![]() --
Drew |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() I was just pointing out that it *is* a fundamental change in meaning. One that I, now that I've thought about it a little, do not think can be considered to "logically follow" from the original meaning. That's probably because of what I grew up believing about marriage. I remember being sent to the Jr. High School psychologist at age 12 because of an essay I'd written as an English course assignment (I could then, and have always been able to write passionately about something even in cases where I didn't actually give a tinker's damn). We could pick any topic. My paper was titled "Death at 24 or 25" and the gist of it was at those ages people were typically married and had a child or two. Once that child was born, the parents lives became irrelevant and for the balance of their time alive, their sole raison d'etre was to provide for and prepare those children for their own lives.
With adult children of my own (who are both in college and draining nearly everything I make), I can't say that my position has changed much in the 41 years since I wrote that paper. That is to say, I cannot, for my soul, imagine why anyone would get married who had made the decision not to have children - or who, in fact, could not have them. I knew one childless couple back then and it never made sense to me that they were married. Of course I knew people who'd had children out of wedlock and back then, there was stigma attached. So, back then, I thought "You should get married to have children so as to avoid the stigma attached to your children being born out of wedlock." It's funny now when I look back on the evolution of my feelings toward marriage. As a boy and teenager, I winced when I read Marx' attitude toward marriage and couldn't understand it. I still don't necessarily agree with Marx on this subject, but I must say that given the almost complete lack of any stigma attached to bastard children these days, I'm almost of the view that "a good reason" to get married no longer exists. Which is why I am somewhat baffled that this issue has reached the United States Supreme Court. IMO, there are vastly more significant issues for them to take under consideration. |
|
![]() Here is the US, mostly you are not able to be covered by a non-spousal Employers' Insurance Coverage. You must be Married. HIPPA info rights granting. During emergencies ability to ride along in the ambulance, rights to talk to Doctors during Life Ending events (Cancer etc), Directing Hospice Care, Power of Attorney Spouses automagically get.
The list goes on for pages and pages and pages of things granted to "Married" people. Its a financial and rights to take care of your loved partner of choice, be it the opposite sex or not. --
greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C |
|
![]() I'll admit talking from ignorance from the most part, but the question the Chief Justice asked seemed to indicate that it is only the label of "marriage" that would be altered as the rights enjoyed by married couples in California are the rights enjoyed by same-sex couples.
|
|
![]() It's not just semantics.
http://www.supremeco...ripts/12-144a.pdf (82 page .PDF) Olson responding to Roberts on P.45-46 of the PDF: And that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're - all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label. I don't expect Olson's argument to carry the day, but it's a good one. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
![]() But you beat me to it.
A Civil Union being seen equivalent to a Marriage... that means a Marriage *IS* a Civil Union... but a Civil Union is not necessarily a Marriage and can be separated out from that. As soon as they are asking if the two in the Union are Male/Male, Male/Female, Female/Female... they are necessarily leaving out transgendered or eunics and are going to be marking the License as a Union and not a Marriage. The form doesn't need to ask for the sake of the Marriage. Again, Separate but Equal was tried in Segregation days (and still is) and it is/was a horrible flop and failure. Insurance companies from Auto-Home-Life-Health types will deselect based on that status. Even if it is illegal... What stops them now from doing illegal things... nothing. Its not just Insurance. Its everything being geared towards a Man and Woman being married, everything. Things you wouldn't normally think about kinds of things. Like being allowed into a "couples" (non-religious) retreat. Or perhaps things as simple as Airlines seating Married Couples priority seating. Honeymoon planning... think of just how many Resorts are setup for Man/Woman couples. Think of the impact a "Civil Union" would have on those kinds of things. What about the requirements for Married Couples to be able to adopt Children... Same Sex "civil-union" couples are being denied the ability to do that. Where as Single Parents aren't, what? It goes much further... Marriage is ingrained into people as something special. Civil Union just doesn't cut it with me. It won't be enough for Governmental Agencies (Federal or other wise). It won't be enough for Insurance companies. It won't be enough for places like Hobby Lobby, I'd argue that Hobby Lobby would deselect Employment based on the fact. Think about a Gay or Lesbian Cop, being a member of a Civil Union, being "Killed in the Line of Duty"... Do you actually think the Police organization would do a payout to widow(er) Civil Union member? the Union would fight for it, but in the end more than likely "Legally Married" is probably in the wording of the contracts... it means legally *NO Payout*. Just one example where this is serious. Sorry, it is about the Redefinition of the term Marriage. It means more because its been given more. Civil Union just doesn't cut it. --
greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C |
|
![]() To say that we shouldn't change it because it's "just a label" ... If that's the case, then why not change it, since it's "just a label"?
--
Drew |
|
![]() --
greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C |
|
![]() States issue marriage licenses (and used to test for Rh factor, although I think most states have stopped that) because the state has an interest in the regulation of procreation (for it is from this procreation that the community - and the state - is built). If it weren't for the state's interest in the regulation of procreation, why would it ever be necessary to apply for a state marriage license? On what possible other grounds would states have ever come up with this?
You simply cannot sever the states' requirements for marriage licenses from the states' interest in regulating procreation. It's very difficult to imagine a "State Marriage License" ever being conceived of if we were a species that procreated asexually. I'm not taking a position one way or the other on same-sex marriage. I'm just saying that this is not "separate but equal" because same-sex marriage is a *brand, new, thing*. It cannot have (by definition!) anything to do with the states' interest in the regulation of procreation. Marriage as a state institution is completely separate from same-sex marriage because in the case of same-sex marriage, the matter of procreation *is not* at issue. Hence, the state has no interest in same-sex marriage, except that if it's all "just marriage" then I think the entire rationale for the existence of marriage is thrown out the window. Imagine what happens in those states that still require blood tests. Is that going to be necessary for same-sex licenses? Will there be lawsuits filed by heterosexual couples because they are being treated with an uneven hand (being required to pay for and await the results of blood tests) as compared to their gay contemporaries? The whole issue is absurd. But, then, what remains in this world that is not absurd? |
|
![]() If marriage laws are in any way about regulating procreation, then those same interests apply to unmarried procreation. If you aren't going to regulate that, then you can't use procreation as a driving factor in marriage laws.
If you take out procreation, and aren't left with any reasonable state interest in marriage, and therefore conclude that the state shouldn't regulate marriage at all, then you'd be agreeing with me. Well, with one of my alternatives. If the state has any interest in marriage, then the thing that the state calls "marriage" can't have anything to do with what various churches call "marriage". Can't have both. --
Drew |
|
![]() If marriage is determined to no longer have any relation to procreation, then there is no basis for the requirement of a state license, because there is no tenable state interest at hand. But we aren't quiet there yet, I don't think, because at least some states still require blood tests and all states require marriage licenses. (Aside: I looked and neither the Rubella nor Rh factor blood tests that my wife had to have in the state in which we were married are required anymore. So it may well be that the state interest in the regulation of procreation has already abandoned in that state wrt marriage).
In any case, if there are no procreative interests being expressed by any state anymore (or if indeed, the USSC rules such interests to be, de facto, unConstitutional) then I agree with you that there is no sane basis for the requirement of a marriage license nor any state *or federal* interest in a citizen's arrangements wrt cohabitation. In such case, no benefit and no penalty should accrue from one's marital status and whatever "marriage" means should be of no concern to government. |
|
![]() There's all that inheritance and community property and automatic power of attorney stuff to deal with.
--
Drew |
|
![]() And the law is not as clear-cut on those issues as you might think. For example, I am the sole surviving member of my mother's immediate family, but I still had to fill out boilerplate for power of attorney. And, because she didn't check the "Medical POA" box, I still cannot make medical decisions for her. Many people die without wills and its up to the state court to decide if any surviving relatives get anything. The concept of "community property" owing to wedlock varies widely by state. But, my company has a boilerplate for all that stuff (POA, will, living will, etc.) that takes about 10 minutes to fill out. Plus, the document's a heck of a lot easier to change than one's marital status.
All in all, I think probably the best solution is to just abandon any state interest in marriage and leave it to rabbis, priests, reverends, preachers, the FSM, etc. |
|
![]() If I were in an accident and placed on life support, my wife is the first person they'd go to for questions ... or to pay the bills. That's true in every state. If we weren't married but had lived together for the same 15 years, that would still be assumed but it might take a lawyer to make certain things stick.
If everything were the same except that she were a "he", it would take a lawyer to even establish standing. Are you suggesting that we don't want a simple assumption of responsibility to be possible ever? Lawyers might like that, nobody else. --
Drew |
|
![]() Crazy's right in one regard about me. I do not like ambiguity. Take your example, suppose I am in an accident and I *do not* want my wife to have any say in my medical treatment. Nor to be held to account for any bills I incur for any treatment. Your remedy (the existing paradigm) implicitly grants power and responsibility to my spouse over and for me that I did not explicitly grant. (Yes, you can argue that I did explicitly grant those powers when I married her - but, come on, who really thought that through at the tender age at which they uttered, "I do."). My proposed solution requires me to explicitly grant her in an unambiguous manner such power.
It makes the tax laws simpler and more fair, it makes the distribution of a person's estate more clear by forcing a person to create a will, it makes unambiguous medical decisions for an incapacitated person (and let me tell you, having spent a good portion of my younger years working in a hospital, it can get awfully messy when a spouse disagrees with her children about the care of old dad). In short, things get much better defined - and more even handed as a bonus - if the law simply ignores marriage in its entirety. |
|
![]() And when you die I'll have a few people to come over and pick through your stuff to see what I want to take. And before then, I'll pop by the hospital and tell the doctors to pull your plug if I think it's taking a bit too long.
Just a couple of many, Greg did a good start of the many issues. Since the ONLY thing you care about is an historical "procreation" one, which you ABANDONED in the above post, then YOU don't have any interest in the issue except simply removing the word "marriage" from everybody. It's not your ball, you don't get to take it home. Your primary issue was built on a foundation of sand, and you just washed it away. Got any other issues or will you simply post the same thing again and again as if the above post wasn't written? Or will you grasp for the next one since believers such as yourself cannot learn new things, because it contradicts with your belief. |
|
![]() State Marriage Interest is solely to divvy up the goods in the matters of inheritance. Historically that was the prime legal mover behind state interest in marriage. Now we have dna tests so the bastards can prove their provenance and get access to the spoils alongside the in house heirs. State should have no further interest in regulating marriages.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
|
![]() http://en.wikipedia....i/Lydia_Fairchild
I also do not think that the State's only interest in civil marriage is divvying up estates. Marriage has many purposes and many aspects. It's not just about procreation (or couples over 55 wouldn't be able to marry), it's not just about raising children (or oldsters and widows/widowers without children wouldn't be able to re-marry), it's not a lot of things. But it is also a lot of things. "It's a floor polish and a dessert topping!" As for whether the state "should" regulate marriage, well, that's a big topic. I've thought in the past that the state should recognize "family" - e.g. old retired siblings who were widowed and live together in a family home should have the benefits of marriage since they have all the responsibilities of a married couple (caring for each other, etc.) even though there's no sexual aspects involved. I still think that's a good thing to do, but whether it should replace state sanctioned marriage, I dunno. Cheers, Scott. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() When you pay me several hundred dollars per hour I'll come up with all kinds of historical bullshit to support your favored historical stupidity. That's what lawyers do. But that's not my goal.
I have no need to play AS to your BEEP. He was wrong then (sorry beep), just as you are now, and it is simply a matter of demographics moving forward as your viewpoint is erased, an old person dying at a time. The old people try to inflict their prejudice on the young ones, but as each young one gets to know (or become aware of) a close gay relative or friend (that's why the closet is evil, it allows people like you to live in ignorance which causes pain for many when you try to enforce your viewpoints), and that gay person adds a humanizing viewpoint to a dehumanized stereotype. Or shoves you deeper into your isolation when you deny the obvious and causes you to fight. Yay peer pressure and cultural enforcement of "norms"! And the days of YOUR norms are over. Either way, the viewpoint will suffer, as will the holders of it. I'd like to know what your kids say on the matter. Point them to the board and ask what they think. They are adults, right? My kids know this board, and it is always possible if they don't like something I say they will pipe up and contradict me. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() Smile.
I've raised enough kids to know I don't need to respond to obvious bullshit. |
|
![]() So why would I bother fighting your standard bullshit when even you don't believe it?
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() You simply cannot sever the states' requirements for marriage licenses from the states' interest in regulating procreation. It's very difficult to imagine a "State Marriage License" ever being conceived of if we were a species that procreated asexually.
http://www.latimes.c...326,0,70940.story Good thing Kagan isn't as dumb as you. |
|
![]() Kagan's gay. It's in all the blogs.
|