The Glade 4.0

The legislature is passing a bill legalizing gay marriage. Opponents will force it (I think) into a referendum. Everywhere this has occurred, the voters opposed it.

So, ultimately I will have to decide whether I support the bill or not.

Here's my view on gay marriage:

It doesn't make any sense to me that we should allow same sex couples to "marry" without just opening up the "contract" to any two consenting adults. If the benefits associated with marriage are going to be given to gays, then why should others be left out? I don't care if people are straight, gay, sisters, polygamists, friends, having sex, not having sex, or whatever. If two (or more, really) adults want to tie themselves together contractually, why should they be denied?

What is different about straight and gay couples that they should receive these benefits and not others? Love? Sex? Nothing that the government should be regulating.

So here's my issue: The remaining portions of the population that are still going to be denied these rights is so very, very small that they will never get attention.

So, do I support a bill that provides rights to most of the discriminated population, thereby making things better for as many people as possible, or reject it based on the fact that it is still not a fair bill? Purity or best reality?

If you've paid attention to my posts over the years at all, you'll know I compromise easy based on what's realistic. Not, however, when it comes to basic rights.

Er... how is this "contract" restricted now? I've heard of people marrying friends for health care benefits before.

_________________

That's just gaming the system, though. Living a lie, so to speak. I provided a list above of restrictions.

How so?

_________________

How so what?

Where is marriage defined legally as two consenting opposite-sex adults who are in love with each other and have sexual relations?

_________________

I don't really see how allowing people of the same sex to marry somehow leads to allowing anyone to marry more than one person, nor to allowing family members to marry.

The reason why they should be denied when people of the same sex should be allowed is that the law is concerned with determining who has what rights in regard to who. Is a person a spouse, or a live-in girlfriend or boyfriend? That makes a significant difference in determining many next-of-kin issues, as well as the issues involved when a couple splits. If one of the parties is an immigrant, spousal relationship is one way to gain rights to lawful permanent residence here; opening up polygamist marriage would allow people to "marry" just to get into the country legally (and this is already done; it's called a sham marriage and it is prosecuted). Again, with immigration law it would be possible to marry a brother or sister to get them a more preferential status when applying for a permanent visa.

Spousal relationships determine eligibility for healthcare and other benefits from both public and private employers. With relationships between people who are already closely related, such as a sister and a bother, there's confusion. Which relationship takes priority, and if there's a divorce, does the previous relationship still count? Without a stated legal standard of marriage, any person could claim to have been married to anyone else and the burden of proof would be drastically lowered because there would be no standardized record that would need to be produced.

These are just a few examples. "Getting government out of marriage" is not possible; even if we did the courts would still inevitably be called upon to resolve these disputes but would then be flying blind, and doing so in an environment where the relationships to be unraveled were far more complex. For example, consider a man with two wives. One wife divorces him. All other factors being disregarded, is she entitled to half the marital estate, or one-third? The courts must resolve countless questions of this nature.

None of these sorts of problems arise because two people of the same sex are allowed to marry. They cannot be avoided by the handwavium of "get government out of marriage", but they are not good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage.

Now, it's possible that polygamists or the like might use gay marriage to make the same appeal that gays are making now, but it's much easier to say "look, you're married to one person now like everyone else can" than it is to say "you can't marry the person you want because you both have a dick." Similarly, it's easy to say "you can't marry your brother because you already have a family relationship of recognized legal significance", as opposed to the 2 dicks thing. The only danger is that politicians not wanting to appear "intolerant" might simply submit, but given the battles over same-sex marriage and the general public distaste for incest or polygamy that seems quite unlikely.

Allowing same-sex marriage does not require major change to foundational legal structure. Allowing marriage between polygamists certainly does and between other close family members as well (although to lesser degree).

When people talk about love,and romance, and things that the government shouldn't be regulating.. that's missing the point. Allowing same-sex marriage is getting the government out of the love and romance. Sex is not the same. When it comes to sex, the government has an interest, in determining consent. That's another valuable function of marriage. With your spouse, consent is implied unless they specifically say "no" on a given occasion, and spouses do have an obligation to regularly meet each other's sexual needs. Girlfriends and boyfriends do not, and consent must be explicit; it is not implicit. If your wife claims she was raped because she had a headache and really didn't want to, she's out of luck. Your girlfriend may have a case depending on the circumstances.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not - what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that gays can already marry? Are you suggesting MD allows polygamy? Inter-family marriage? What are you getting at?

DE: Good points, but - I fail to see why these issues should be deal breakers. Fix the immigration issue from the immigration side, not the marriage side. So what if courts have to resolve questions, that's their job. Where problems are found, fix the laws.

Opposing progress for the sake of "that'll be tough" is not enough for me.



It should.

Why? The immigration problems aren't problems until we start messing around with marriage laws to allow multiple marriages or in-family marriages? Why create complex new immigration laws to fix a problem created only because we went down a slippery slope?

As for the courts having to resolve questions, they are supposed to do so within the framework of existing case and statutory law, except that now you've just gutted statutory law and made such a fundamental change as to render precedent invalid.



Who is opposing progress? How exactly is allowing polygamy or incest "progress"? Allowing same-sex marriage is progress; that can be demonstrated by the simple illustration of the fact that the only real objections to it are moral.

Saying we should implement a change because "these 2 things (same sex marriage and polygamy) are superficially similar and I want to handwave the differences away" and dismissing the problems as "opposing progress" and essentially, someone else's problem is not convincing.



Why? I just got done explaining fundamental differences between allowing same-sex marriage and allowing, say, polygamy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'd go with the end result that would be closer to what you really want. One step at a time, 'n all that.

This.

I've already established that the marriage laws need to be changed. Basically, what you are saying here is that the marriage problem (yes, I believe it is a problem) shouldn't be corrected because it would create a problem in immigration. I say, fix the marriage problem, then fix the problem you just created in immigration.



I agree. So what? This happens all the time.



Again, there's no good justification to allowing two extending rights to a particular pair of adults, and not another. As for not extending it to three (or more) adults, that is a bit different, and perhaps justified. Currently, I don't see it.



Ok.



Again, I'm not just talking about polygamy. There are obvious fundamental differences between couple marriage and polygamy. I don't think those differences are significant enough, but it's certainly a point for discussion. I could be swayed. Regardless the whole of the rest of the population - there's no difference that the government should be concerned with. Yes, you explained some reasoning - all of which are minor, and none justification enough to excuse extending rights to some and not others.

You haven't established that the marriage laws need to be changed at all, except that same-sex marriage should be allowed, but we both agree on that as far as I can tell anyhow. Your belief that it is a problem isn't sufficient.

I'm not saying that marriage laws should not be changed because of immigration, that is just one area where problems could be created. All of my objections were examples; they can't be addressed as insufficient individually. I also do not see that any marriage problem exists that is worth creating an immigration problem to fix, even if I accepted that there were a marriage problem beyond prohibitions on same-sex marriage in the first place.



Does it? I do not think it happens "all the time" at all; I think it is a rare circumstance. I also do not see that simply the fact that it occurs means we should therefore ignore it, or simply allow it to happen. We are likely to end up with entirely new and unforeseen marriage law in the form of case law.



Yes, as a matter of fact there is. I just got done explaining how polygamy and incest cases are different, and what the justifications are. You're just repeating that there is no justification when I just stated a few. Your only counter has been "well, we can just fix the problems later", but that doesn't overcome the fact that you're just handwaving the differences in the first place. You're talking about "pairs of adults" and simply ignoring the other attributes that make the pairings different.



Ok.



Look, the whole rest of the population outside of polygamists consists pretty much exclusively of people who want to marry the same sex, people who want to marry the opposite, and a few incestousous types regardless of the sex of the relative they like. I can't think of any other possibilities, and none of them are major anyhow.

The second thing is that the differences I cited are NOT minor, they are major, and they create MAJOR legal problems. There is no good reason to impose the burden of fundamental legal shifts on either society or the legal system simply for a "consistency" that disappears as soon as we examine the pairing beyond the superficial level of "2 adults".

We furthermore are not "Extending rights to some but not others." In fact, even without allowing same-sex marriage we aren't. Each person is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. We're extending no rights to straight people that we aren't to gays. The right to "marry the person you're in love with" doesn't exist; love is something the law already doesn't concern itself with. You can already act as if you're married to that person; the only thing marriage would do is give you certain property rights. The reason to allow same-sex marriage is simply that it serves no government interest to prohibit it. It doesn't accomplish anything except to salve the moral sensibilities of some people and that isn't a government interest.

Prohibitions on marriage between close family members and multiple marriages at the same time do serve a government interest in having a standard set of laws for addressing property issues, immigration privileges, consent in sexual assault cases and a host of other things. These are not minor issues, they can't be easily resolved and in the case of multiple marriages they open up all kinds of avenues for exploitation and for problems that are lengthy and expensive for the courts to resolve even if we do change the legal system. In the case of sexual assault, changing laws on marital sexual rights opens up all kinds of new paths for accusations of sexual assault in divorce and unfounded accusations of various sexual misconduct in such affairs is bad enough already.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye -- you say the "get the government out of marriage" approach is a pipe dream and too hand-wavey. Okay.

So we'll start from the premise that the government needs to recognize marriage. That's fine, I won't argue against it. But in order to decide whether polygamy and/or random or intra-familial "marriages" need to be recognized (basically, so we can determine whether recognizing gay marriage is "enough", in this discussion that Arathain's framing), we need to identify why we're recognizing marriage. So, I put it to you, purely so we're on the same page: What do you feel are the societal goals of recognizing marriage?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

LMAO - not sufficient for what? To determine my vote?



Ok, I do. Next?



Good. And you're right, it doesn't happen all the time. But, frequently enough to not be justification for denial of rights.



No, I said no GOOD justification.



Because none of the other attributes relate to anything that government should be regulating. Those items that are legitimate issues, can be dealt with (i.e. immigration).



There's lots of possibilities. Friends, sisters, brothers, father/son, etc - all could have some reason why they want to tie themselves together legally. There does not need to be a sexual relationship for it to be valid in the eyes of government. Government should not be regulating sexual relationships.

Secondly, whether or not the population is minor or not is irrelevant. All rights should be equal.



I disagree. None of these issues are major enough to warrant extending rights to some and not others. These problems can be dealt with. Status quo is not a state that should be protected for convenience.



I don't necessarily disagree. However, once you open it up to same sex couples, you're losing your justification for denying others.



All are minor and can be remedied. Will there be problems? Sure. **** happens. So what?

This is the question that really breaks down the argument for allowing gays to marry but not others. For heterosexual couples, you could say God, children, nature, whatever. Something. You lose any such justification when you allow gays in the mix.

I really wish we could just have civil unions for whomever wants them and leave it at that.

Either anybody should be able to marry anybody, or marriage shouldn't be recognized at all. I'd be fine with both.

That is, indeed, the reason I asked the question. The answer somebody gives (and it's a subjective answer, to be sure, and I would argue there are several "right" ones, as well as several "wrong" ones) will dramatically color the response on whom should be allowed to marry that I will make.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Gay marriage is the only way to ensure that both partners are sane.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I'm sorry, are we voting here? I was under the impression you were voting in Maryland. We're discussing this. Your personal belief that it's a problem doesn't convince me it's a problem.



In that case we're at an impasse. You're claiming it's a problem but not giving any reason why I should think it's a problem. I mean none, not merely one I don't agree with. I don't even understand why you think it's a problem.



I don't see that any rights are being denied.



The difference between a bad justification and none at all is...? I just gave you some good justifications.



I don't see why the government shouldn't be regulating things like who gets what property after a death. Inevitably there will be a dispute and the courts will be called on to regulate it anyhow. I definitely don't see why the government should not regulate when consensual sex has occurred.



They're not minor and cannot be readily remedied. Your assessment that they are minor is a product of it being easy to say "well, I think they're minor" because it's convenient to your argument and you won't be called upon to deal with them. Problems of this nature almost always defy easy solutions, and there is no reason to create them simply because of a concern over nonexistent rights.

In fact, your entire dilemma makes no sense. You are thinking apparently of voting against a gay marriage proposition because somehow in your mind if it passes any justification for denying marriage to anyone else disappears - but if you are really concerned about "denying rights" why are you even debating with yourself in the first place? Evidently you think that any new problems created would be minor, so why are you concerned about which way to vote? Because it's not a "fair" bill? That's silly. It's clearly closer to your view of "fair" than when you started. Should same-sex marriage be disallowed because polygamists won't get enough attention to get it as well? What makes you think that polygamy will ever be tied to same-sex marriage?

My suggestion would be to just stop worrying so much about "government regulation" and stop using such a simplistic "2 adults that want to tie themselves together" line of thought and vote for the bill.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah. Ok....



In that case we're at an impasse. You're claiming it's a problem but not giving any reason why I should think it's a problem. I mean none, not merely one I don't agree with. I don't even understand why you think it's a problem.[/quote]

We're excluding people from certain benefits. Equal rights should be the DEFAULT. So, if anyone needs convincing here, it's me. I started the thread stating that I don't see any logical reason that the government should sanction a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, but not others. You've given reasons, they aren't particularly strong. So, I remain unconvinced. There is nothing special about the two sets of individuals being granted the rights that the government should be worrying about. Therefore, there is no reason to hold these two sets as special. That's why it is a problem. And yes, I have stated this several times already, so you are mistaken.



Again, certain pairs of people are being offered what is essentially a beneficial contract. Other pairs of individuals are not, for no good reason.



No, the fact that there's already a relationship (your justification for incest) is not good at all. Who cares if there's already a relationship? The rest of the items (with the potential exception of polygamy as I stated earlier) are nonsense. It creates problems in a system that should be fixed. It's like saying you don't want to pull the splinter out of your arm because you don't want to bleed on your shirt. Yes, it will create a problem - wash the shirt, don't leave the splinter.



No - not to the degree that a civil union would do so. I have 3 siblings. If I "partnered up" with one of them and we went in together on everything for 20 years, and I died, my assets would be split 3 ways.



Because you did not address it adequately.



Nothing worth regulating.



Comma.



Sure there is. They're insignificant differences in terms of ability to access contracts.



First, your argument is weak, so it doesn't fail. Second, I don't "have to" do anything.



yes there is.



What about them makes them so difficult that you must deny a portion of the population access to a contract? Don't vote down issues because you're lazy, man.



And they're still weak.



They're not minor and cannot be readily remedied. Your assessment that they are minor is a product of it being easy to say "well, I think they're minor" because it's convenient to your argument and you won't be called upon to deal with them. Problems of this nature almost always defy easy solutions, and there is no reason to create them simply because of a concern over nonexistent rights.[/quote]

Again, so what? Oh, no, it is hard! I see nothing that can't be solved.



Well at least now I finally have a response to my question.



I will probably end up doing this I think. Still, I really don't like it. I'm definitely torn.

Some questions here for discussion, along with some brief thoughts on them for me. I don't claim to have any or all of the answers, nor am I saying that you have to provide them to me.

What do people for this want out of the issue? Personally I don't know. I think it's hard to paint with a big brush and different people want different things. However I think each of the following categories are valid.

If it's equal rights in property distribution, benefits, and other legal transactions such that government oversees, is there away to do that and still preserve the right of people to believe what they want about the morality or immorality of certain sexual interactions? I think there is. I certainly think a balance can and should be struck. If a man wants to stand up and say I love this other man and want to be with him for the rest of our natural lives, the gestapos shouldn't come in and stop him. I don't feel this man should be barred from being at the bedside of his partner in time of illness because he's not legally family or whatever. By the same token the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim (people seem to forget about those last two) hotel owner who feels homosexuality is wrong shouldn't be forced to rent them the honeymoon suite, or the use of their ballroom. My concern is that once homosexual couples are given the title "married", people won't be able to use their religious and free association rights to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual married couples, which the tenants of the three largest national and world religions require their followers to do to varying degrees.

Is it acceptance? If so, is this law going to force acceptance out of people who don't want to accept? Seriously? I don't think such a thing is possible. You can force people to their knees, but you can't make them bow their hearts

Is it to paint anyone who disagrees with them on the moral facets of this issue as extreme. It's my belief that there are some people who want to do that. I'm worried that my concerns posted above aren't merely an unintended consequence, but the actual goal of some people pushing this agenda. Maybe I'm crazy or paranoid, but it wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that people are for something beyond the apparent benefits. Sort of like how some people believe the current health care law is simply a "trojan horse" for the single payer system.

So my advice to anyone voting on the MD law (or any law about this subject) would be to consider how does this law address these points?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

We're not excluding anyone from any benefits.

I've given very strong reasons. You're dismissing them based on your assertion that equal rights are more important but so far you have not shown any reason whatsoever to think they aren't equal if same-sex marriage is allowed. You've just stated over and over again that "they aren't equal", but if the same rules applying to everyone isn't "equal" then I don't know what the hell else you think it means. As for needing to convince you, bro, you came here for advice. I gave it in the first post: vote for same-sex marriage, and I stated why. You can take it or leave it. You're the one that wanted to ***** about my reasoning, so now the convincing is on you.



So what? We don't have rights for "pairs of people." We have rights for individuals, and any of them can marry a single other adult as long as they are not already married, and that other adult is not a close relative. Those are the rules for everyone; gay, straight, whatever else. The fact that some other people just want them to be different doesn't make them "unequal".



Except that having 2 different family relationships on top of each other is a serious problem. We have these laws in place because while on the surface it may seem like nothing to worry about, this is ripe territory for abuse.

As for the rest, there is no splinter in the first place. It is not a problem that polygamists can't get married to more than one person. They can marry one person like everyone else.



Yes, it absolutely SHOULD matter. The government absolutely should be involved in ensuring any contract involving sex is entered into willingly, with both parties having equal power. We do not allow people to use interpersonal power arrangements to legalize rape. We also don't allow people the opportunity to falsely accuse others of rape when they have entered into a relationship where they are engaging in sex on an equal basis.



No, there's no reason for that. We do not need to tie up the courts unwrangling a bunch of different contracts based on property issues because we no longer have a standard of marriage every time there's a divorce or death. There is no need to burden the courts or the taxpayer this way.



You're the one that cited friends. Don't start facepalming at me.



So? Why do you need the ability to do that? It has nothing to do with "rights" or equality; you can already marry one person like everyone else. Why should we change the law so you can do it with more than one? Because you want to, or someone might want to? No, that's not a reason. We keep it simple because there are just too many **** people to be dealing with this bullshit.



Yes I did. The problem is that you seem to think "it could be done without government involvement" or "equality" are valid arguments. Getting the government less involved is not a goal in and of itself, and there are no equality issues.



Nothing worth regulating.[/quote]

No, nothing worth changing the law for.



I said there were differences. You just claimed they were insignificant. Therefore, you concede that there are differences and thus there is no room for debate. I accept your gracious concession.

As for "ability to access contracts" the ability is already equal so that is irrelevant, and there is no reason "ability to access contracts" should be equal. If that were true, people in wheelchairs should be able to enlist in the Army because that's a contract. That's just silly.



In order to get any agreement from me, you certainly do. You're the one that wanted to debate my advice. I gave it; you didn't have to respond. Second, my argument is not "weak" at all, you've stated no reason to think it is so, except "equality is more important". You've shown no inequality however. In fact, you've demonstrated that your idea of equality seems to be "everyone can do what they want."

I want to have 2 social security numbers. Everyone else has one, but I want 2 and they won't give me another. I'm being treated unequally, according to you.



Show it. I'm advocating the same rules for everyone; that's equality. This is like gays complaining when they weren't allowed to be openly in the military. It wasn't "unequal" at all; everyone had to qualify and being gay was a disqualification.



What about the problems of distributing property makes them so difficult? Immigration? It means we need to start policing marriage to make sure they aren't just shams to take advantage of immigration, health care, inhereitence, or other benefits and to a far greater degree than we already do. You're going to create more government involvement, not less, and of a far worse kind.

I hate to break this to you but social problems generally don't get "solved". They get replaced, and often by worse ones. They're usually advocated by people handwaving away the issues as "minor" just like you are. Yeah, they seem minor on the internet when it's convenient for them to be "minor" for your ideological argument.



The differnces are "weak"? How are they weak? They're differences, not arguments. That doesn't even make sense. You might claim they're minor, but so what? They still exist and there's no reason differences need to be major to avoid dealing with the problems of polygamist and incestuous marriage, and in the event, they aren't minor. They're important. "Everyone can marry one person" and "everyone can marry as many people as they want" is an inherently enormous difference.



With more handwave solutions? Sorry, but your assessment of minor problems is not credible.



You had one in my first post. Not my fault you got your panties in a bunch.



You know, the fact that you're torn at all over this issue is really what makes me question your ability to understand a what a major social issue is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is all that matters. My vote would be to remedy that inequality.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!