Marriage Debate

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

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.

Yes, marriage laws grant benefits to married couples and to families headed by married couples that are denied the unmarried, but they also describe responsibilities that those families have to one another and to society. Divorce laws, for example, recognize the obligations of a working spouse to a stay-at-home parent and to the children. And although most tax laws benefit married taxpayers, there are a few which penalize them.

Rights and also obligations. In asking for the one, the GLBT are willing to accept the other, as long as the laws are applied equally.

Your strawman has been noted.

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.

For almost all of recorded history, almost every government has insisted that the citizen was a human being, but that the slave was not. Among the rights denied the slave was that of marriage. Unfortunately for your position, even in those rare cases where government provided familial status for slaves, society 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.

The very nature of Social Security is too political to debate all of its details here. But whatever the final disposition of the institution, if it is not administrated fairly and equitably, without regard to race, creed, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., that decision would be an affront to the Constitutional doctrine of equality.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Lots of rights, no obligations.. that sentiment sounds like freedom to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

Who's morality? I suspect mine differs from yours.

 

[Meadmaker]

Rights and also obligations. In asking for the one, the GLBT are willing to accept the other, as long as the laws are applied equally.

Your strawman has been noted.

Certainly not all, possibly not even most, supporters of same sex marriage feel that way. Scot was particularly adamant that he did not agree with that view. However, in the case of Upchurch, I asked a pretty specific question, and got a pretty specific answer. There's no straw man.

I think the same could be said for ThaiBoxerKen and ImaginalDisc as well. They can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Meadmaker]

Lots of rights, no obligations.. that sentiment sounds like freedom to me.

It could easily be mistaken for freedom.

 

[Upchurch]

However, in the case of Upchurch, I asked a pretty specific question, and got a pretty specific answer.

The problem is, you seem to feel that the obligations of marriage come nearly entirely from the legal acknowledgement of it.

I'm really sorry that you don't feel you can be faithful to your wife and your marriage to the point that you feel you need the threat of government punishment to keep your potential infidelities in check. The fact of the matter is that this is your problem, not the government's. It isn't their responsibility to make you act morally (outside of where it turns into criminal behavior). If your marriage has no meaning outside government regulation of it, I'm afraid to tell you that your marriage already has no meaning.

If the government were to suddenly revoke our marriage license tomorrow, the only thing that would change in my wife's and my lives is how we do our taxes and some extra legal paperwork we would have to file for power of attorney. That would be it.

And as for obligations, I've explained to you time and time again the legal ramifications of everything you've claimed have no ramifications, or "obligations" if you prefer. Nearly every change you've said you'd like to see made to legal marriage is already in place except for the blatently illegal and immoral items like forced sex and legalized thought.

 

[Meadmaker]

The problem is, you seem to feel that the obligations of marriage come nearly entirely from the legal acknowledgement of it.

Any other obligations are inside your head. While some people might take those fairly seriously, in the end it's relying on human nature to keep those promises. That's not very reliable. I'm talking about law. Everything else is very interesting, but ultimately of little consequence.

I don't know how old all of you are, but if you're middle aged or older, like me, you've had plenty of opportunities to go to weddings of couples that just seemed perfect, only to see divorces years later, with or without consequences for children of those marriages, for all sorts of pathetic reasons. Two very common scenarios are women dumping husbands when their careers take a turn for the worse, and men dumping wives when the men fall in love with another woman, usually a younger, prettier woman. You are correct that the current legal attitude is "this is your problem, not the government's."

Oh. You didn't say that? Yes, you did. Perhaps you didn't realize you were saying that when you said "I'm really sorry that you don't feel you can be faithful to your wife and your marriage to the point that you feel you need the threat of government punishment to keep your potential infidelities in check. The fact of the matter is that this is your problem, not the government's.", but you said it nonetheless. If it is my problem that I need the threat of government punishment to keep my infidelities in check, then it is also the problem of the middle aged wife to keep the potential infidelities, and abandonment, of her husband in check.

If the government were to suddenly revoke our marriage license tomorrow, the only thing that would change in my wife's and my lives is how we do our taxes and some extra legal paperwork we would have to file for power of attorney. That would be it.

That's odd, because if that would be it, then those same not very significant consequences would be what would happen to someone for whom the government refused to grant a marriage license. Make up your mind. Are they significant, or not? You seem to pick and choose depending on the situation.

And as for obligations, I've explained to you time and time again the legal ramifications of everything you've claimed have no ramifications, or "obligations" if you prefer. Nearly every change you've said you'd like to see made to legal marriage is already in place except for the blatently illegal and immoral items like forced sex and legalized thought.

I want to make no fault divorces available only in those cases where both parties agree to the divorce and the terms thereof. Otherwise, I want an at-fault divorce, where the at fault party has very few rights. Forget "fairness" when dividing joint property or ordering alimony. I want property divided in a way that heavily favors the party not at fault.

Is that the case today? If so, your statement would be correct.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know how old all of you are, but if you're middle aged or older, like me, you've had plenty of opportunities to go to weddings of couples that just seemed perfect, only to see divorces years later, with or without consequences for children of those marriages, for all sorts of pathetic reasons. Two very common scenarios are women dumping husbands when their careers take a turn for the worse, and men dumping wives when the men fall in love with another woman, usually a younger, prettier woman. You are correct that the current legal attitude is "this is your problem, not the government's."

Oh. You didn't say that? Yes, you did. Perhaps you didn't realize you were saying that when you said "I'm really sorry that you don't feel you can be faithful to your wife and your marriage to the point that you feel you need the threat of government punishment to keep your potential infidelities in check. The fact of the matter is that this is your problem, not the government's.", but you said it nonetheless. If it is my problem that I need the threat of government punishment to keep my infidelities in check, then it is also the problem of the middle aged wife to keep the potential infidelities, and abandonment, of her husband in check.

You write as if I didn't understand exactly what I was saying. Did I stutter?

You're damn skippy I said it and I will say it again. I will say it as many times as you want me to say it. It is not the government's job nor within its jurisdiction to make you be a good person. That does not mean that I think people shouldn't be good people.

Yes, it is shameful that people end their marriages for trivial reasons, but please address the question of how it is any of the government's business apart from stopping acts of violence?

Is it truly your belief that Americans don't have the freedom to be scumbags, should they so choose? If so, I don't think you truly understand what "freedom" means.

That's odd, because if that would be it, then those same not very significant consequences would be what would happen to someone for whom the government refused to grant a marriage license. Make up your mind. Are they significant, or not? You seem to pick and choose depending on the situation.

The legal aspects are significant. As I said, we would have to go to a lawyer and get a bunch of contracts in place to compensate for what the legal recognition of family relationship usually does. Even then, we would have to lie about our relationship to hospital officials in order to visit one another and help make decisions about each other's medical care.

Aside from all that, there is the principle of the matter of the US government discriminating against once set of religions in favor of another.

Significance is a matter of context. Legally, it is very significant. But that is only one part of life and, I think, a fairly small part.

I want to make no fault divorces available only in those cases where both parties agree to the divorce and the terms thereof. Otherwise, I want an at-fault divorce, where the at fault party has very few rights. Forget "fairness" when dividing joint property or ordering alimony. I want property divided in a way that heavily favors the party not at fault.

So you want to the courts to dictate who is wrong and who is right, morally?

Is that the case today? If so, your statement would be correct.

Perhaps I should have added "forced morality" to my list of blatantly illegal and immoral items that the government has no right to meddle with?

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it truly your belief that Americans don't have the freedom to be scumbags, should they so choose? If so, I don't think you truly understand what "freedom" means.

That is truly my belief. Slightly more accurately would be that they should have the right to contractually agree not to be scumbags, and if they end up being scumbags, the party to whom they were scumbags should have the right to seek compensation.

So you want to the courts to dictate who is wrong and who is right, morally?

If you were to accuse me of that, I wouldn't say you were wrong. Since you phrased it as a question, I'll attempt to answer.

That's almost accurate. It would be more accurate to say that I want judges to view the promises made at marriage as a legally binding promise, and punish behavior that violates those promises. I want them to determine who broke the marriage vows (whether civil or religious. Remember, vows are part of civil ceremonies, too) and do what is possible to provide compensation. In other words, I don't want them to punish adultery, abuse, or abandonment because they are immoral. I want them to punish adultery, abuse, or abandonment because they violate an agreement.

The only difference, in practical terms, is that the judge isn't allowed to substitute his own view of morality. If he thinks there's nothing wrong with adultery, he isn't allowed to ignore the fact that the couple promised not to do it. If he thinks adultery is immoral, he isn't allowed to ignore the prenuptial agreement that specifically held parties harmless in the event of adultery.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

That's almost accurate. It would be more accurate to say that I want judges to view the promises made at marriage as a legally binding promise, and punish behavior that violates those promises.

...snip...

And who would determine the punishments?

 

[Upchurch]

That is truly my belief. Slightly more accurately would be that they should have the right to contractually agree not to be scumbags, and if they end up being scumbags, the party to whom they were scumbags should have the right to seek compensation.

They can seek compensation in civil court.

Perhaps we should start a new thread to bring you up to speed on the history of the US and the principles it was founded on?

If you were to accuse me of that, I wouldn't say you were wrong. Since you phrased it as a question, I'll attempt to answer.

I'd have much rather you answered this question:

Yes, it is shameful that people end their marriages for trivial reasons, but please address the question of how it is any of the government's business apart from stopping acts of violence?

That's almost accurate. It would be more accurate to say that I want judges to view the promises made at marriage as a legally binding promise, and punish behavior that violates those promises. I want them to determine who broke the marriage vows (whether civil or religious. Remember, vows are part of civil ceremonies, too) and do what is possible to provide compensation. In other words, I don't want them to punish adultery, abuse, or abandonment because they are immoral. I want them to punish adultery, abuse, or abandonment because they violate an agreement.

There is a very good reason why verbal contracts are rarely legally binding. First, they generally aren't well recorded, which isn't terribly applicable to a wedding. Second and more to the point, they are often loosely and ambiguously worded making them impossible to hold up to legal scrutiny.

You want to make adultery a fault, but what is "adultery"? For some religions, adultery is what takes place when a married person has penetrative sex with someone who is not their spouse. For other religions, adultery is when a married person thinks about another person in a lustful fashion. Which definition does the judge use? What if the couple never specified and have different ideas about the subject? What if one party merely claims to have a different idea about the subject?

How in the world could any judge made that decision without enforcing their own set of morality onto the decision? How can a decision not differ wildly from one judge to the next?

And, once again, how it is any of the government's business to enforce a specific morallity on to individuals, especially when the constitution says they can't?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
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?

Who's morality? I suspect mine differs from yours.

That's why we vote as a society.

It ain't about you, and it ain't about me.

It's about us.

 

[Upchurch]

That's why we vote as a society.

It ain't about you, and it ain't about me.

It's about us.

Maybe you missed the whole freedom of religion thing that the founders of the country wrote into the US constitution?

I'm reading a book about people who lived at the time of the formation of the country said about the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, I don't have the book right in front of me. The book includes the words of a Baptist minister who lived in a colony (Pennsylvania, maybe?) in which not only did the colony tax everyone to support the church of choice, but levied fines and jail time against anyone preaching a Baptist doctrine.

Anyway, this minister framed the argument for separation of church and state in terms of "freedom of conscience". That each man should be free to his or her own ideas of faith, worship, and morality, so long as it did not hinder anyone else's right to do the same.

Morality is about you and me, individually. Law is about us as a society*.



* eta: to an extent. Law cannot govern all aspects of society, but can act as a protector of rights and an arbitrator of disputes.

 

[Meadmaker]

They can seek compensation in civil court.

Perhaps we should start a new thread to bring you up to speed on the history of the US and the principles it was founded on?

I'd have much rather you answered this question:

Yes, it is shameful that people end their marriages for trivial reasons, but please address the question of how it is any of the government's business apart from stopping acts of violence?

There is a very good reason why verbal contracts are rarely legally binding. First, they generally aren't well recorded, which isn't terribly applicable to a wedding. Second and more to the point, they are often loosely and ambiguously worded making them impossible to hold up to legal scrutiny.

You want to make adultery a fault, but what is "adultery"? For some religions, adultery is what takes place when a married person has penetrative sex with someone who is not their spouse. For other religions, adultery is when a married person thinks about another person in a lustful fashion. Which definition does the judge use? What if the couple never specified and have different ideas about the subject? What if one party merely claims to have a different idea about the subject?

How in the world could any judge made that decision without enforcing their own set of morality onto the decision? How can a decision not differ wildly from one judge to the next?

And, once again, how it is any of the government's business to enforce a specific morallity on to individuals, especially when the constitution says they can't?

They can seek compensation in civil court, but unless I;ve somehow misread the rest of your post, you don't think they ought to receive it.

And once again, you are saying the constitution says they can't do something that they did for centuries, including at the time the constitution was written.

I'll take bets that in November 2004, you were surprised at the results of all those gay marriage elections, and you set out to work harder to eliminate all the bigotry.

Why is it the government's business? Because I say it is, and I vote.

 

[Upchurch]

They can seek compensation in civil court, but unless I;ve somehow misread the rest of your post, you don't think they ought to receive it.

Yes, you misread my post. I think whether or not they should be successful in a civil suit should depend entirely upon the merit of their case.

And once again, you are saying the constitution says they can't do something that they did for centuries, including at the time the constitution was written.

At the state level, which is being challenged as it comes up.

I'll take bets that in November 2004, you were surprised at the results of all those gay marriage elections, and you set out to work harder to eliminate all the bigotry.

Not surprised. Disappointed.

Why is it the government's business? Because I say it is, and I vote.

You might want to google the term "tyranny of the majority" and learn why the people who put our country together sought to protect the contry from it.

 

[Darat]

Meadmaker - I don't know if you missed this so I'll repeat it:

...snip...

That's almost accurate. It would be more accurate to say that I want judges to view the promises made at marriage as a legally binding promise, and punish behavior that violates those promises.

...snip...

And who would determine the punishments?

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker - I don't know if you missed this so I'll repeat it:



And who would determine the punishments?

I said "punishment", but "compensation" is a much better word.

There's a problem with the whole line of thought that says that when government tries to enforce marriage vows, it is trying to enforce morality. That's not really it. It's trying to compensate injured parties. (The connection with morality is that it's immoral to knowingly injure the other party.)

It would be all very well if, when a marriage breaks up, we could just say "C'est la vie. Everyone move on with your lives now." We can't do that. The problem is that nature didn't read the anti-discrimination laws. Nature discriminates based on age, and based on sex. When a middle aged man dumps the middle aged woman for a newer model, the middle aged woman can't just start over from where she was when she married the guy. At that time, she was young. Now, she's middle aged. Where does she go to get her life back and try again? She can't. But at least she can keep the house, instead of dividing it "fairly".

When the wife falls in love with another man, and leaves the note that says, "I'm gone. Please don't try to find me." the guy is very likely injured. (I knew a guy who's wife quite literally did that one day.) You can't undo the damage, but you can at least tell her that she can't come back with a moving van to take "her half" of the stuff.

When the woman finally gets tired of giving the guy one more chance on the physical abuse, or the philandering, she can't just go back and marry that other guy that she should have married.

Is there any way to make it truly "fair". No way. But judges will have to do the best they can.


(ETA: What I meant was, judges ought to try to do the best they can to provide compensation, instead of treating such cases as no fault incidents.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, you misread my post. I think whether or not they should be successful in a civil suit should depend entirely upon the merit of their case.

But you consistently avoid discussing what would constitute a case with merit. Unless it is your position that the only case with merit would involve violence.

You might want to google the term "tyranny of the majority" and learn why the people who put our country together sought to protect the contry from it.

I was being flippant, but see my response to Darat.

 

[Upchurch]

I was being flippant, but see my response to Darat.

I see nothing there that explains why it is any of the government's business.

 

[Huntster]

....Morality is about you and me, individually. Law is about us as a society*.

I agree 100%.