Gay marriage ban backers get unexpected support

[JK/SEA]

hmmm.....better hold off on burning mosques down....

too much hate here on these 2 topics...turns my stomach...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018282329_gaymarriage25m.html

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

[JK/SEA]

To the point. I find it rather ironic that old guard republican homophobes also hate muslims, and then we have muslims agreeing with those that hate them...someones confused, and it isn't me.

what is 'traditional' marriage, and who gets to decide?...my opinion is that i feel sorry for the ignorant, who seem to think they own a 'word' and get to 'try' and demand how its implemented. This flies in the face of true freedom and liberty, and Ron Paul would agree. Your 'personal' opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

[specsaregood]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

In my opinion, "traditional marriage" doesn't involve the government. Ron Paul would agree.

[Seth]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

Ron Paul believes government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

[PierzStyx]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

You are incorrect in saying marriage has always only been between one man and woman. Among the earliest forms of marriage, including those in The Bible, were between one man and multiple women. It would be factual to say marriage was between males and females.

[PierzStyx]

Ron Paul believes government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

In any form. Which means he is against "gay marriage" in the political sense. And he has been known to vote for measures that prevent government recognition of gay marriage as a stop gap measure to prevent further creeping of government power. He supports DOMA for example.

[teacherone]

Why should anybody- straight or otherwise - get a marriage benefit?

[speciallyblend]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFs7SCI3ZM<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFs7SCI3ZM">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFs7SCI3ZM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFs7SCI3ZM) for all the gay folks and the straight-bi folks!

[thoughtomator]

Stop it with the fucking gay marriage shit... that is Marxist propaganda and has no place in the liberty movement.

If you want to get government out of the marriage business, fine. As long as it is in the marriage business, the vast majority of people are going to oppose having this shoved down their throats.

[XTreat]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

Ron Paul would agree with voluntary association and consensual contracts.

[speciallyblend]

Stop it with the fucking gay marriage shit... that is Marxist propaganda and has no place in the liberty movement.

If you want to get government out of the marriage business, fine. As long as it is in the marriage business, the vast majority of people are going to oppose having this shoved down their throats.

i hear ya, gay marriage is like obama's anti-war/illegal war stance. The gop is in love with gay marriage. More government shakes my head. When i hear anyone talk about gay marriage for or against i will just say more biggov loving obamney lovers. time for some more love songs, for the pro-and anti gay to come together for LOVE, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR8D2yqgQ1U&ob=av2n<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR8D2yqgQ1U&amp;ob=av2n">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR8D2yqgQ1U&amp;ob=av2n

C (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR8D2yqgQ1U&ob=av2n)ome together and forget the whole marriage straight or gay issue. It is a non-issue created by the gop establishment to numb you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo9Bh679wM<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo9Bh679wM">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo9Bh679wM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo9Bh679wM)

[EBounding]

Just get rid of the marriage tax preference. Then we can see who still wants to get married and go from there. Of course, that will never happen since married couples are a giant voting bloc.

[jmdrake]

To the point. I find it rather ironic that old guard republican homophobes also hate muslims, and then we have muslims agreeing with those that hate them...someones confused, and it isn't me.

I love it! What's funny is that I hear right wing bigots on talk radio expound in one breath on how homosexuality is destroying the nation and in the other breath how one of the reasons we need to bomb Iran and hate the "Islamofacists" is because they "discriminate against gays and women".



what is 'traditional' marriage, and who gets to decide?...my opinion is that i feel sorry for the ignorant, who seem to think they own a 'word' and get to 'try' and demand how its implemented. This flies in the face of true freedom and liberty, and Ron Paul would agree. Your 'personal' opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

The best answer is to disentangle the federal government from marriage. Gays can enter into contracts that define all marriage "rights" in all 50 states right now. (Inheritance, durable power of attorney, durable power of attorney for healthcare etc.) If not for Social inSecurity and the income tax code which makes health insurance a "group benefit" rather than an individual benefit, this whole gay marriage debate would only be symbolic.

[jmdrake]

Just get rid of the marriage tax preference. Then we can see who still wants to get married and go from there. Of course, that will never happen since married couples are a giant voting bloc.

Just get rid of the income tax.

[Brett85]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

...Edit, never mind. I told myself I wouldn't comment on this issue any further. We have bigger fish to fry.

[pcosmar]

In my opinion, "traditional marriage" doesn't involve the government. Ron Paul would agree.

Amen.

I would also note that Traditional Marriage also included Multiple wives.. so you might want to be careful with the "Traditional Marriages" descriptor.

Ah,, some one had already pointed that out,


You are incorrect in saying marriage has always only been between one man and woman. Among the earliest forms of marriage, including those in The Bible, were between one man and multiple women. It would be factual to say marriage was between males and females.

[FreedomFighter1776]

The ability (right) of people to contract with one another is anything but "shit". Marriage can be viewed in a few ways, or a combination of:
1) It is a spiritual bonding between people and God
2) It is a church function that bonds people, with the church's blessing, with God
3) It is a state recognized bonding that gives legal protection (benefits) to those who choose to contract for marriage

No matter how you view marriage, it is not within the state's authority to approve or deny the aspect of marriage over which they have control. The only jurisdiction that state has over marriage is to apply the legal status or benefits that the marriage entails.

If you hate the idea of same sex marriage or unions, that's your business. Denying another individuals right to contract as they choose for a purpose that is not illegal is NOT your business. In any other contract the idea that the validity of the contract could rest upon the sex of the people contracting is so far beyond the pale that you would be laughed at in court if you tried to nullify it on those grounds. It would be just as indefensible to determine that a marriage contract would not be valid depending on the race of the people contracting.

This type of concern absolutely belongs in a freedom movement.

By the way, DOMA is unconstitutional. Article 4 section 1 cannot be "overlooked" by anything short of a Constitutional amendment.

[thoughtomator]

The ability (right) of people to contract with one another is anything but "shit". Marriage can be viewed in a few ways, or a combination of:
1) It is a spiritual bonging between people and God
2) It is a church function that bonds people, with the church's blessing, with God
3) It is a state recognized bonding that gives legal protection (benefits) to those who choose to contract for marriage

None of those are the original, true purpose of marriage - an institution that predates established religion and governments both.

No wonder you and others are so confused on the issue, you don't even know the fundamental definition of the word you are using. Making up new definitions of words to fit a political agenda is archetypical Marxism.

As an experiment, let's see how long it takes you people to figure out why human societies absent churches and states would find such a custom useful, and why those societies that did adopt this custom were more successful than those that did not.

[LibertyEagle]

Stop it with the fucking gay marriage shit... that is Marxist propaganda and has no place in the liberty movement.

If you want to get government out of the marriage business, fine. As long as it is in the marriage business, the vast majority of people are going to oppose having this shoved down their throats.

+rep

[JK/SEA]

To be fair here, and as the OP of this thread, the point was to bring to light the hypocrisy of old guard repubs. railing on gay 'marriage' and getting support from muslims on this subject(read my link). The 2 groups have something in common...hating gays in the State of Washington, while NEOCONS in this State hate both gays and muslims.

that is all.

[Xhin]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

Ron Paul has said marriage should be deregulated and should have never been trusted to the government to begin with. That's definitely the sanest option.


1) It is a spiritual bonging between people and God

One more reason to legalize marijuana.

[DEGuy]

I wish the media and most everyone else would stop focusing on the symptoms and focus on the root of the actual problem.

The symptom is that folks who are gay feel as if they are having their rights violated by the government.

The root of the problem is that government started trampling on everyone else's rights the second they started taxing everyone but gave a break to those who are in a "biblical traditional one-man-one-woman arrangement, sanctioned by the state." Fix the disparity and you'll fix the root of the problem, and the symptoms will go away. People will no longer spend all day debating the definition of marriage if it's removed from laws.

[jmdrake]

The ability (right) of people to contract with one another is anything but "shit". Marriage can be viewed in a few ways, or a combination of:


Right. And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do. The only thing they can't do is get a marriage license in certain states.



By the way, DOMA is unconstitutional. Article 4 section 1 cannot be "overlooked" by anything short of a Constitutional amendment.

Article 4 section 1 does not cover licenses of any kind. If you get a hunting license in one state it's not automatically transferable to another. Same thing for licenses to practice medicine, law etc. Drivers licenses are somewhat transferable, but if you move to another state you are expected to get a new license which is subject to that state's rules. If you're 16 years old and have a unrestricted license in one state, then you move to another state where drivers licenses are restricted for people under the age of 21, your new license will be restricted just like that of the 16 year old who was born in that state. (I'm not sure what the rule is if you are just passing through). So DOMA is constitutional. And even if it wasn't, states could achieve the same goal by treating marriage licenses the same as drivers licenses, requiring their "renewal" when you move to another state and just not "renewing" licenses for gays.

The best way forward is to disentangle the federal government from marriage. That's the source of all the marriage "benefits" beyond the basic rights anyone could get through contract to anybody else regardless of whether or not there is a romantic attachment.

[maskander]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.That's the lamest logic I've ever heard in my life. Way to ruin a thread.

[FreedomFighter1776]

State approved licenses and a civil contracts are two different beasts. OF COURSE license's aren't recognized across state lines.

For a forum that prides itself on "liberty" there sure are quite a few people that can't understand that you don't "cram liberty down someone's throat" - liberty to do what you decide to is not a burden on others. It is a burden on ones' own self.

Traditional marriage was the ownership of women by men. We should go back to that? I think not. Perhaps we should support "traditional" civil rights? "Traditional" rights for women? "Traditional" race equality? "Traditional" class benefits?

Nah - I'd prefer to be on the side of liberty. Homosexuals getting married has absolutely ZERO effect on me. Let people do what they choose. I don't give a damn if, deep inside, you HATE homosexuals. It doesn't matter. But to suggest that they do not have the right to contract as they see fit, for any purpose that is not illegal, then YOU are the problem. YOU are wrong. YOU only support liberty to do what YOU find is moral.

[jmdrake]

Who said gays don't have a right to contract? :rolleyes: Nobody as far as I can tell. Wills, durable powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney for healthcare etc are available to people in all 50 states irregardless of who they are romantically attached to. Romantic attachment isn't even a requirement. And yeah, we get you hate traditional marriage. We've heard all of that before. Deborah ruled Israel as a judge and yet she was in a traditional marriage. If she was "owned" by her husband that wouldn't have been possible.


State approved licenses and a civil contracts are two different beasts. OF COURSE license's aren't recognized across state lines.

For a forum that prides itself on "liberty" there sure are quite a few people that can't understand that you don't "cram liberty down someone's throat" - liberty to do what you decide to is not a burden on others. It is a burden on ones' own self.

Traditional marriage was the ownership of women by men. We should go back to that? I think not. Perhaps we should support "traditional" civil rights? "Traditional" rights for women? "Traditional" race equality? "Traditional" class benefits?

Nah - I'd prefer to be on the side of liberty. Homosexuals getting married has absolutely ZERO effect on me. Let people do what they choose. I don't give a damn if, deep inside, you HATE homosexuals. It doesn't matter. But to suggest that they do not have the right to contract as they see fit, for any purpose that is not illegal, then YOU are the problem. YOU are wrong. YOU only support liberty to do what YOU find is moral.

[FreedomFighter1776]

Who said gays don't have a right to contract? :rolleyes: Nobody as far as I can tell. Wills, durable powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney for healthcare etc are available to people in all 50 states irregardless of who they are romantically attached to. Romantic attachment isn't even a requirement. And yeah, we get you hate traditional marriage. We've heard all of that before. Deborah ruled Israel as a judge and yet she was in a traditional marriage. If she was "owned" by her husband that wouldn't have been possible.

So it would be legitimate to pass a DOMA type bill that invalidated opposite sex marriage? You'd agree that it was Constitutional if Congress passed it? I think not...

[jmdrake]

So it would be legitimate to pass a DOMA type bill that invalidated opposite sex marriage? You'd agree that it was Constitutional if Congress passed it? I think not...

What provision of the constitution requires one state to recognize the licenses of another? If the answer to that question is no then DOMA, no matter how it's implemented, is constitutional. Again the answer is to disentangle the federal government from marriage altogether. Then DOMA becomes unnecessary. I notice that you don't even want to address the fact that gays can actually contract the basic rights of marriage in all 50 states. Why is that? If straight people can do the same (and they can) and if the federal government no longer had an impact on marriage, then why should I care if I have a "marriage license" or not?

[FreedomFighter1776]

You're not getting the point. Go reread Article 4 section 1. Public acts and records.
You may currently need a license TO GET married, but once you are, it becomes a matter of public record and a contract and other states are REQUIRED to recognize the contract.

What it seems you are missing is that the same is true for opposite sex couples about the basic rights of marriage available through other means. So -

If a DOMA type bill were passed that banned the recognition of opposite sex marriages, would you be fine with it?

[jmdrake]

You're not getting the point. Go reread Article 4 section 1. Public acts and records.

I am not missing any point and I have read Article 4 section 1 multiple times. I'm not sure you have though.


You may currently need a license TO GET married, but once you are, it becomes a matter of public record and a contract and other states are REQUIRED to recognize the contract.


Nope. The so called "marriage contract" doesn't fit the basic legal definition of a contract. Go read a book on contract law and get back to me. That said, all of the contract rights can be achieved through actual contracts. You keep ignoring this each time I bring it up. Are you afraid to debate that point?



What it seems you are missing is that the same is true for opposite sex couples about the basic rights of marriage available through other means. So -


I'm not missing anything. You are. You are purposefully ignoring the fact that same sex couples can actually contract for all of the actual rights of marriage (not the federally approved "benefits") in all 50 states.



If a DOMA type bill were passed that banned the recognition of opposite sex marriages, would you be fine with it?

I wouldn't care. I'd just draw up actual contracts that did the same thing. I'd be perfectly fine with it. I'm not a slave to the state.

[LibertyEagle]

The ability (right) of people to contract with one another is anything but "shit". Marriage can be viewed in a few ways, or a combination of:
1) It is a spiritual bonding between people and God
2) It is a church function that bonds people, with the church's blessing, with God
3) It is a state recognized bonding that gives legal protection (benefits) to those who choose to contract for marriage

No matter how you view marriage, it is not within the state's authority to approve or deny the aspect of marriage over which they have control. The only jurisdiction that state has over marriage is to apply the legal status or benefits that the marriage entails.

If you hate the idea of same sex marriage or unions, that's your business. Denying another individuals right to contract as they choose for a purpose that is not illegal is NOT your business. In any other contract the idea that the validity of the contract could rest upon the sex of the people contracting is so far beyond the pale that you would be laughed at in court if you tried to nullify it on those grounds. It would be just as indefensible to determine that a marriage contract would not be valid depending on the race of the people contracting.

This type of concern absolutely belongs in a freedom movement.

By the way, DOMA is unconstitutional. Article 4 section 1 cannot be "overlooked" by anything short of a Constitutional amendment.

You can "union" all you want. Just don't try to use big government force to shove it down everyone else's throats.

[LibertyEagle]

You're not getting the point. Go reread Article 4 section 1. Public acts and records.
You may currently need a license TO GET married, but once you are, it becomes a matter of public record and a contract and other states are REQUIRED to recognize the contract.

What it seems you are missing is that the same is true for opposite sex couples about the basic rights of marriage available through other means. So -

If a DOMA type bill were passed that banned the recognition of opposite sex marriages, would you be fine with it?

Arguing to get the federal government totally out of the marriage business would be the freedom stance. Not asking for more big government force, which is what you are doing.

[The Free Hornet]

Right. And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do.

How do they circumvent the Federal estate tax?

Answer: they don't.

One source to back up my claim (http://www.wwlaw.com/gaymarried.htm).

You may owe the forum a retraction.

[unklejman]

The root of the problem is that government started trampling on everyone else's rights the second they started taxing everyone but gave a break to those who are in a "biblical traditional one-man-one-woman arrangement, sanctioned by the state." Fix the disparity and you'll fix the root of the problem, and the symptoms will go away. People will no longer spend all day debating the definition of marriage if it's removed from laws.

THIS. Government needs to get out of marriage and give everyone the "benefits".

[jmdrake]

How do they circumvent the Federal estate tax?

Answer: they don't.

One source to back up my claim (http://www.wwlaw.com/gaymarried.htm).

You may owe the forum a retraction.

I already said that the problem is the federal income tax and federal "benefits" and they should be abolished. Further I was specifically comparing the marriage contract, which is an agreement between two people and not an agreement with the federal government, and contracts that people can get that do the same thing. So no. I don't owe the forum a retraction. You may though.

[Athan]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.
I don't think we are. We just see this as a pointless wedge issue that is more a pet interest for people, and not really about liberty.

[Sam I am]

The ability (right) of people to contract with one another is anything but "shit". Marriage can be viewed in a few ways, or a combination of:
1) It is a spiritual bonding between people and God
2) It is a church function that bonds people, with the church's blessing, with God
3) It is a state recognized bonding that gives legal protection (benefits) to those who choose to contract for marriage

No matter how you view marriage, it is not within the state's authority to approve or deny the aspect of marriage over which they have control. The only jurisdiction that state has over marriage is to apply the legal status or benefits that the marriage entails.

If you hate the idea of same sex marriage or unions, that's your business. Denying another individuals right to contract as they choose for a purpose that is not illegal is NOT your business. In any other contract the idea that the validity of the contract could rest upon the sex of the people contracting is so far beyond the pale that you would be laughed at in court if you tried to nullify it on those grounds. It would be just as indefensible to determine that a marriage contract would not be valid depending on the race of the people contracting.

This type of concern absolutely belongs in a freedom movement.

By the way, DOMA is unconstitutional. Article 4 section 1 cannot be "overlooked" by anything short of a Constitutional amendment.

Don't forget the really actually old school version

4) The combining of powerful families to consolidate political power.

[Sam I am]

What provision of the constitution requires one state to recognize the licenses of another? If the answer to that question is no then DOMA, no matter how it's implemented, is constitutional. Again the answer is to disentangle the federal government from marriage altogether. Then DOMA becomes unnecessary. I notice that you don't even want to address the fact that gays can actually contract the basic rights of marriage in all 50 states. Why is that? If straight people can do the same (and they can) and if the federal government no longer had an impact on marriage, then why should I care if I have a "marriage license" or not?

DOMA singles out 1 kind of contract over another. It's not unconstitutional per-se, and that means that activist federal judges shouldn't declare it as such, but it is bad law, and shouldn't have been passed.

[Sam I am]

You're not getting the point. Go reread Article 4 section 1. Public acts and records.
You may currently need a license TO GET married, but once you are, it becomes a matter of public record and a contract and other states are REQUIRED to recognize the contract.

What it seems you are missing is that the same is true for opposite sex couples about the basic rights of marriage available through other means. So -

If a DOMA type bill were passed that banned the recognition of opposite sex marriages, would you be fine with it?

you should lurk moar, the answer here is going to be a resounding YES the problem people seem to have is they don't seem to realize that an unequal half-measure is the worst case scenario.

[Sam I am]

I don't think we are. We just see this as a pointless wedge issue that is more a pet interest for people, and not really about liberty.


I see way too much of the

"It's a pointless wedge issue, but gay marriage should go unrecognized anyway"

around here

[whoisjohngalt]

DOMA is a violation of the Constitution on First Amendment grounds. It's a freedom of religion issue. The government cant define anything or choose not to enforce contracts.

Also, Ron Paul and the Constitution are not to be blindly followed dogma. I disagree with them both from time to time, and if you don't at least consider the fact that they are sometimes wrong, you should.

Government should be out of marriage, a position Ron has taken occasionally, but failed to back up with many of his votes or his rhetoric when pandering. It is also true that there should be no such thing as government marriage benefits, but in lieu of the ideal scenario where they don't exist, anyone entering into a marriage contract as defined by the parties to the contract should receive said benefits.

[jmdrake]

DOMA is a violation of the Constitution on First Amendment grounds. It's a freedom of religion issue. The government cant define anything or choose not to enforce contracts.

So now DOMA is a first amendment issue? :rolleyes: And name one state that will not enforce an actual contract between two people who are gay. I'm talking about a will or a power of attorney or a power of attorney for healthcare or any other actual contract. Marriage as a "contract" is a legal fiction. The state tells two people "We're going to pretend that you signed an agreement stating that we can come in later and declare how much money one of you will have to pay the other in alimony even though no such agreement exists."

[jmdrake]

DOMA singles out 1 kind of contract over another. It's not unconstitutional per-se, and that means that activist federal judges shouldn't declare it as such, but it is bad law, and shouldn't have been passed.

Except marriage ain't a contract.

[jmdrake]

you should lurk moar, the answer here is going to be a resounding YES the problem people seem to have is they don't seem to realize that an unequal half-measure is the worst case scenario.

What you don't seem to understand is the only good scenario is disentangling the federal government from marriage as opposed to entangling it further. Get rid of the federal marriage "benefits" (they aren't "rights") and the issue goes away completely. Anyone who isn't lazy and isn't an idiot can draw up their own real marriage contracts in all 50 states and just call them "Combined will/power of attorney agreements".

[whoisjohngalt]

What you don't seem to understand is the only good scenario is disentangling the federal government from marriage as opposed to entangling it further. Get rid of the federal marriage "benefits" (they aren't "rights") and the issue goes away completely. Anyone who isn't lazy and isn't an idiot can draw up their own real marriage contracts in all 50 states and just call them "Combined will/power of attorney agreements".

I agree with you jmdrake. This is the heart of the issue, but unfortunately we currently have marriage "benefits" in the form of tax subsidies. The tax benefits are the issue because as you pointed out, most other issues can be settled with a formal contract.

I'm arguing though that if the government insists on unconstitutionally and undesirably providing tax subsidies to those who are married, they do not have the ability to define the word or practice selective enforcement even if a firm definition were established. If two people sign a piece of paper that says "We are married", the government should have to recognize it as marriage for the purpose of handing out their unconstitutional marriage "benefits".

[jmdrake]

I agree with you jmdrake. This is the heart of the issue, but unfortunately we currently have marriage "benefits" in the form of tax subsidies. The tax benefits are the issue because as you pointed out, most other issues can be settled with a formal contract.

I'm arguing though that if the government insists on unconstitutionally and undesirably providing tax subsidies to those who are married, they do not have the ability to define the word or practice selective enforcement even if a firm definition were established. If two people sign a piece of paper that says "We are married", the government should have to recognize it as marriage for the purpose of handing out their unconstitutional marriage "benefits".

Okay. Here's my angle. I'm willing to bet that if the average Christian conservative was fully informed that the best way to "save traditional marriage" was to get the federal government out of it, he/she would agree to get the federal government out of it.

But here's the funny thing. Everybody seems key to talk about the "marriage tax benefit". Everyone ignores the marriage tax penalty.

See: http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm

So by getting married gays may end up paying higher taxes. Oh the irony!

More on the marriage tax penalty/benefit.

http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/Getting-Married/INF12006.html

Marriage penalty or marriage bonus?

You've undoubtedly heard about the so-called marriage tax penalty, the quirk in the tax law that sometimes makes married couples pay more income tax than they would if they had remained single.

Here's a little secret: Many married couples actually get a marriage bonus, paying less income tax than if they stayed single. At issue is the graduated nature of the tax system, which applies higher tax rates to higher levels of income. When you pile one person's income on top of another's on a joint tax return, it can sometimes push some of that income into a higher tax bracket.

Congress has taken steps to reduce the impact of the marriage penalty. For 2010, the ceilings for the top of the 10 percent and 15 percent brackets on joint returns are precisely twice as high as the ceilings on single returns (that was not always the case). As incomes rise into higher brackets, though, the tax ceilings on a joint return aren't quite double the ceilings on a single return. That can cause a marriage penalty, but it doesn't guarantee one.

The more unequal two spouses' incomes, the more likely that combining them on a joint return will pull some of the higher-earner's income into a lower bracket. That's when the marriage bonus occurs.

On the other hand, when the two spouses have more equal incomes, and they are both substantial, the odds of getting hit with the the marriage penalty go up.

So it's really not accurate to say the federal government went around trying to give a "tax benefit" to married people. What happened is people realized how badly married people were being screwed by the tax code and tried to fix it. The fix means that some married people benefit and some do not.

Now consider this fact. There is a wage disparity between men and women. So a heterosexual couple is more likely to benefit from the tax code. But check this out. Same sex couples are, by definition, less likely to have an income disparity which means their taxes are more likely to go up based on their getting married.

[whoisjohngalt]

Okay. Here's my angle. I'm willing to bet that if the average Christian conservative was fully informed that the best way to "save traditional marriage" was to get the federal government out of it, he/she would agree to get the federal government out of it.

But here's the funny thing. Everybody seems key to talk about the "marriage tax benefit". Everyone ignores the marriage tax penalty.

See: http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm

So by getting married gays may end up paying higher taxes. Oh the irony!

Personally, I don't understand why anyone wants to get married (in the legal sense of the word) anyways. Even it's a tax penalty, a penalty is just a negative benefit, and selective enforcement is still not allowed or desirable.

It seems everyone agrees, generally, that the Federal Government needs to stay out of marriage. I'm contesting that government of all levels, including state and local, SHOULD stay out of and have no authority to be involved in defining, regulating, etc marriage in anyway. It is either a religious institution or a private contract.

What I don't understand is how people can understand and apply the idea "just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal" to arguments involving something like the drug war, but it doesn't translate to the issue of same sex marriage. Personally, I don't think homosexuality is wrong or sinful, but those who do seem to use their moral convictions as justification for allowing government involvement.

[thoughtomator]

I see someone who shall for the moment go unnamed has resorted to neg rep in lieu of attempting to answer my challenge.

Challenge still stands. Will "gay marriage" supporters please state the original purpose for which human societies developed the custom of marriage, or kindly STFU and stop flogging issues intended to produce divisions among RP supporters.

[whoisjohngalt]

I see someone who shall for the moment go unnamed has resorted to neg rep in lieu of attempting to answer my challenge.

Challenge still stands. Will "gay marriage" supporters please state the original purpose for which human societies developed the custom of marriage, or kindly STFU and stop flogging issues intended to produce divisions among RP supporters.

Marriage was developed by the early societies so that the multiple wives and children in each family unit had a lasting connection to the father of their children for protection and nourishment.

[jmdrake]

Personally, I don't understand why anyone wants to get married (in the legal sense of the word) anyways. Even it's a tax penalty, a penalty is just a negative benefit, and selective enforcement is still not allowed or desirable.

It seems everyone agrees, generally, that the Federal Government needs to stay out of marriage. I'm contesting that government of all levels, including state and local, SHOULD stay out of and have no authority to be involved in defining, regulating, etc marriage in anyway. It is either a religious institution or a private contract.

What I don't understand is how people can understand and apply the idea "just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal" to arguments involving something like the drug war, but it doesn't translate to the issue of same sex marriage. Personally, I don't think homosexuality is wrong or sinful, but those who do seem to use their moral convictions as justification for allowing government involvement.

*facepalm* That's just it. Gay marriage is NOT illegal! It's is totally legal in all 50 states! Now heterosexual polygamy is illegal. You can get arrested and put in prison for that. If a polygamist has a private ceremony that even looks like a wedding he/she faces prosecution. Prior to Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage was illegal in some states. That couple faced arrest for being married. Having something not recognized by the state is not the same as it being illegal.

Since you brought up the drug war, let me try to make an analogy although I know it will be a stretch. Say if marijuana was completely decriminalized, but state governments refused to "license" its use. Say if the result was that people could grow their own pot, transport it, sell it, etc. The only drawback is that Monstanto and other gene companies were prohibited from licensing GMO marijuana the way they are able to license cotton, corn etc. Under such a scheme would you consider marijuana "illegal"?

[The Free Hornet]

I already said that the problem is the federal income tax and federal "benefits" and they should be abolished. Further I was specifically comparing the marriage contract, which is an agreement between two people and not an agreement with the federal government, and contracts that people can get that do the same thing. So no. I don't owe the forum a retraction. You may though.

What would I retract?:

This is what you wrote:


Right. And in all 50 sta[te]s gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do.

The last statement is false.

If federal taxes were eliminated, then your statement would be less false. Social security - or at least spousal benefits - would also have to be eliminated (or made to be transferable with no or equal penalty to whomever the recipient desires: children, wife, homeless guy down the street). Another wrinkle in your lie are state adoptions laws:


The Florida appeals court’s ruling now decreases the number of states that expressly restrict adoption by same-sex couples to three—Michigan, Mississippi, and Nebraska.

The Michigan attorney general issued an opinion in 2004 that prevents same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions from adopting children in Michigan. Single gay and lesbian individuals, however, may petition to adopt.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/state_antigay_adoption.html

Why the hell would you state "all 50"? You cannot just contract your way through family planning issues. This is not unlike prenuptial agreements that often have no bearing on custody issues. The contracts do little-to-nothing and do not change state law or family court practices! "Prenuptial agreements in all U.S. states are not allowed to regulate issues relating to the children of the marriage, in particular, custody and access issues - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement)."

If you want to be anti-gay, then be anti-gay. I don't care if you are a racist or a homophobe. What I find intolerable on a discussion board are liars. I see no interpretation that makes your statement true. Other posters have made this mistake. They pretend that because contracts can do most things, that they can do all things. I say "pretend" and not "assume" because you ought to know better. I.e., if you are ignorant you are willfully ignorant. There is no excuse.

Admit you have a bias and stop pretending that the "whites-only bathroom" is the same as the "colored-folk-only bathroom".

You could have said
a) "yes, I should have excluded that in my statement or made it more clear"

or

b) "please see where I already state that Federal taxes ought to be eliminated" (and leave it at that, not suggest there is something for me to retract - there isn't)

or

c) "most of the same things" instead of "all of the same things" or "most states" instead "50 states"

Instead, you ask me for a retraction [edit: you did say "may" - but there is zero to retract]. The scope of my criticism was limited to the statements I quoted:


Right. And in all 50 sta[te]s gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do.

There is nothing for me to retract in stating that the above is a BOLD-FACED LIE (for three reasons).


Nor does the entirety of your post make the limitations clear (reposted so nobody thinks you are being taken out of context unfairly):


Right. And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do. The only thing they can't do is get a marriage license in certain states.



Article 4 section 1 does not cover licenses of any kind. If you get a hunting license in one state it's not automatically transferable to another. Same thing for licenses to practice medicine, law etc. Drivers licenses are somewhat transferable, but if you move to another state you are expected to get a new license which is subject to that state's rules. If you're 16 years old and have a unrestricted license in one state, then you move to another state where drivers licenses are restricted for people under the age of 21, your new license will be restricted just like that of the 16 year old who was born in that state. (I'm not sure what the rule is if you are just passing through). So DOMA is constitutional. And even if it wasn't, states could achieve the same goal by treating marriage licenses the same as drivers licenses, requiring their "renewal" when you move to another state and just not "renewing" licenses for gays.

The best way forward is to disentangle the federal government from marriage. That's the source of all the marriage "benefits" beyond the basic rights anyone could get through contract to anybody else regardless of whether or not there is a romantic attachment.

You reached too far.

You can retract or go to the bucket. Your choice.

[The Free Hornet]

I see someone who shall for the moment go unnamed has resorted to neg rep in lieu of attempting to answer my challenge.

Challenge still stands. Will "gay marriage" supporters please state the original purpose for which human societies developed the custom of marriage, or kindly STFU and stop flogging issues intended to produce divisions among RP supporters.

Are you seriously asking somebody to answer a question that predates written history?:


History of marriage by culture
A pair of wedding rings

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[13] Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[14] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[15] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[16] Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[17]

Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture

To answer your questions:

A) NOBODY RELAIBLY KNOWS but the evidence posted is ****-inclusive not ****-exclusive

B) WHO THE HELL CARES?



... and stop flogging issues intended to produce divisions among RP supporters.

The bigots are not building a coalition. Let everyone marry anyone and anything so all can enjoy the three rings of marriage: engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffering.

[The Free Hornet]

More differences from and old list, but I want to focus on one issue. How do you inflict the PAIN of divorce and divorce court and endless hearings without marriage??? How does one plead for half or more of an ex-partner's stuff without the Kafkaesque family law court system? And force them to give it over against their own will even without a contract?! Marriage does that shit. A contract won't be the same. Different courts not divorce industry lawyers. You could resolve a contract dispute among yourselves but a divorce can put everything through a Judge. Even stupid shit like whether or not you come to the door to pick up kids or can wait in the driveway. Divorce isn't always so much ending a marriage as it is entering a new stage of marriage.

Different is not equal. Nor is it the same.


Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships

If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

[The Free Hornet]

Assume the 1,138 Federal issues related to marriage were eliminated or relegated to "contract" status any two people can enter (LOL). How does one know that contracts can do EVERYTHING all 50 fucking states do with marriage and that these contracts are actually valid the way a marriage is and respected to the same degree across state-lines (i.e., Michigan may acknowledge marriages from Ohio but not civil unions). A contract that is not upheld is pointless.

Why would someone take the position that contracts could handle these things in "ALL 50" states? Each state would have to have a law, "Civil unions are exactly like marriages except we call them 'civil unions' so as to not upset the homophobes."


List of 1,138 Federal Rights, Benefits, and Privileges of Marriage

General AccountingOffice

January 23, 2004



"We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/list-of-1138-federal-rights-benefits-and-privileges-of-marriage

[heavenlyboy34]

Assume the 1,138 Federal issues related to marriage were eliminated or relegated to "contract" status any two people can enter (LOL). How does one know that contracts can do EVERYTHING all 50 fucking states do with marriage and that these contracts are actually valid the way a marriage is and respected to the same degree across state-lines (i.e., Michigan may acknowledge marriages from Ohio but not civil unions). A contract that is not upheld is pointless.

Why would someone take the position that contracts could handle these things in "ALL 50" states? Each state would have to have a law, "Civil unions are exactly like marriages except we call them 'civil unions' so as to not upset the homophobes."
Marriages are already only issued by whatever state the license is acquired in. (hence the minister/JOTP says "by the power vested in me by the State of ____") It wouldn't be a significant change.

[The Free Hornet]

And one more thing, the lying homophobes get wrong (I'm fine with the non-lying homophobes): "Marriage" is singular and "contracts" is plural. Who gives a damn?

The rights, benefits, drawbacks, and bullshit of marriage is executed in a single marriage license or contract. It is "one and done" for the most part. If the state passes a law saying "married couples can do X" then it is likely to include all married couples even retroactively. If courts interpret anything affecting marriages, it will affect "marriages" not all other contracts necessarily.

What if you start to sign these jmdrake contracts, but then one partner stops halfway through? How do you bind every contract into one? There must be a lawyer who can rush to jmdrake's defense and tell us how this is done for "ALL 50" states and "ALL STATE" issues related to marriage. Or what if you do not update the contracts the way marriage law can be updated? Granted, you may not want marriage or divorce law changed against your will or after your marriage, but these things will happen. What if one partner wants their "contracts" to follow all changes to marriage law but another partner does not? What if a judge rightly decrees that one cannot bind themselves to a changing contract, thus removing the marriage-like chaos from the gay contracts?

Is there a one-form contract that states accept that does what jmdrake claims? Is there one that does even half of what he claims?

This would be an omnibus contract. I suspect it would have to be formulated not unlike a "civil union". But not all 50 states have civil unions so how can jmdrake possibly be telling the truth by any stretch of the imagination?! If it could be done, it would be, but it hasn't:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States

[The Free Hornet]

Marriages are already only issued by whatever state the license is acquired in. (hence the minister/JOTP says "by the power vested in me by the State of ____") It wouldn't be a significant change.

Yes, I get your point here. They may state, "we will acknowledge gay marriages but not straight marriages" (assuming that doesn't violate their own state constitution). I should have left that issue out. My concern is the larger claim that contracts are a substitute for marriage including all of the negative aspects like divorce and dealing with children. Does jmdrake have some gay insight that gays only want to visit each other in hospice and have a joint Macy's credit card? If jmdrake can speak on behalf of the gay community, I am very willing to hear him speak. But he ought to assert himself as speaking for that community and assure us that ALL RIGHTS in ALL 50 STATES are included exactly as he has stated.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. The handwaving notion that contracts are an equal or even similar substitute for marriage, is mind boggling. Some things, yes. All things? No fucking way.

There ought to be proof and it would be easy to find as it would be codifed in law in ALL 50 states as claimed were it true which it isn't.

[The Free Hornet]

Right. And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do. The only thing they can't do is get a marriage license in certain states [did you mean damn near every state or "certain states"?].

jmdrake, perhaps you have a business drawing up contracts for gay couples that want the same thing as marriage?


But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

[phill4paul]

The cost of a marriage licence in N.C. is $60.00. How much does it cost to have a lawyer draft contracts to insure that you get some of the benefits provided? I say some because The Free Hornet is providing much needed understanding of the laws and where they stand regarding 'Union Contracts' and Federally, and State, recognized 'Marriage Contracts.'

Legally 'recognized' Marriage certificate =/= "Union' contracts. Once you fully understand this you understand why same sex couples wish to subject themselves to the same kinda jus primae noctis.

[PaulConventionWV]

You are incorrect in saying marriage has always only been between one man and woman. Among the earliest forms of marriage, including those in The Bible, were between one man and multiple women. It would be factual to say marriage was between males and females.

Wrong again. It would be more accurate to say marriage was between a male and females.

[kylejack]

What jmdrake is saying is that gays can have a marriage ceremony performed and then consider themselves married, without any of the legal benefits of a marriage. I think he knows he's playing games, because that is not true equality or justice.

[PaulConventionWV]

I see way too much of the

"It's a pointless wedge issue, but gay marriage should go unrecognized anyway"

around here

It's a pointless wedge issue, but gay marriage and heterosexual marraige should go unrecognized by the government anyway.

[Carehn]

You are incorrect in saying marriage has always only been between one man and woman. Among the earliest forms of marriage, including those in The Bible, were between one man and multiple women. It would be factual to say marriage was between males and females.

And whos to say nun of them chicks ever got down? You know what i'm saying.

[Kluge]

Wrong again. It would be more accurate to say marriage was between a male and females.

So do you think you could handle multiple wives?

[specsaregood]

So do you think you could handle multiple wives?

We've discussed the possiblity within my marriage. It was not ruled out. If the right one came along? who knows, not that we are looking.

[Kluge]

We've discussed the possiblity within my marriage. It was not ruled out. If the right one came along? who knows, not that we are looking.

Be ready for the multiple husbands....

[specsaregood]

Be ready for the multiple husbands....

Do you think you could handle multiple husbands?

[Kluge]

Do you think you could handle multiple husbands?

Depends on their skill sets.

[phill4paul]

It's a pointless wedge issue, but gay marriage and heterosexual marraige should go unrecognized by the government anyway.

It is not a 'pointless' wedge issue. This very issue is a great teaching point. About the limitations of the Federal government. Why some choose to revel in their status yet deny others the same benefits. How our personal beliefs cause us to buy into one side or the other in regards to wedge issues defines on whether we accept government if it benefits us.

[whoisjohngalt]

*facepalm* That's just it. Gay marriage is NOT illegal! It's is totally legal in all 50 states! Now heterosexual polygamy is illegal. You can get arrested and put in prison for that. If a polygamist has a private ceremony that even looks like a wedding he/she faces prosecution. Prior to Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage was illegal in some states. That couple faced arrest for being married. Having something not recognized by the state is not the same as it being illegal.

Since you brought up the drug war, let me try to make an analogy although I know it will be a stretch. Say if marijuana was completely decriminalized, but state governments refused to "license" its use. Say if the result was that people could grow their own pot, transport it, sell it, etc. The only drawback is that Monstanto and other gene companies were prohibited from licensing GMO marijuana the way they are able to license cotton, corn etc. Under such a scheme would you consider marijuana "illegal"?

I can only accept your analogy if certain people are allowed to grow it, transport, and sell it while others aren't. In which case, it is illegal for certain people and the government is clearly acting improperly, if not unconstitutionally.

[PaulConventionWV]

And one more thing, the lying homophobes get wrong (I'm fine with the non-lying homophobes): "Marriage" is singular and "contracts" is plural. Who gives a damn?

The rights, benefits, drawbacks, and bullshit of marriage is executed in a single marriage license or contract. It is "one and done" for the most part. If the state passes a law saying "married couples can do X" then it is likely to include all married couples even retroactively. If courts interpret anything affecting marriages, it will affect "marriages" not all other contracts necessarily.

What if you start to sign these jmdrake contracts, but then one partner stops halfway through? How do you bind every contract into one? There must be a lawyer who can rush to jmdrake's defense and tell us how this is done for "ALL 50" states and "ALL STATE" issues related to marriage. Or what if you do not update the contracts the way marriage law can be updated? Granted, you may not want marriage or divorce law changed against your will or after your marriage, but these things will happen. What if one partner wants their "contracts" to follow all changes to marriage law but another partner does not? What if a judge rightly decrees that one cannot bind themselves to a changing contract, thus removing the marriage-like chaos from the gay contracts?

Is there a one-form contract that states accept that does what jmdrake claims? Is there one that does even half of what he claims?

This would be an omnibus contract. I suspect it would have to be formulated not unlike a "civil union". But not all 50 states have civil unions so how can jmdrake possibly be telling the truth by any stretch of the imagination?! If it could be done, it would be, but it hasn't:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States

Homophobe is such a collectivist word, and you use it as such. You should know better.

[PaulConventionWV]

What jmdrake is saying is that gays can have a marriage ceremony performed and then consider themselves married, without any of the legal benefits of a marriage. I think he knows he's playing games, because that is not true equality or justice.

What is true equality? More government regulations? Why do you want that? Who cares about equality? Isn't it about liberty?

[PaulConventionWV]

So do you think you could handle multiple wives?

I honestly don't know. I don't plan on finding out, though.

[PaulConventionWV]

It is not a 'pointless' wedge issue. This very issue is a great teaching point. About the limitations of the Federal government. Why some choose to revel in their status yet deny others the same benefits. How our personal beliefs cause us to buy into one side or the other in regards to wedge issues defines on whether we accept government if it benefits us.

Do you think government should get involved in gay unions as well? The false premise here is that government license is what defines marriage. That's what it's always been in the media, and that's what's drilled into the heads of the vast majority of the public.

[PaulConventionWV]

I can only accept your analogy if certain people are allowed to grow it, transport, and sell it while others aren't. In which case, it is illegal for certain people and the government is clearly acting improperly, if not unconstitutionally.

What are you talking about? The point of his analogy was that homosexual unions are not illegal. There is no difference in what gay and straight couples can do except for the government benefits. Nobody is disallowed from doing anything. Why you even bring that up is confusing. It is not illegal for gay people to get married, and in the analogy, it is likewise not illegal for ANYONE to grow, transport, or sell pot. What do you mean, "you can only accept his anology if..."? The point was that the conditions are the SAME in these circumstances. Everyone has the same rights.

[jmdrake]

I can only accept your analogy if certain people are allowed to grow it, transport, and sell it while others aren't. In which case, it is illegal for certain people and the government is clearly acting improperly, if not unconstitutionally.

Except gays are allowed to get married. And they are allowed to contract for all of the legitimate rights of marriage. The problems we face are the twin problems of an unconstitutional tax system which initially penalized heterosexual marriage, tried to fix it and did so badly, and a Social Security system which is on the verge of bankruptcy. Rather than exacerbating to bad problems, fix them.

[jmdrake]

And one more thing, the lying homophobes get wrong (I'm fine with the non-lying homophobes): "Marriage" is singular and "contracts" is plural. Who gives a damn?

Well I'm neither lying nor a homophobe so I don't know who you're talking about. Justin Rainmando, who is openly gay, has the same view of "gay marriage" as I do. Do you think he is a self hating lying homophobe?

http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_sucks#axzz1wWkLNcev



The rights, benefits, drawbacks, and bullshit of marriage is executed in a single marriage license or contract. It is "one and done" for the most part. If the state passes a law saying "married couples can do X" then it is likely to include all married couples even retroactively. If courts interpret anything affecting marriages, it will affect "marriages" not all other contracts necessarily.

What if you start to sign these jmdrake contracts, but then one partner stops halfway through? How do you bind every contract into one?


Because you don't have to be romantically involved with someone in order to set up legal rights similar to marriage! You don't have to go into court and say "Your honor, this is my boyfriend".

That's what you simply don't get. And until you get it you won't understand what I'm talking about. But I'm not sure you want to get it.

Let's take 1 right of marriage as an example. The right to make life and death decisions for someone who is incapacitated. That can be done with a durable power of attorney for healthcare. Do you realize that many people who get such documents are not romantically involved? Take the old spinster who never got married. Maybe she gives her sister a DPA. Does that make lesbian incest legal? Of course not! You want to deal with property? Have a will or a trust or a combination of both.

Now traditionally most people haven't drawn up legal documents. So the court makes decisions for them. And courts will make decisions based on marriage. In some states where gay marriage isn't the law, courts will still look and relationships and decide to bend the rules to treat people as if they are married. That's how gay people sometimes get stuck paying child support for children they never adopted. (Yeah. Sometimes "equalization" means getting shafted by the court system.) Such court battles could be avoided by people simply writing down what they really want on a legal document and not depending on the state. Mary can tell Sally "If we ever split up I'll pay Jr. $200.00 per month" or "If we ever split up you and Jr. are on your own" or "If we ever split up I'll pay Jr. $200.00 per month, unless the reason we split up is cause you were cheating on me."



There must be a lawyer who can rush to jmdrake's defense and tell us how this is done for "ALL 50" states and "ALL STATE" issues related to marriage.


My family law professor who supported gay marriage for one.



Or what if you do not update the contracts the way marriage law can be updated?


So you'd rather be stuck with the whims of what the state can do to you via the law rather than what you can contract to for yourself? Let's take inheritance. Say if you really want your spouse to get 100% of your assets. You live in a state where that's the law. But you move to the state where the assets are split between the surviving spouse and other family members such as the children or even siblings. Do you really want the state making that decision for you? If yes then why?



Granted, you may not want marriage or divorce law changed against your will or after your marriage, but these things will happen. What if one partner wants their "contracts" to follow all changes to marriage law but another partner does not?


Why would one spouse want to be a slave of the state? Regardless the contract trumps unless it's an invalid contract. State fall back on state law when people haven't sufficiently made the decisions on their own.



What if a judge rightly decrees that one cannot bind themselves to a changing contract, thus removing the marriage-like chaos from the gay contracts?


Why would a judge want to do that? And why would anyone want chaos in their relationships in the first place? It sounds like you're making an argument against gay marriage.



Is there a one-form contract that states accept that does what jmdrake claims? Is there one that does even half of what he claims?


My claims is not that there is a "one-form contract". My claim is that anything that I've ever heard of anybody wanting from marriage, other than benefits derived directly or indirectly from the federal government, can be done outside of marriage through legal instruments. The judge reviewing the instrument does not even need to know there is any kind of "marriage" or romantic relationship involved.



This would be an omnibus contract.


And your argument is a straw man.



I suspect it would have to be formulated not unlike a "civil union". But not all 50 states have civil unions so how can jmdrake possibly be telling the truth by any stretch of the imagination?! If it could be done, it would be, but it hasn't:


That's nice. Now find a map of one state that doesn't recognize a will if the beneficiary of the will is gay. Find me a map of one state that doesn't recognize a durable power of attorney or a durable power of attorney for healthcare if the attorney in fact is gay. Find me a map of one state that won't let two people buy property under joint tenancy with the right of survivorship if the people are gay. Find me a map of one state where it illegal for insurance companies to allow people to put non-married relatives on a health insurance policy.

[jmdrake]

What jmdrake is saying is that gays can have a marriage ceremony performed and then consider themselves married, without any of the legal benefits of a marriage. I think he knows he's playing games, because that is not true equality or justice.

What I'm saying is that gays can have a marriage ceremony performed and then contract for the legal benefits of marriage such as joint tenancy, the right to make medical decisions for each other and inheritance. There is a problem at the federal level due to taxes and social security. Income taxes and social security should be abolished or reformed. I'm not "playing games". I'm giving you facts. Please read this:

http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_sucks#axzz1wWkLNcev

[jmdrake]

jmdrake, perhaps you have a business drawing up contracts for gay couples that want the same thing as marriage?

I don't, but there are lawyers who do.

[jmdrake]

What would I retract?:

This is what you wrote:



The last statement is false.


It is not false. Your use of big fonts means nothing.



If federal taxes were eliminated, then your statement would be less false. Social security - or at least spousal benefits - would also have to be eliminated (or made to be transferable with no or equal penalty to whomever the recipient desires: children, wife, homeless guy down the street). Another wrinkle in your lie are state adoptions laws:


Actually for most gays their taxes will go UP if gay marriage is legalized.

But here's why my statement is 100% true.

1) I already mentioned taxes and social security and the need for them to change. I did that before you falsely claimed I made a false statement. So anyone thinking clearly should know that's NOT what I'm talking about.

2) Further I'm talking about what's done through marriage. What the federal government has done is trappings added on top of marriage. Do you even know why the so called "marriage tax benefit" came about? It's because married people were being PENALIZED tax wise for being married! To try to fix the problem the federal government created it tampered with the tax code again in such a way that SOME married people are penalized and SOME benefit. Guess who is penalized? People who have similar incomes as their spouses. Who are people with the most disparate incomes? Men versus women. So homosexual couples, by definition, will be harmed by your so called help.



Why the hell would you state "all 50"? You cannot just contract your way through family planning issues. This is not unlike prenuptial agreements that often have no bearing on custody issues. The contracts do little-to-nothing and do not change state law or family court practices! "Prenuptial agreements in all U.S. states are not allowed to regulate issues relating to the children of the marriage, in particular, custody and access issues - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement)."

Did you know that in states without gay marriage gays are sometimes forced to pay child support? That's because the state only cares about getting money out of people. So if a gay couple "looks" like a family, the state will "find" another "parent" to go after for money. Why? Because of the welfare state. Single moms (or dads) are more likely to cost the state money. But hey, you read something on Wikipedia so you know everything right?



If you want to be anti-gay, then be anti-gay. I don't care if you are a racist or a homophobe. What I find intolerable on a discussion board are liars. I see no interpretation that makes your statement true. Other posters have made this mistake. They pretend that because contracts can do most things, that they can do all things. I say "pretend" and not "assume" because you ought to know better. I.e., if you are ignorant you are willfully ignorant. There is no excuse.


Yep. Openly gay Justin Rainmondo is a lying ignorant homophobe. And you know everything because you read something on Wikipeia.



You can retract or go to the bucket. Your choice.

You know what you can do with your bucket.

[kylejack]

What is true equality? More government regulations? Why do you want that? Who cares about equality? Isn't it about liberty?
Well, I think people should be treated equally by their government without regard to their sex, race, sexuality, or religion. I don't care about the number of regulations, but rather the size and scope of government.

[kylejack]

What I'm saying is that gays can have a marriage ceremony performed and then contract for the legal benefits of marriage such as joint tenancy, the right to make medical decisions for each other and inheritance. There is a problem at the federal level due to taxes and social security. Income taxes and social security should be abolished or reformed. I'm not "playing games". I'm giving you facts. Please read this:

http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_sucks#axzz1wWkLNcev
Allowing gay couples to marry is a much simpler and direct solution, and doesn't force homosexuals to jump through hoops that straight people don't. I think you and I both know that income tax won't be abolished in our lifetimes, so it's easy for you, a person with the right to marry the one you love, to push for this route rather than allowing gays to be treated as straights are.

[The Free Hornet]

Please read this:

http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_sucks#axzz1wWkLNcev

I am not arguing goodness or badness of marriage whether gay or straight. This is about a similarity between marriage and a basket of hypothetical contracts that - were they to exist - could cost orders of magnitude more than a marriage license.

Your gay friend argues that marriage is different and that it is so much different as to be abhorrent:


Do gay guys really want to have half their incomes claimed by their spouses? With gay marriage comes gay alimony, and that is what is going to make “Gay Divorce Court” such a tawdry tale of twinks on the make and sugar daddies paying through the nose.


Marriage is not a civil institution but a religious-cultural tradition that the State has (so far) been forced to respect and recognize—and it is centered around procreation, which is not an issue most [not "all" -FH] homosexuals have to deal with.

Different. Not the same.

Why didn't your gay friend write that contracts can do all the things marriage can do?


Justin Rainmando, who is openly gay, has the same view of "gay marriage" as I do. Do you think he is a self hating lying homophobe?

There is no evidence that he supports the quote I dispute ("And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do"). He argues that the gay marriage is bad and does not suggest a way to replicate these bad things using your contracts.

You objected:


That's nice. Now find a map of one state that doesn't recognize a will if the beneficiary of the will is gay. Find me a map of one state that doesn't recognize a durable power of attorney or a durable power of attorney for healthcare if the attorney in fact is gay. Find me a map of one state that won't let two people buy property under joint tenancy with the right of survivorship if the people are gay. Find me a map of one state where it illegal for insurance companies to allow people to put non-married relatives on a health insurance policy.

Yet these are not the claims I made. My claim is that the statement below is false:


Right. And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do.

Another reason you are wrong above: immigration. Opposite sex partners spouses who are not citizens have a path to citizenship. "Contracts" can't do this in "all 50 states".

Another non-Federal reason you are wrong: testifying against a spouse. If you are not married, you may lose the "marital confidence privilege".


That said, I have enjoyed somewhat our time arguing but your obstinance and refusal to acknowledge facts is unacceptable. Gay marriage may be the worst thing since straight marriage. That was not the debate. You have lied, defended that lie, and repeated that lie. You are not worthy of attention. Have fun in the bucket.

[jmdrake]

Allowing gay couples to marry is a much simpler and direct solution, and doesn't force homosexuals to jump through hoops that straight people don't. I think you and I both know that income tax won't be abolished in our lifetimes, so it's easy for you, a person with the right to marry the one you love, to push for this route rather than allowing gays to be treated as straights are.

Well it certainly won't happen as long as people ignorantly go for "simple solutions" that just make problems worse. But hey, if you want to increase taxes on gullible gay people don't let me stop you.

[jmdrake]

I am not arguing goodness or badness of marriage whether gay or straight. This is about a similarity between marriage and a basket of hypothetical contracts that - were they to exist - could cost orders of magnitude more than a marriage license.


They aren't "hypothetical contracts". Not unless you think wills, trusts, powers of attorney etc are just figments of my imagination. If you think that, you're an idiot.



Your gay friend argues that marriage is different and that it is so much different as to be abhorrent:


You don't understand the argument he's making. He's saying people are different and that the "gay marriage" movement simply doesn't recognize this. He's also saying that the government has screwed up marriage. More government in marriage will just screw it up more. Regardless of whether you agree with his argument or not, you can't claim he's a homophobe.



Different. Not the same.

Why didn't your gay friend write that contracts can do all the things marriage can do?


Did it ever cross your mind that he might not want that? Regardless, I don't know Justin Romaindo personally so I'm not exactly his "friend" any more than I'm a "friend" of Ron Paul. I would bet though that he at least has a will and a durable power of attorney for healthcare. I would bet that because he seems intelligent. That's something that's good to have whether or not you are romantically involved with anyone.



There is no evidence that he supports the quote I dispute ("And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do"). He argues that the gay marriage is bad and does not suggest a way to replicate these bad things using your contracts.


And I didn't offer his blog as evidence of that. I offered his blog as evidence that people who disagree with your stupid assertions aren't necessarily "lying homophobes". It was my gay marriage supporting family law professor that taught me how you can duplicate the same rights of marriage (and note that's different from federal marriage "benefits") through contracts. Now I don't know if you have a reading comprehension deficit or if you are just being obtuse. But again, federal marriage "benefits" (penalties in the case of taxes) and marriage "rights" are two separate things.



You objected:

Yet these are not the claims I made. My claim is that the statement below is false:


Except your "claim" was based on what I initially said. And my in my initial claim I had already carved out federal marriage benefits from the discussion of contract marriage rights. I've pointed this fact to you repeatedly. So at this point you are a blatant liar.



Another reason you are wrong above: immigration. Opposite sex partners spouses who are not citizens have a path to citizenship. "Contracts" can't do this in "all 50 states".


Currently states do not decide immigration law. The federal government does. Take that up with the federal government. That's yet another federal benefit and not a contract right.



Another non-Federal reason you are wrong: testifying against a spouse. If you are not married, you may lose the "marital confidence privilege".

Then become your gay partners priest and be done with it.



That said, I have enjoyed somewhat our time arguing but your obstinance and refusal to acknowledge facts is unacceptable. Gay marriage may be the worst thing since straight marriage. That was not the debate. You have lied, defended that lie, and repeated that lie. You are not worthy of attention. Have fun in the bucket.

Sorry, but you have no bucket to put me in except your hollow brain. And I'd be happy not to be there. Enjoy your ignorance.