Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal GMontag's Journal: 'Gay' Marriage, Sorry I Still do not Understand this Issue 32

Journal by GMontag
Actually, I understand it fine and nobody else commenting on it, save the occasional Utne Reader story, knows what they are talking about.

A blurb on NRO about some upcoming homosexual marrage case just reminded me of the 'musical question': What the hell is wrong with these people?

Why on earth are a bunch of busybody homosexuals wanting to be listed, along with many others, by the government as being married? Doesn't the courthouse have enough records already? It is already puzzling enough that heterosexuals insist on having this government intrusion added to all of the others in their lives (or is it they keep adding more, all anchored through marrage?).

There is no economic advantage to telling Big Brother who you are doing, NONE whatsoever. Certainly there are some social advantages, but all one has to do to accomplish that is pronounce themselves married. In some States, like Virginia, the State will pronounce you married even if you never had any intention of becoming married!

If it is an economic issue, the only applicable economics here is the State making one party the perminant (sometimes just long-term) paycheck of the other party. This is done in a shockingly arbitrary manner a great majority of the time, with women being the primary beneficiary of the labor of the man in a dissolved marrage. Your screwing may vary by State. Now, puzzle that one out for a homosexual couple. Don't worry, some judge will make a ruling totally devoid of any common sense and, TA DA!, everybody in that group gets the new suprize rules.

As far as property division goes, in States without "common-law" marrage (how common can it be if TN and MD do not have it?) a simple business partnership or corporation will do. Property is consolidated under the arrangement, contracts drawn, rules for dividing the property in case of dissolution are incorporated, rules for the death of one partner transferring property to the survivor, etc.

What's the matter? Not "romantic" enough? Well, these rules are already in plac, wherever you live and they go into effect as soon as you have that "marrage license" executed by an "appropriate authority". I bet you do not even know all of these rules do you? Guess what, your lawyer at your divorce, nor the opponent's lawyer, nor the judge will know all of these rules either! If they did there would be no appeals, reversals, etc. How romantic!

I have heard insurance coverage as an issue, but that is a false arguement as no entity in the US is required to insure spouses of employees. Want some action on this front? Lobby the insurance companies. Even better, and this may be alien to those from Socialist enclaves (cities in CA, NY and other places), within the business partnership designate the partner that is having all the problems getting insurance as an employee and insure them!

As far as I can see it is the wrong people whining, heterosexuals should be boycotting the marrage license office and the homosexuals should join them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Gay' Marriage, Sorry I Still do not Understand this Issue More

'Gay' Marriage, Sorry I Still do not Understand this Issue

Comments Filter:
  • All homosexual marriage is, is another check on the tax form.

    Whoop-i-doo

    Of course, that's all Heterosexual marriage has become a lot of cases.

    • All homosexual marriage is, is another check on the tax form.

      I would argue that marriage is more then just a tax-benefit.

      But, wven if it is only a check on the tax form, what gives the government power to prevent gay couples from getting married?
      • Rightly or wrongly, in our society marriage is an institution of the government. The government establishes the standards for marriage, and recognizes those who choose to announce their commitment publicly. The government also erects the hoops through which one must jump to end a marriage.

        The question of what gives the government the power to deny marriage answers itself. Because we choose to institute marriage through the government, the government gets to say who can and can't marry.

        (Of course, the government is made up of our representatives, so if you want to change policy, get out your letter-writin' pens.)
        • Actually, I think government should deny all mariage. Mariage has always been a religous thing until recently. Let the churches decide who they want to marry or not.

          All the government should have is a check box something like

          (). Lives with co dependant. Name and SSN ___________________

          • Who I live or do not live with? What business is it of theirs?

            Before anybody starts down that dead end "but it's for the taxes", answer me why the hell my taxes *should* depend on anything other that what I make or spend. I already know most of the *stupid* social engineering reasons why my taxes *do* depend on factors other than that, thank you.
  • You're analyzing marriage primarily from an economic perspective. Many, or most (I hope), people get married for love.

    There are also cultural reasons. My then-girlfriend-now-wife and I lived together for 7 years, we even registered as 'Domestic-partners' in San Francisco, but still many people did not take our relationship seriously until we got married. Our society values couples who are married more then couples who are not.

    Then there are issues such as insurance. Insurance companies are not required to provide insurance employee-spouses, but they do this anyways in 99% of cases. Non-married homosexuals are rarely covered outside a few progressive communities such as San Francisco.

    There are also numerous legal rights to marriage, but I don't have time to get into those now (God, I've seen very ugly fights between a family members who have not seen their gay son/brother and a life-long gay partner over the right to die with dignity.)

    If you don't want to get married, then don't. It's your choice, and nobody is forcing you.

    But homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. A couple is a couple. The "why" is their choice, and should not be subject to your approval and understanding.
    • But homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. A couple is a couple. The "why" is their choice, and should not be subject to your approval and understanding.

      Then why limit it to couples? If it is not our "right" to come up with a common definition of the word "marriage", then why stop it there? Do you think 3 people getting married is ok?

      • Do you think 3 people getting married is ok?

        Why is it that whenever I say "Gay marriage" and a conservative always responds with the polygamy counter-argument.

        Do I approve? No. I consider Marriage to be a sacred relationship between two adults, where the relationship won't result in inbred children (so no incest). Gay, straight, interracial, whatever.

        Should polygamy be allowed? As long as everyone involved is a consentual adult, sure. But it shouldn't be subject to my approval and understanding.
        • And if the stupid licensing requirement were dropped, this would not be an issue either!

          TA DA! Montag, the solver!

          Man I rule ;-)
        • I consider Marriage to be a sacred relationship between two adults, where the relationship won't result in inbred children (so no incest). Gay, straight, interracial, whatever.

          A lot of people* consider marriage to be a sacred relationship between a man and a woman. Those people have 60,000 years of human tradition, and nearly 10,000 of recorded human tradition, to back up their argument. What makes them wrong and you right?

          *My mind on this subject is not made up yet. I see both sides of the issue. I know gay couples who are as happy together as married couples, and gay couples who are as miserably disfunctional as married couples, too. But at the same time I'm reluctant to buck a trend established by the entire known history of the human race. Maybe they knew something I don't.
          • Those people have 60,000 years of human tradition, and nearly 10,000 of recorded human tradition

            Although I'd argue that government approval of marriage is a much more recent development, and that many societies in the last 60,000 years considered homosexuality normal (or at least, it wasn't considered a sin). Certainly not in Christian or Muslim cultures, but elsewhere.

        • I consider Marriage to be a sacred relationship between two
          adults, where the relationship won't result in inbred children (so no incest). Gay, straight, interracial, whatever.

          I ain't no biologist or nuthin, but my casual observation is that, currently, no marrage between gays will result in inbread children.

          No marrage rules will prevent inbred children either, unless you plan to stearilize all persons related to someone of the opposite sex, as marrage is not required for breeding. But if you do that you don't need to prevent them from getting married related to reasons of relations, sexual or blood.

          As for the inrerracial thing, I hope you are not going all Klan on me and limiting my occasional success with women of other races than my own, I am still trying to catch up with Tina Turner before I get too slow to keep up with her ;-)

          I also believe that sex the most inspiring, awe-inspiring, beautiful, wounderful, wholesome things money can buy.
        • Why is it that whenever I say "Gay marriage" and a conservative always responds with the polygamy counter-argument.

          Thanks for the label.

          The reason it is probably brought up is because if we going to have the government institutionalize the idea of "marriage", we probably should come up as a society on a definition. Of course, I'm definately in agreement with GM, there is no reason we need to have the government handing out 'licenses' to people who want to get married. It pretty much solves the problem.

    • You're analyzing marriage primarily from an economic perspective.

      But certainly not exclusively. Plenty of government intrusion stuff in that post ya know ;-)

      Many, or most (I hope), people get married for love.

      Yep, so what the heck does that have to do with the government? Unless you love the government so much that you need their permission and approval, then you might have a point. None of my post besmirched the love aspect at all.

      There are also cultural reasons. My then-girlfriend-now-wife and I lived together for 7 years, we even registered as 'Domestic-partners' in San Francisco, but still many people did not take our relationship seriously until we got married. Our society values couples who are married more then couples who are not.

      Covered that too. Just say that you are married! The deal is supposed to be between you, your partner and G-d (or whatever you believe in, or whatever), not every two-bit dork in the County Clerk's office. Did you even read my post? You sound like one of those reactionaries ;-)

      Then there are issues such as insurance. Insurance companies are not required to provide insurance employee-spouses, but they do this anyways in 99% of cases.

      As I said, go bug them and stop propping up Big Brother.

      Non-married homosexuals are rarely covered outside a few progressive communities such as San Francisco.

      I am puzzled as to why "the boot of the State on the neck of the people" has been trunkated to "progressive".

      There are also numerous legal rights to marriage, but I don't have time to get into those now (God, I've seen very ugly fights between a family members who have not seen their gay son/brother and a life-long gay partner over the right to die with dignity.)

      You are touching on another "murder of convenience" issue, such as what Oregon enacted a few years ago, but sorry, even excluding this particular issue, these "legal rights" you mention are not rights at all, thank you. In the US, no law gives you legal rights. Frankly, every law in the US takes rights from someone or limits government power.

      If you don't want to get married, then don't. It's your choice, and nobody is forcing you.

      Thank you for your support, however I think you are up to something with this assertion ;-)

      But homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.

      They HAVE the same RIGHTS as all others already. If you think government approved marrage is a "right" then your definition and mine are quite far apart. I have a "right" to stand on my head in my own house, so does every homosexual in their homes. Licensing will not make anything better.

      A couple is a couple. The "why" is their choice, and should not be subject to your approval and understanding.

      Nor subject to government scrutiny.
      • The deal is supposed to be between you, your partner and G-d (or whatever you believe in, or whatever), not every two-bit dork in the County Clerk's office.

        Yes, but these days it's also between you, your partner, and the the married-filing-jointly people, the insurance companies, the right-to-die policymakers at the hospitals and others to treat married-couples differently then non-married couples.

        Licensing won't fix the underlying problems, but it will make it easier for non-married couples to receive the same treatment as married couples.

        I'm all for removing those barriers, and I DO lobby for fair treatment for everyone, most of my government representatives agree with me, but I feel that many of my other lobbying efforts are ignored by many of the powers-that-be.

        They HAVE the same RIGHTS as all others already. If you think government approved marrage is a "right" then your definition and mine are quite far apart. I have a "right" to stand on my head in my own house, so does every homosexual in their homes. Licensing will not make anything better.

        If you want to take away marriage licencing and any marriage-related tax laws, I'm all for it, it would resolve this whole issue.

        But marriage licencing won't go away any time soon, and until that happens, homosexuals deserve the exact same treatment as any heterosexual.
        • If you want to take away marriage licencing and any marriage-related tax laws, I'm all for it, it would resolve this whole issue.

          This is a pretty long-winded way of agreeing with me ;-)
      • Thank you for your support, however I think you are up to something with this assertion ;-)

        Actually, I was talking to your girlfriend about this the other day.
        • Actually, I was talking to your girlfriend about this the other day.

          Ah, this came up in another discussion. I don't call that chick I have gone out with for over a year my "girlfriend" and I still do not have a polite name for the deal. Chicks don't like being called "the old lady", at least not after their early twentys and even then not for long. Perhaps adultress? As her divorce from her estranged husband is still many moons away.

          However, if the 'm-word' is brought up as a serious topic I am headed back to my online porn, might even get a DVD player and home theater and take care of myself until another chick-type-being provides her charms and talents to the cause ;-)
  • While I think that if someone wants to get into a 'qualified domestic couple' relationship for legal and/or insurance reasons, and society is willing to accept it, then fine. Knock your socks off and keep it off my lawn.
    However, I have a HUGE problem with calling it marriage.
    A marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. It's really that simple.
    Those guys (and gals) out there who are married know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
    Now if I could get the same 'feelings' for some of my guy friends as I do for my wife, that (I guess) would be cake, but I don't.
    So, I have to WORK at my relationship.
    Now, I'm not saying gay couples don't have to WORK at their relationships, but understanding a woman or how she thinks well...
    Let me just kind of stop while I'm ahead.

    I couldn't care what anyone's orientation is.
    I don't care if you think you're married and want to play man and wife.
    I really don't mind insurance being pooled, because that would ultimately keep all risks down.
    But don't tell me it's the same thing as me trying to figure why I'm completely wrong and should never open my mouth every time the moon is full.
    • I don't care how anybody defines it, the government should stop tracking it.

      Don't get me going on the "operator's permit" for a vehicle either ;-)
    • A marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. It's really that simple.
      Those guys (and gals) out there who are married know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

      I'm married, have friends in just about every conceivable type of relationship, and I have no idea what you are talking about. Why can't the legal definition of marriage include a relationship between a man and another man? Could you ellaborate?

      If you allowed the privledge of marriage, why are my good gay friends not allowed to get married?

      Now if I could get the same 'feelings' for some of my guy friends as I do for my wife, that (I guess) would be cake, but I don't.

      Fine, you are not gay. No problem.

      But some of you're guy friends have 'feelings' towards other men, and should be able to take that relationship as far as they wish, without government interference.

      When you restrict marriage only to heterosexuals, it becomes a privledge. Why can't gays have the same recognition as you?

      So, I have to WORK at my relationship.
      Now, I'm not saying gay couples don't have to WORK at their relationships, but understanding a woman or how she thinks well...
      Let me just kind of stop while I'm ahead.

      [humor]
      So in a lesbian relationship, they have to work twice as hard as you do.
      [/humor]
      • I guess my argument would be that gay couples can have something just like marriage, called whatever, just not 'marriage'.
        Philosophically, though, marriage is lifetime commitment between a man and a woman.
        The tricky part is they can (and in some cases do) have the legal equivalent of marriage. Heck, I don't want anyone denied legal rights, and if they want legal rights equivalent to a married couple, great. Let them have it. (Although I'm getting other responses indicating that either way the government should stay out, so I'm not going to win this either way.)
        Nevertheless, to me, a gay couple, who might be the equivalent of being married, is not really married. Marriage, by root definition, is the bringing of two opposites together. Now, when you play 'which of these is not like the other', what 'sticks out'.
        Sorry, couldn't resist.
        Seriously, though, you're not taking opposites and bringing them together, you're bringing similars together.
        Just because sodium wants to stay with sodium doesn't mean it can be called salt.
        I'm not saying the government should interfere or deny rights. In fact, the less they have to say, the better.
        If Neal and Bob want to call themselves a 'married' couple, have a ceremony, share benefits, etc., I really don't care. I'll bring a present.
        But don't tell me it's marriage. Not truly marriage. It's two men or women sharing a committed relationship. Fine. But it's not marriage.
        And I'm not going to get into the 'how many gay people I know' argument, because I can guarantee that I know a lot more than you might realize.
        Summary:
        They can get 'married'.
        Give 'em legal rights.
        Call 'em whatever you want, just not 'married'.
        I'll bring a present to the ceremony.
        The lesbian joke was funny.
        • I left my copy of the OED in my other pants.

          Out of curiosity, what is the root definition of marriage. I thought 'marry' just meant something like 'Whoopdeedoo! [reference.com].
          • I guess I'm approaching it from the wrong angle.
            I majored in Philosophy in College. The Greeks had no problems with homosexuality (read the first pages of the Symposium for example, they decide to send the boys away...)
            Anyway, they had long, commited relationships with men. Even some who were married. In essence, a male mistress.

            To the Ancient Greeks, there was no concept of homosexual marriage. You had sexual pleasure, be it with man or woman. Each according to their own.
            Marriage, however, was a rite only between man and woman.
            Now we move to the modern era, where you have homosexual couples who want to be 'married' for whatever reasons, typically either a.) social or b.)legal.
            I have no problems with the social arrangement and no problems with the legal arrangement.
            However, don't call it 'marriage' as if it is the moral equivalent.
            It isn't.
            It might be like it, but it's not the same.
            This is not to imply any moral judgement on homosexuality.
            But, to me, there's a sea of difference between Neal and Bob getting along, committed or otherwise, and me trying to figure out which way the Mrs. will be coming at me when I walk in the door.
            It may seem narrow minded, but it isn't.
            In the end it may seem more traditional than literal (since all of the definitions end with the middle French definition, which tells you nothing) and I'm trying to crawl back and remember the Greek or Latin root.
            May not work for you.
            Truthfully, it doesn't have to.
            It's just my $0.02.
            • I am still wondering who gets designated as the "helpless chick" by the homo marriage crowd.

              Yes, you all know EXACTLY what I mean. In hetro marriage the prominant amount of common law and statute are in favor of the female financially, even in States like TN that do not have "spousal support". Equitable division means "the woman gets it all unless you have video of her having sex with someone that does not have a law degree, or someone we just don't like".

              [personal experiance rant]
              Quote all you like on statute after statute being "written fairly", it is a big load of crap when applied. I happen to have been divorced in an "equitable division" State and "Judge" Frank Swain used child support, in my case, as a proxy for child support. I had to subsidize a woman that made three times my income, in a case where almost every "consideration" he *could have used* he ignored. Result, while my son was with me 1/2 the year he got to be in crappy neighborhoods and basements until I was no longer required to pay that support.
              [/personal experience rant]

              So, in a same sex "marriage", under the existing law, who automatically becomes the paycheck for life? Nooooo, sorry, greater income is meaningless in hetrosexual marriage so that can not be a factor.
  • I'm sure you understand your own POV, but the arguments you list don't make sense to me.

    I'm not sure why you object. If the core of your dislike is the generalized stance that Gay Rights are equal to Civil Rights, then I agree. There is a large difference in denying equality to someone based on the color of their skin -- something that is obvious and cannot be hidden -- and denying equality based on their sexuality -- something that need not be obvious to a casual observer.

    The primary primary reason I hear for Gay Civil Unions relate to legal delegation of reposnisbility -- for things like end-of-life care or the care of children. There are a number of same-sex couples who have or will have children. If you marry someone, guardianship of the souse's child is far more automatic than for those simply living with another person and their child. The desire is to ensure that both partners are more able to take time off from work when the child is sick, make emergency-room decisions, list the child on both insurance plans, and so on. There's been some debate in Pennsylvania about this because the law said gays could adopt, but no one (gay or straight) could co-adopt a child with the child's parent unless married to that parent ... and there's no gay marriage in the state. This was eventually overturned [philly.com] for Pennsylvania, but similar legal hurdles exist in Florida and other states.

    There is no economic advantage to telling Big Brother who you are doing
    If you are only talking about federal taxation, you are correct -- but economic advantage isn't just taxes. More on that later.

    As far as property division goes...a simple business partnership or corporation will do.
    A pre-nup. Yes, you can do that, and no it isn't very romantic, but that is not the point. Dissolving a partnership has a different legal standing than a divorce. Emotional content is not at issue, nor is continued support. Then there are questions of kids, pets, rings, and the like -- can you have a business contract that adequately states what should happen to the newborn in the event of dissolution five years down the road?

    I have heard insurance coverage as an issue, but that is a false argument as no entity in the US is required to insure spouses of employees

    To me, that sounds a lot like, "arguing for pot-hole repair is a false argument because no entity requires you to drive that particular road". I don't think either statement addresses the issue.

    The fact is, an enormous number of people DO get insurance for their spouses. It is an extremely common job perk, but one that may not be denied to same-sex couples -- simply because the wording may use "married" or "spouse". Yes, they can get jobs elsewhere. Often, they do. For fear of lawsuits, paperwork, and such, Insurance companies do not want to define which gay couples are the same as married couples and which are the same as dating/living-together pairs. They don't have a safe way of making that determination except to follow state laws... which generally say that unless you are married, you are not a committed couple. And again, it's nice if the kids get insurance from both care-givers.

    In and of itself, insurance is an economic consideration. Additionally, the extra non-marriage agreements, contracts, and paperwork required for same-sex couples generally costs more than marriage (my marriage cost $150 for license and minister -- the reception cost about $2500, but any big party has costs). Social Security does not recognize same-sex partners for recovering partial benefits in the event of the spouse's death -- nor do most retirement packages through employers (and for reasons similar to Medical Insurance). There are added costs to have legal papers drawn up for joint purchase of each piece of property, for papers describing immediate "Power of Attorney" rights as a married couple would have, and on and on.

    On top of all that time and expense, even when all the legal agreements are made to make a same-sex couple appear equivalent to a married couple, it is easier for outsiders to fight what the pair documents if it is not part of a marriage. That is, a married spouse generally has more say in whether or not to end extraordinary care when their spouse is terminally ill. A same-sex partner may find themselves in court faster and with more frequency if some family member wants to ignore the patient's wishes and instead keep that patient alive and in pain. That not only becomes a economic issue, but an emotional ordeal far more catastrophic than the loss of money.

    I would object to any religion being forced to perform a marriage their beliefs do not condone. Happily, that is a moot point because of the U.S. tendency towards a "separation of church and state" policy that extends beyond the framer's statements in the Bill of Rights. Happily, the U.S. has already struck down old laws that forbade 'mixed' marriages in the wake of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Happily, the U.S. has already decided that a person's sex should not be the basis for discrimmination.

    Why not legalize Civil Unions that disregard sex?
    • Now that you have gone through listing all of these Socialistic measures that the State has hinged on this "legal marrage" nonsense, all I have to say is: None of this crap should exist either! Was that not obvious in the journal entry?

      My core irritation at this issue is Rights vs. Power. More clearly, Individual Rights vs. Government Power.

      Everything you have listed is from some other governmental restriction or bribe on the private lives of individuals.

      To me, that sounds a lot like, "arguing for pot-hole repair is a false argument because no entity requires you to drive that particular road". I don't think either statement addresses the issue.

      This is especially puzzling, as road creation is an enumerated power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That aside, it is not a valid construction anyway.

      My point is that insurance companies can make their choices on whom to insure. If you have a market, they will fill it. I am not sure, but I would guess that there is at least one insurance firm in the US that will insure a domestic partner. If the only reason that there is not at least one is due to some government regulation, then take a wild guess as to where I stand on that?

      Now, IF there is at least one insurer, is your complaint that there are not more? If your solution involves forcing other insurance companies to follow the lead I must reject that as just more intrusion.

      Happily, the U.S. has already struck down old laws that forbade 'mixed' marriages in the wake of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Happily, the U.S. has already decided that a person's sex should not be the basis for discrimmination.

      Thank goodness the Dixiecrats were swept away quickly. If they had been Dixiepublicans I doubt there would be an issue for us to mention right now.

      I am pretty darn happy about that stuff being struck down too, now just dump all this other crap and there will be no issue at all.

      Funny thing is, when one bit of this nonsense gets passed, everybody and his partner needs to rush in with more regulation, more bribes, more theft to pay for it, more, more, more. I have no idea why you folks like it that way.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I think trash is the most important manifestation of culture we have in my lifetime." - Johnny Legend

Close