Marriage Debate

[Darat]

That's correct, so I basically altered my understanding of things. In the old days, there really was only one view of marriage, and it was set by law. It reflected the tradtional vows, but was not governed by them. The contract entered into at marriage was to be husband and wife, as defined by the law.

That is the wrong way round - the vows reflected the traditional civil/state marriage.

Not by coincidence, the law defined it the same way the traditional vows did. So, it didn't matter what the couple actually said during the ceremony. They were bound by the traditional vows, or more accurately, by the law of marriage which happened to embody them.

Again you are stating it the wrong way around - the civil contract came first and the religious vows seem to have copied the civil contract.

Today, I think that the government should allow flexibility in marriage contracting, and allow couples to choose what they are legally committing to.

I thought "prenuptial agreements" are legally binding and enforced in the USA?

(In the UK they are not.)

 

[Meadmaker]

That is the wrong way round - the vows reflected the traditional civil/state marriage.

There's a subject that keeps coming up here. The vows I'm talking about were uttered in both religious and civil ceremonies in the US. Today, they're optional, but still used in civil ceremonies. Perhaps they always were. The point is that people took vows whether or not they were married in a religious ceremony. It's possible to "vow" without having a church nearby.

I think what you are getting at is that their origin was civil, not religious. True. But they're still vows.

As for pre-nups, I'm not sure what parts are and are not legally binding. Perhaps someone else knows. Are the "covenant" pre-nups that people want to enter legally binding. I know that you can't sign away your right to get a divorce. Can you sign away your right to commit adultery? (i.e. if your pre-nup has a clause that one partner forfeits rights to joint propery in the even of adultery, would it be held to be legally acceptable?) I'm not sure where the law stands on that.

 

[Upchurch]

Whoops. Forgot to address this question:

What is marriage?

Legally, marriage is one of two ways for biologically unrelated people to be recognized by the state as family members. (Adoption being the other.)

 

[Meadmaker]

ImaginalDisc wants to extend it to people who are already family members. Any objections?

 

[Upchurch]

ImaginalDisc wants to extend it to people who are already family members. Any objections?

Personally, a little bit.*

Legally, I don't think so, but the devil is in the details. I'd need more info.



* Correction: Actual incest bothers me quite a bit, personally. It's polyamory that only bothers me a little bit.

 

[Meadmaker]

I;ve said I'd like to customize things, but I have to wonder about something. At what point does it cease to be "marriage". Why should I give government benefits to someone because they've signed a paper saying they are "married", regardless of what they decide that happens to mean?

It's giving away something, and asking nothing in return. Why would we do that? I have to ponder whether if we allow anyone to sign off on anything they happen to call marriage, is there any reason for society to acknowledge their status?

Of course, some people don't seem to think that's a problem, as long as gay people get it, too.

 

[pgwenthold]

I;ve said I'd like to customize things, but I have to wonder about something. At what point does it cease to be "marriage". Why should I give government benefits to someone because they've signed a paper saying they are "married", regardless of what they decide that happens to mean?

It's giving away something, and asking nothing in return. Why would we do that? I have to ponder whether if we allow anyone to sign off on anything they happen to call marriage, is there any reason for society to acknowledge their status?

Of course, some people don't seem to think that's a problem, as long as gay people get it, too.

On the contrary, what "some people" recognize is that whether it is a problem or not is irrelevent to the question of gay marriage, and problem or not, if hets are allowed to do it, then it is discriminatory to use it as a reason to deny gays.

But your strawman is noted.

 

[Upchurch]

It's giving away something, and asking nothing in return. Why would we do that? I have to ponder whether if we allow anyone to sign off on anything they happen to call marriage, is there any reason for society to acknowledge their status?

First of all, we're talking about government acknowledgement of their status, not society acknowledgement of their status.

Second of all, it is not about what the government is giving away but of what the government should not have the authority to with hold. I'm not talking about tax breaks or other perks that are actually a give away, but a family's legally reconized status as a family.

Of course, some people don't seem to think that's a problem, as long as gay people get it, too.

I wasn't sure what pgwenthold was refering to as your strawman, but I think I see it now.

 

[Huntster]

Legally, I don't think so, but the devil is in the details.

It appears to me that the devil is in the legality, not in the details.

 

[Upchurch]

It appears to me that the devil is in the legality, not in the details.

I'm sure you do, but fortunately we try to avoid basing laws on superstition. (We're not always successful, but that's the goal.)

 

[Meadmaker]

On the contrary, what "some people" recognize is that whether it is a problem or not is irrelevent to the question of gay marriage, and problem or not, if hets are allowed to do it, then it is discriminatory to use it as a reason to deny gays.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Huntster]

I'm sure you do, but fortunately we try to avoid basing laws on superstition. (We're not always successful, but that's the goal.)

That's unfortunate. The goal should be to base laws on morality, not to avoid basing them on any particular thing.

I guess it's all a matter of focus (or lack thereof), ain't it?

 

[Meadmaker]

First of all, we're talking about government acknowledgement of their status, not society acknowledgement of their status.

Very well. Should government acknowledge the status of two people as "married", just because they signed a paper that says they are married, regardless of what "marriage" means to them?

Second of all, it is not about what the government is giving away but of what the government should not have the authority to with hold. I'm not talking about tax breaks or other perks that are actually a give away

Well, I am talking about that. We're giving something away, but asking nothing in return. Does that make any sense?

As for the family's "legally recognized status", unless there are legal benefits or legal obligations, I for one don't give a hoot. Government "recognition" comes from treating them differently. Should our government treat people differently because they have signed a paper that says "we are married", if there are no requirements that go along with being married?

 

[Upchurch]

Very well. Should government acknowledge the status of two people as "married", just because they signed a paper that says they are married, regardless of what "marriage" means to them?

What does it matter to the government what marriage means to a specific couple as long as the obey the law? The government is not, nor should it ever be, in the business of regulating people's ideas or concepts on issues.

Well, I am talking about that. We're giving something away, but asking nothing in return. Does that make any sense?

Well, this is entirely not the point, but I was told in one of these debates that such tax breaks were incentives for people to form stable families, irregardless of whether or not it was specifically spelled out to that effect.

Do you feel that more stable families and a more stable society is "nothing"?

As for the family's "legally recognized status", unless there are legal benefits or legal obligations, I for one don't give a hoot. Government "recognition" comes from treating them differently. Should our government treat people differently because they have signed a paper that says "we are married", if there are no requirements that go along with being married?

You missed my point entirely.

The answer to your question is "yes." Although it has tried in the past and will certainly try again in the future, the citizens of the US have not given the government the power to dictate what its social and religious beliefs must be.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but, the benefits and obligations are not inherent in the legality of it. The government cannot grant anything that it does not have the power to with hold. The benefits and obligations of marriage are inherent within the social construct of marriage itself. The only thing the government can or cannot do is acknowledge the existance of the family in terms of legal issues that pertain to families.

Who, exactly, gave the US government the power to determine that family A is a family and family B is not?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The goal should be to base laws on morality, not to avoid basing them on any particular thing.

Translation: The goal should be to base laws on christianity.

There is no need to hide your theocratic wishes, Huntster, most of us realize that you want to legislate people's behaviors based on your religion.

 

[Upchurch]

That's unfortunate. The goal should be to base laws on morality, not to avoid basing them on any particular thing.

I guess it's all a matter of focus (or lack thereof), ain't it?

As Ken pointed out, whose morality would you base laws on? Yours? Your god's?

 

[pgwenthold]

Isn't that what I said?

Not in the least.

 

[Earthborn]

That's unfortunate. The goal should be to base laws on morality, not to avoid basing them on any particular thing.

Personally I should think the goal should be to design laws in such a way that they encourage morality and discourage immorality. What do you think?

 

[KingMerv00]

Does that mean that today's law is better, or that before the "good ol' days" law was better?

The court system is quite a bit better than it used to be. I never meant to suggest that the system today was "ideal" though.

With better technology, we have increased our quality of evidence. The defense (and subsequent appellant rulings) have increased our standard of evidence.

The standard of evidence has increased in modern times because a reasonable person has an easier time proving the existance of a contract and the details therein. Technology has raised the bar of responsibility.

The United States has become too litigious, has too many lawyers, too much focus on legality vrs. common sense, and it is a problem.

Have any examples on hand?

I wish you good fortune in your future, but I ask that you consider the "lawyer jokes" and anti-lawyer sentiment in this country, and think about where it comes from and why.

Actually I think lawyer jokes are funny. The personal attacks (i.e. "Lawyers cause X") are not.

The anti-lawyer sentiment usually comes from ignorance.

Thanks for the good wishes.

 

[Meadmaker]

Should our government treat people differently because they have signed a paper that says "we are married", if there are no requirements that go along with being married?


The answer to your question is "yes."

Lots of rights. No obligations. It's a frequent criticism made by the right wing toward the left wing, and the left wing responds that the right wing just doesn't get it.

As for what the government can and cannot do, ours seems to be doing some of those things which you say it cannot. Indeed for almost all of recorded history, almost every government has insisted that a husband and wife were part of a family, but two homosexual lovers were not. And yet, you think that is something government cannot do. In some sense you're right. It is society, and not government, that makes that ultimate determination. Unfortunately for your position, even in those rare cases where government has provided familial status for same sex partners, society has generally withheld the recognition, except as required by law.

And while the citizens of the United States have not granted the government the power to dictate their social and religious beliefs, they have granted the government the power to determine who gets Social Security checks. I was just trying to figure out if there were any obligations that ought to go along with getting that Social Security check. Apparently, it isn't an interesting question.