens:

XI (can't sue other states), XII (in that we only choose one ticket), XIII (can't own a slave, or sell one's self into slavery), XIV (proportions representitives in ways that benifit some at the cost of others), XVI (DUH! TAXES!), XVII (lost the freedom to determine senators via any other means), XVIII you've mentioned, XXII (lost the freedom to elect a president for a third term... and if you're a two term president, lost the freedom to run again), XXIII (lost power if you're not a DC resident), XXIV (lost the freedom to determine voter eligability)

Aaron

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's the best argument FOR tradition I've ever seen!

Aaron

Yes. Wasn't it wonderful when old people died in misery and poverty, unable to support themselves. Wasn't it grand when people who had spent their entire lives working hard needed to resort to begging in the streets to live another day?

You're heartless.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Yes. Wasn't it wonderful when old people died in misery and poverty, unable to support themselves. Wasn't it grand when people who had spent their entire lives working hard needed to resort to begging in the streets to live another day?

You're heartless.

I suppose this off-thread was my fault. But yes, it was a much better time (in this regard) when one could plan for one's own retirement. It was a better time when there wasn't a compulsery involvement in a reverse-Robin-Hood, regressively taxed, piramid scheme with 15% of one's income.

Aaron

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you realize that people can still plan their own retirement, Aaron?

 

[HeavyAaron]

Do you realize that people can still plan their own retirement, Aaron?

And do, thank you very much. If you're so in love with S.S. then make it OPTIONAL. You can enjoy it to your heart's content. I want out.

Aaron

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I suppose this off-thread was my fault. But yes, it was a much better time (in this regard) when one could plan for one's own retirement. It was a better time when there wasn't a compulsery involvement in a reverse-Robin-Hood, regressively taxed, piramid scheme with 15% of one's income.

Aaron

Aaron, 230 years ago there was no such thing as retirement people worked until they were no longer able.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I am not in love with SS. I don't like it either, I was just pointing out a flaw in your argument. I, myself, am planning my own retirement and it doesn't fator in Social Security because I'm not so sure it'll be around when I retire.

 

[Darat]

Aaron, 230 years ago there was no such thing as retirement people worked until they were no longer able.

Sorry for continuing the derail but you could actually state it as "generally people worked until they were no longer able and then died".

 

[HeavyAaron]

Aaron, 230 years ago there was no such thing as retirement people worked until they were no longer able.

You're right... no one ever retired before the advent of the S.S.A.

I'm willing to risk going without the "security" it affords! Really! Let me try! Please *blinks flirtively*.

Aaron

 

[thaiboxerken]

WTF does social security have to do with same-sex marriage?