Red Herring.

Post #373,018 by mmoffitt 3/27/13 3:14:15 PM Reply	Red Herring. 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?
Post #373,021 by drook 3/27/13 5:31:39 PM Reply	Uhh ... no 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
Post #373,042 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 8:59:57 AM Reply	Actually, I do agree with your second sentence. 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.
Post #373,049 by drook 3/28/13 9:53:49 AM Reply	Yes, but ... There's all that inheritance and community property and automatic power of attorney stuff to deal with. -- Drew
Post #373,053 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 10:19:02 AM Reply	It's really not that difficult. 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.
Post #373,055 by drook 3/28/13 10:25:15 AM Reply	Theory vs. practice 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
Post #373,056 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 10:36:15 AM Reply	Lawyers - and I - would like that. 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.
Post #373,050 by crazy 3/28/13 9:55:04 AM Reply	Cool, I agree with you 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.
Post #373,022 by boxley 3/27/13 5:35:44 PM Reply	Misinformed 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
Post #373,025 by Another Scott 3/27/13 6:15:02 PM Reply	There are corner cases where DNA is problematic. 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.
Post #373,044 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 9:04:50 AM Reply	If procreation isn't involved, why blood tests?
Post #373,046 by crazy 3/28/13 9:40:06 AM 3/28/13 9:46:11 AM Reply	I'm not your lawyer 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. Edited by crazy March 28, 2013, 09:46:11 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #373,047 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 9:46:29 AM Reply	A typically non-responsive response.
Post #373,051 by crazy 3/28/13 9:56:35 AM Reply	kiss kiss Smile. I've raised enough kids to know I don't need to respond to obvious bullshit.
Post #373,052 by crazy 3/28/13 10:04:20 AM Reply	And YOU responded it is not an issue in above post So why would I bother fighting your standard bullshit when even you don't believe it?
Post #373,054 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 10:20:06 AM Reply	Heh. 2 more posts and still no answer to the question.
Post #373,035 by crazy 3/28/13 1:05:50 AM Reply	WTF???? Eugenics boards next? 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.
Post #373,043 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 9:03:41 AM Reply	Haven't you heard? Kagan's gay. It's in all the blogs.

Welcome to IWETHEY!