Gay Marriage

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why is it only discrimintation if you are blocked from marrying a certain class of individuals, and not if you are blocked from attaining the marriage you want?

I do not mean to be rude, but I have explained this numerous times and will do so no more. If you do not agree with my explanation, so be it. We have reached an impasse.

 

[toddjh]

Then forcing people not not marry someone of the same sex is legal because everyone has that same restriction. The same with race.

No, those are obviously discrimination on the basis of sex and/or race. A man has the right to marry a woman, but a woman doesn't have that same right. She may have a "separate but equal" right to marry a man, but that's not the same thing -- the woman is still not allowed to do something a man could.

You are contriving your groups to get the discrimination to be what you are claiming it is.

How so?

 

[drkitten]

Yep. But discrimination on the basis of being married is not illegal.

Um... Actually, it is in a lot of (most?) circumstances. Certainly in job-related ones. If I deny you a promotion on the grounds that you're married, that's a Federal violation and it will end up in the same court where the case where I denied the black a promotion because of his skin color.

 

[Z]

Too bad love doesn't come into this whole discussion... After all, if people who love each other were permitted to get married, then there'd be no laws against homosexual marriage, bisexual marriage, or polygamy.

Then again, there'd be no law against incest or bestiality (some would claim), though I personally find it hard to believe there's really appropriate love involved.

And if we went with lust, they'd have to pass a law for Upchurch and his inflatable girlfriend...

 

[Z]

Um... Actually, it is in a lot of (most?) circumstances. Certainly in job-related ones. If I deny you a promotion on the grounds that you're married, that's a Federal violation and it will end up in the same court where the case where I denied the black a promotion because of his skin color.

That's a very good point - also one that the Army has had to deal with numerous times as well.

Discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal in many cases...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Care to name them?

link

Some of these can be effected through means other than marriage but it is generaly not as strong a legal effect compaired to marriage.

For example you do not have a strong legal claim on your housemates kids(possibly excluding the one you fathered)

Many of these might not be things that matter to you now, but they might in the future or if things end poorly.

 

[toddjh]

That's a very good point - also one that the Army has had to deal with numerous times as well.

Discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal in many cases...

Discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal in many specific cases, mostly to do with employment and residence, resulting from laws passed specifically to deal with those narrow situations.

I haven't seen anything which establishes that marital status is relevant in issues of equal protection or due process, but I admit I am no expert. If there is such a case, can you enlighten me?

Edit: A cursory search suggests that determining the equal protection legitimacy of discrimination of the basis of marital status would fall under a "rational basis" review, in which it must be "reasonably related to a legitimate government interest." I think reducing bureaucratic and judicial overhead qualifies.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For whatever it's worth, I'm against marriage as a whole, for ANY parties. I'm for legal adult co-dependency contracts for the purpose of assigning specific rights, responsibilities, etc. for any adults who wish to enter into them. I'm as much in support of two adult males to have legal rights with each other (whether gay, straight, brothers, or roommates) as for a male and female (whether a couple, f---buddies, siblings, or roomates) as for any combination of adults of any number.

Ah then we get into interesting situations where your lawyer screwed up in writing the contract and you get shafted in the end. And as everyone has a different contract, you are makeing marriage and divorce more expensive as the wording of the individual contracts really matters.

 

[Upchurch]

However, AmateurScientist, another whose opinion I respect, and who happens to be a lawyer, deemed it massively complicated considering only divorce, and only certain aspects of that, even. His is the only opinion on the matter I have heard from someone inside the legal profession, and until I am shown something that makes me think him wrong, I'm going with what he said.

I'd be willing to concede to someone more knowledgeable on the topic, but who is AmateurScientist*?

Regardless, I didn't read anything in that thread that argued that it was too complex from a legal POV. Yes, arbitration and negotiation is going to have to happen, but that's what happens now. Emotionally, it is nerve-racking and that is what appears to make it difficult.

I keep coming back to the corporate law analogy, because it is the closest thing that currently exists to what we are talking about. No one talks about not forming corporations because of the difficulty in breaking the corporation up. Probably because it lacks the emotional aspect. That suggests to me that it isn't the divorce itself that makes difficult, but the personalities involved.


* I mean, I know who AS is, but who is AS on SC?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, those are obviously discrimination on the basis of sex and/or race. A man has the right to marry a woman, but a woman doesn't have that same right. She may have a "separate but equal" right to marry a man, but that's not the same thing -- the woman is still not allowed to do something a man could.

Talk about it with MdC. He is claiming that they are discrimination but this is not discrimination, you are mearly claiming it is discrimination but a form of discrimination that is legaly valid.

Could you two please work out if it is discrimination or not?

 

[Z]

link

Some of these can be effected through means other than marriage but it is generaly not as strong a legal effect compaired to marriage.

For example you do not have a strong legal claim on your housemates kids(possibly excluding the one you fathered)

Many of these might not be things that matter to you now, but they might in the future or if things end poorly.

About a third of that list is things we already have done without being married; about a third of what was left doesn't apply to us since we're dirt-poor; the remainder is interesting, and I hadn't thought of some of those issues. But I see none of it as insurmountable.

As to her kids... actually, we went through that in court too. Their father objected to her will leaving me her children, but the court decided that, as primary caregiver, I have earned equal custody rights in the case of her death, and would be afforded primary custody.

Of course, their father is scum, so that probably biased the judge's opinions a lot...

 

[Z]

Ah then we get into interesting situations where your lawyer screwed up in writing the contract and you get shafted in the end. And as everyone has a different contract, you are makeing marriage and divorce more expensive as the wording of the individual contracts really matters.

As it should be. Marriage (and divorce) should never have been entered into lightly in the first place.


I loathe Vegas weddings.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'd be willing to concede to someone more knowledgeable on the topic, but who is AmateurScientist*?

Regardless, I didn't read anything in that thread that argued that it was too complex from a legal POV. Yes, arbitration and negotiation is going to have to happen, but that's what happens now. Emotionally, it is nerve-racking and that is what appears to make it difficult.

[/size]

I will PM you with my prediction on the page count of this thread, under the agreement that you not deliberately bump/influence the page count as a result. I have my eye on the million. Yes, you get a cut, but only if you are "clean hands" on the page count matter.

*PM sent*

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Too bad love doesn't come into this whole discussion... After all, if people who love each other were permitted to get married, then there'd be no laws against homosexual marriage, bisexual marriage, or polygamy.

"Love? What does love have to do with marriage?" Londo Babylon 5

But marriage is about property and such not love traditionally and love really has no legal standing in terms of marriage law.

Oh something else you can not get with out marriage, the right to sue for wrongful death, only relatives and spouses get that.

 

[toddjh]

Talk about it with MdC. He is claiming that they are discrimination but this is not discrimination, you are mearly claiming it is discrimination but a form of discrimination that is legaly valid.

Could you two please work out if it is discrimination or not?

We're two separate people, you know...

It's discrimination in the strictest sense, but from what I can tell it is not improper discrimination, at least under U.S. law.

Discrimination is necessary sometimes -- you can't have one monolithic law to cover every possible eventuality. It's just a matter of making sure that the discrimination is justified.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'd be willing to concede to someone more knowledgeable on the topic, but who is AmateurScientist*?

Sorry. He's Cool Hand. I thought the Newman av would give it away.

Regardless, I didn't read anything in that thread that argued that it was too complex from a legal POV. Yes, arbitration and negotiation is going to have to happen, but that's what happens now. Emotionally, it is nerve-racking and that is what appears to make it difficult.

I keep coming back to the corporate law analogy, because it is the closest thing that currently exists to what we are talking about. No one talks about not forming corporations because of the difficulty in breaking the corporation up. Probably because it lacks the emotional aspect. That suggests to me that it isn't the divorce itself that makes difficult, but the personalities involved.

I'll just quote him here.

These issues are hard enough with only two parties involved. I think the complexity of resolving them would increase on a logarithmic scale as additional spouses are added into the equation, and also as the number of kids from different mothers increases as well.

Again, he only considered divorce, and not even every aspect of that. He did not consider tax law, federal student financial aid, estate junk, or anything else in which marital status is involved.

I do agree that all these complications could be overcome, and if I understood anti-polygamy laws to be discriminatory, I would argue that they should be overcome. Since I do not see the discrimination, however, I cannot see that dealing with the complexities is something that necessarily should be accomplished.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As it should be. Marriage (and divorce) should never have been entered into lightly in the first place.

I completely agree. Romance is not a good reason to get married, although it can make a marriage, and the courtship, much more wonderful.

DR

 

[Upchurch]

What if they didn't make any particular arrangements? What's the default position?

Default position? Monogamous marriages don't have a default position. It isn't automatically 50/50, you know.

Hold on, we can't be discriminating against bigamists now, can we? Sure, it would add more complication and work, but it would just be lazy to use that as a reason to outlaw it!

You're talking about a person violating a contract. It isn't a matter of complexity or discrimination.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As it should be. Marriage (and divorce) should never have been entered into lightly in the first place.


I loathe Vegas weddings.

He who has the best lawyer at the time of the marriage contract wins the divorce I guess

 

[Z]

Well, we can sit around all day debating the issue - and some of you probably will - but we're not the arbiters of change. Gay marriage is practically already here. Poly marriages are only a few decades away. Meanwhile, the homebound kids are asleep, the school kids won't be back for two hours, and there's a right comfy couch in the next room calling my name for a few minutes of snooze.

Later!

(Todd, mention the insurance question again late tonight so it'll pop up in my email, 'kay?)