Re: So what?

Post #377,344 by Another Scott 7/1/13 9:34:21 PM Reply	Re: So what? http://www.archives....n_transcript.html We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [...] Just because you can't see it, or don't think it's important, or don't like it, doesn't mean that it's not real. Lighten up a little, Ok? Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,346 by mmoffitt 7/1/13 9:44:47 PM Reply	:0) I'll try to lighten up. Since I was 12 years old, I've believed that the only sane reason to get married was to have children. And then only because you didn't want your children considered "bastards" by anyone. Growing up I only encountered one married couple who chose not to have children. When an accident my mother was in orphaned two girls, that couple sought guardianship. My parents opposed them in court. It was fairly ugly, but the winning argument was that the other couple should not be granted guardianship because that couple had chosen not to have children of their own. Then, there's my mom. My mom and dad didn't live together for about 10 years, although they remained married and saw each other several times a week. The government did not recognize their marriage and so my mom couldn't get the $250.00 death benefit for my father's passing. So, I'm in a world where a multi-millionaire lesbian's "marriage" is more legitimate than my parents marriage in the eyes of the state. That chokes me a little bit, I'll admit. I think I should really stop thinking about this or I'll end up renting a Ryder truck. ;0)
Post #377,349 by Another Scott 7/1/13 10:40:01 PM Reply	That's rough. There are all kinds of families and too many families have been punished by stupid and sometimes evil decisions by governments and the legal system. I'm sorry your Mom was treated so badly during her time of grieving. I'm sure I've mentioned my grandpa and great aunt (they were brother and sister). Her husband was killed by a train (his new car got stuck on some train tracks). His wife had died in her 40s of cancer. She moved in with him and one of his sons, and they shared an old brick house in a small town for 30 years or more. They were as much a family as any I could think of. My mom and I lived with them for a year or so when she was having a rough time. I was around 10-11 at the time. It seems to me that the tax system should encourage family arrangements like that when they make sense for the members. They all took care of each other. Their small pensions weren't enough for them to live on their own, and my uncle was able to have a good job and helped to keep them healthy and engaged without having to worry about being able to afford for them to be in a retirement community or nursing home. But, since my grandpa and great aunt weren't married, they could conceivably have had lots of issues if one or the other ended up in the hospital, or there could have been tax issues or she could have had housing issues when he died, or ... In their case, there weren't any issues (the son inherited the house on the condition that she could and would live there for the rest of her life). The benefits to society in their family arrangement was just as real as if they had been married. And the benefits to society were not somehow insignificant because they didn't have their own children together. I've felt for a long time that tax system should be designed to benefit families. We all benefit when we're not alone. Single people are only one illness or accident away from falling into a hole that may be impossible to crawl out of. Families support each other - financially, emotionally, and in other ways. And that support doesn't depend on mixing of genes or having 2.3 kids - all families aren't the same. (Of course, single people just starting out shouldn't be overly taxed either...) You (and Box) have strongly held opinions about marriage. I've got strongly held opinions about family. Marriage is about unions to build a family. It's not about children, or diving up the loot, or gaining screwing rights, or fending off stares from the neighbors, IMO. We don't make people swear to have kids, or forbid marriage for those in their 60s, or force people to have more than 2 people in the household. We have them say a public oath to each other that they will take care of each other. That's what matters. J and I never wanted to have kids, and I doubt that we'll ever adopt. J's sister and her husband feel the same way, AFAIK. We've been married for 13+ years now and I'm glad. Our neighbors don't care either way, AFAICS. I can't understand the thought process that results in our union being considered a "sham marriage" by some people, but there's lots of things I don't understand... FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,383 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 6:37:02 PM Reply	I don't think your marriage is a sham marriage. If I left that opinion, I'm truly sorry. What I do think, however, is that the existence of "marriage benefits" were based upon the presumption that marriage would result in a new generation being created. It may rightly be said that this notion died sometime in the 60's, 70's or 80's, I don't know (except that I do know that my wife had to have a Rubella test for our marriage license in 1983, so at least NC expected children to result from marriage that year). I cannot and would not speak to what "marriage means" to anyone. It isn't my business. But one thing, I think, remains clear: the idea that marriage usually results in children has been abandoned by society. And as such, we should re-evaluate what benefits we, as society, wish to afford "married couples." My own view about marriage I think I've stated too much and too emphatically. But it is mine and I believe that I've demonstrated with a preponderance of evidence that the traditional benefits of marriage were afforded on the basis of a presumption that children would result. That presumption is explicitly invalid at this point. And so, the traditional state issued benefits of being married are also invalid.
Post #377,389 by crazy 7/2/13 8:14:52 PM Reply	How about mine? I divorced my wife of 20 years a few years ago. We had a miserable time together, I stayed until the kids were grown up. THEN I married my true love, who I also had kids with, who are also grown up (hey, kids, the next generation, without marriage, what a concept). I had a vasectomy before it, so according to the supreme court argument from "your" side, I would not qualify for a real marriage. It was the best experience of my life, and every day I am more and more happy with the decision. Without it, I'd certainly be a drag on society. I'd be costing you in taxes like you would not believe. But as far as you are concerned, no benefit.
Post #377,402 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 10:03:07 PM Reply	No societal benefit != no benefit. I'm happy for you. I mean that. I honestly don't think that personal relationships have any place in the drafting of public policy. What I'm trying to say (and not well at all apparently) is that when the reasonableness of presumptions about human relationships change and there are policies that have been drafted regarding those relationships as a consequence of the reasonable assumptions about those relationships, then the policies must change. If we wipe all "marital benefits" from the law, we might be a better society. We might draft legislation in their sted that supported families. I'm not saying same-sex married couples cannot contribute to society. I'm saying that their "marriage" cannot contribute in the same way that heterosexual marriage can contribute. And because existing "marriage laws" were drafted with the expectation that children would result, those laws are no longer sane. But that might be a good thing, if we're not afraid to change the laws that were based nominally on "marriage". Instead, we could draft laws on what society actually cares about: a continuing of society.
Post #377,393 by Another Scott 7/2/13 8:56:31 PM Reply	I wasn't pointing at you specifically. Don't feel bad - you didn't insult me. I'm sorry that I left the impression with you that that was directed at you. It wasn't. I should have been more clear. And I don't carry a chip on my shoulder about that view. ;-) Saying that people shouldn't pay lower taxes as a result of being married is a reasonable position to hold (it can be debated). Society has other ways of lessening the tax burden as a result of having children in the household (the per-child deduction, etc.). I don't think, though, that saying (roughly) 'marriage is about children' recognizes the reality that it hasn't been exclusively about that ever, I don't think. Children are part of the whole package in many/most cases - sure. But I think you're being too black-and-white about it. http://en.wikipedia....the_United_States - I don't see children mentioned there very much... I think Drook pushed back on the Rubella test earlier, but for completeness - http://www.intelihea...HMSContent#policy The Policy Behind Testing The reason for syphilis testing is that detecting this disease before people marry may allow the infected person to be treated before the partner becomes infected. In addition, detecting and treating syphilis in the woman can prevent transmission of the disease and its complications to her fetus in the event of future pregnancy. In this way, transmission through the population could be reduced or even eliminated (though, of course, this assumed that sexual activity was occurring primarily among married people). When these programs began in the 1930s and 1940s in the United States, syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases were reportedly very common, especially in big cities. There was considerable fear that syphilis could spread throughout the population Â that is, it was truly a public health concern. The discovery of a blood test that could identify past or current exposure to syphilis led to widespread screening programs targeting those about to marry. If evidence of infection was discovered, treatment could be required before the couple could marry. Although rubella is typically a minor condition in adults, it is serious disease for a developing fetus, especially during the first trimester. It is associated with a high rate of birth defects. Identifying women who are not immune (from previous infection or vaccination) can determine who needs vaccination before pregnancy, a practice that could reduce the chances that a fetus will be affected. If a woman is not immune and has not been vaccinated prior to pregnancy, she will be instructed to avoid anyone who might have the disease. For these reasons, screening women for immunity to rubella before marriage might seem to make sense. [...] Both tests Â for rubella and syphilis Â are routinely checked during pregnancy, whether or not they are checked before marriage. As of May 2002, only seven states (and the District of Columbia) still required a blood test to get married (according to the Colorado Department of Public Health; an updated, centralized list is difficult to obtain). However, many of these last remaining "holdouts" have since dropped the requirement. Only Montana still requires a pre-marital blood test as of September 2012. It was mostly a public health concern, not a survival of the next generation concern. If you want to take the current lack of pre-marital blood testing as evidence to support your contention that society doesn't value marriage more than shacking up these days, well, I guess you're free to do so. But then I guess it similarly didn't value marriage above shacking up in the 1920s when these tests weren't required. (The first blood test for syphilis was available in 1903.) Societies change. That's a good thing. My $0.02. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,395 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 9:30:51 PM Reply	No. Come on, Scott, have I really been that unclear? It was mostly a public health concern, not a survival of the next generation concern. If there was no presumption that marriage results in children, why test for Rubella in adult women? My point is (and has been) that state marriage licenses were issued with the expectation that children would result. Now, you can certainly take issue with my subjective claim that "children are the sole benefit to society of marriage" but I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that society never expected that children would be the most likely outcome of marriage. What I'm saying is that in light of the fact that same-sex marriages are now to be considered normal, the state no longer has a reasonable expectation that children will follow from marriage. You seem to be arguing against my contention that historically, the state view was that the most likely outcome of marriage was children and policies were adopted according to that presumption. What I'm saying chiefly is that since that presumption is no longer tolerated by the state, the policies should be thrown out because the premise upon which they were built has been rejected.
Post #377,396 by drook 7/2/13 9:37:48 PM Reply	There's a difference between "expected" and "the purpose" There shouldn't be laws based on the proposition that procreation is the purpose of marriage. It's reasonable -- though not mandatory -- to have laws based on the expectation that it's likely. -- Drew
Post #377,398 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 9:48:12 PM Reply	Thank you. I think it is clear that we have laws on the books that were written when there was a reasonable expectation that children would follow from marriage. In a nutshell what I'm saying is that those laws should be stricken. The politically incorrect claim I'm making is that the "marriage laws" on the books were made with that presumption, which, I claim, was valid at one point and is no longer valid as a consequence of the full recognition of same-sex marriage being equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Moreover, to the consternation of apparently almost everyone, I'm saying that the beneficial laws with regard to marriage that were drafted when there was a reasonable expectation that children would follow from marriage should not be applied to same-sex marriages because there is no expectation that their marriages will result in the birth of children. Honestly, from my POV, I cannot understand why taking such a position would be controversial.
Post #377,403 by Another Scott 7/2/13 10:07:45 PM Reply	I think it went off the rails here. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=377163 The only societal benefit that ever comes from wedlock (or any romantic relationship) is the creation of a new generation. That's a strong statement, and it gets the back up of people who don't fit in that category. It's fine to be annoyed that the person who brought the suit will be getting back a few hundred thousand dollars in inheritance taxes. That doesn't mean that society will get no benefit unless a marriage results in mixing of genes. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,406 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 10:10:26 PM Reply	Yep, that was subjective. Doesn't mean I don't believe it, but I shouldn't have made that a part of the argument. ;0)
Post #377,400 by Another Scott 7/2/13 9:54:29 PM Reply	We're talking past each other. Marriage is not a requirement for children to enter a family. Children are not, and have never been AFAIK, a requirement for a marriage. (Yes, some times and places allowed a husband to break his vow and abandon his wife if they were unable to conceive. But it was not a requirement, even for Henry. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia....anity#Middle_Ages for some examples.) Your idea of a "presumption" or arguments from probabilities of the "most likely outcome" ignores the fact that many people have gotten married without any intention of having children. There is much more to marriage than mingling of genes. Gay people can adopt if they choose, just as straight people can. Married people can choose not to have children, or be unable to have children for medical or other reasons. That doesn't mean that marriage is worthless or somehow defective or of no benefit to society these days. Going from that to an argument that the tax and benefit system needs to change is arguing from a false premise. Your idea of marriage is yours. You will drive yourself nuts if you insist on trying to extend it to everyone else. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,404 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 10:08:40 PM Reply	I think that's slightly disingenuous. Is it your contention that when the laws were drafted that benefited individuals who had entered wedlock, that there was no consideration given by the State that marriage would likely result in children? I'm not claiming that at any point there weren't marriages that didn't result in children. I'm claiming that in the overwhelming majority of cases, marriage did result in children and it was with this thought in mind that legislation granting preferential treatment to married couples was drafted. Are you saying that this claim is false?
Post #377,405 by Another Scott 7/2/13 10:10:15 PM Reply	See above. I don't know how to say more...
Post #377,407 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 10:11:38 PM Reply	Dude, Seriously? No, they aren't a requirement, nor ever have been. But they've been a reasonable expectation. How can you not see that? How is that controversial?
Post #377,415 by Another Scott 7/2/13 10:34:23 PM Reply	Expectations change. It used to be expected that a husband would have multiple wives. It used to be expected that a husband would get a dowry. It used to be expected that a husband would always be of the same "race" as the bride. It used to be expected that ... Things change. There are lots of benefits to society for marriage without children. I've pointed out a few in earlier replies in this thread. There are also lots of benefits to society that are not explicitly rewarded by the tax code (e.g. volunteering your time). The benefits in the tax code that result from marriage (being able to file jointly, different tax rates, inheritance, gains on selling a house, etc., etc.) are not and never were conditioned on the couple having children. It doesn't matter what your view of the "expectations" were. It just doesn't. The rules are the way they are until they are changed. A constitutional right trumps the tax code. "Equal protection under the law" is a principle that is more important that whatever "expectations" about children were when the various tax code features were written. If gay people are allowed to marry, and they are at least in part because society's views have changed, and equal protection arguments mean anything, then all married couples must be treated equally in the tax code. That is all. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,425 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 10:56:56 PM Reply	An equal protection claim assumes the result. In order for an equal protection claim to be filed, one must first agree that the relationships in question are equal. No offer of proof was made in any case up to the USSC. That's what doesn't make sense. Heterosexual marriages and Homosexual marriages (I think we can agree) are different relationships if only because homosexual relationships are incapable of producing children. If a <> b, then a <> b. Certainly the state can treat different relationships differently and if the relationships are different (and biology dictates that they are) then there is no equal protection claim to be made. But the court assumed a falsehood (that a = b) in order to rule the way they did. That's not opinion. That is fact. Cold, hard, biological fact. I think we're done and will part disagreeing friends. ;0)
Post #377,430 by boxley 7/2/13 11:00:32 PM Reply	you are confused prop 8 was dismissed on standing ground DOMA was about equality of partnerships. Children were neither offered as a proof or a distraction. Apparently neither parties in the dispute had thought to call you :-) 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 58 years. meep
Post #377,432 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 11:02:29 PM Reply	Yeah, I didn't get a call. Stupid b*stards. :0)
Post #377,441 by CRConrad 7/3/13 5:37:10 AM Reply	BZZT - sorry, elementary logic lacking. Marriage = Marriage. A: If you want to argue Heterosexual Marriage =/= Homosexual Marriage because homos can't get children and "Marriage REALLY is all about precreation", your logic is wrong because: A1) There are other ways to get children: Adoption, surrogate parents, in-vitro fertilization, etc, etc... Heck, the simplest is for one of the partners to hold their nose and engage in Hetero sex for once, and they become a biological parent. If one of them being that is not enough, does your definition of heterosexual marriage only allow parents to be married to the other parent of their children? (And does this mean you're OK with polygamy if someone has children with different partners -- or should they be stoned...? [No, not on dope.]) A2) As others have pointed out, with your logic even heterosexual people who are sterile for whatever reason -- birth defects, castration by mrs Bobbitt, cancer operations; heck, menopause! -- can't be allowed to "marry" in the eyes of the law. A3) Bravo, you have just made a humongous contribution to social welfare, by eliminating a rather large group of sad and lonely people! Because, if procreation is a requirement for marriage, all marriages where one partner dies before there are any children must of course be retroactively nullified -- so there are no childless widows or widowers any more. . B: If you want to argue Heterosexual Marriage =/= Homosexual Marriage... "Just Because", then you're just simply bigoted. B1) And frankly, you've been squirming and weaselling for days now; how many tens of comments has it been that you've been gibbering on, ostensibly about Argument A above -- even though it's been logically refuted many times over? Any rational person would have flat-out conceded that he was "Just. Plain. Wrong." on that argument, by now. So, I'm sorry, but the more you keep going on and on and on about Argument A -- the more it seems to me that your real motivation is actually Argument B. . C: I mean, step back and try to look at yourself from the outside for a moment, for fuck's sake! C1) If someone approaches you with an initially reasonable-sounding argument about how the wind can't make flags wave in a vacuum, that's one thing. But if, even after you explain to him how that famous flag-planting video on the moon shows the flag "waving" because the guy who just planted it set it to shaking a little, if he then still goes on and on about double shadows and trick photography and whatnot, and keeps shifting the argument to ever more intricate detail as each previous one is refuted -- well, after a while you have to conclude that he wasn't actually arguing his ostensible argument A about flags or photos, but his real motivation is argument B, Conspiracy Kook. C2) If someone approaches you with an initially reasonable-sounding argument about the sparsity of the fossil record, that's one thing. But if, even after you explain to him how fossilisation actually only occurred when the circumstances were just right, and how modern paleobiology now reckons evolution may actually have taken place in isolated "leaps" so the occasions where fossilisation would actually "catch" it in action were relatively rare... If he then still goes on and on about how mollusc eyes couldn't have developed independently of vertebrate ones, or how "micro-evolution" is fundamentally (Heh!) different from "macro-evolution" and whatnot, and keeps shifting the argument to ever more intricate detail as each previous one is refuted -- well, after a while you have to conclude that he wasn't actually arguing his ostensible argument A about the fossil record, but his real motivation is argument B, Young-Earth "Intelligent Design" Fundamentalist Religious Nutjob. You, here, have been going on and on and shifting the discussion of your ostensible argument A into ever more intricate detail as each previous one has been refuted... After a while, how could you expect to come off as anything but a homophobic bigot? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #377,443 by boxley 7/3/13 8:35:59 AM Reply	on A3) dont forget to steal all their stuff as well. 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 58 years. meep
Post #377,452 by mmoffitt 7/3/13 1:11:21 PM 7/3/13 1:21:10 PM Reply	First, I never said "reproduction was a requirement". I did say that the only societal benefit from marriage was procreation. I also qualified that as my view and asked if anyone could offer any other benefit. What I got was a lot of handwaving arguments that "it makes people feel better" and other such nonsense. Hardly refutation. Second, your very first line makes a claim without proof. "Marriage = Marriage" is what the fricking DOMA case was about. That is, it was the issue to be decided. You make that claim without proof and then go on to say that because your unproven claim is valid, there is an equal protection issue. But if you don't accept "on faith" your premise, then there can be no equal protection claim. Surely you can follow that. With regard to reproduction, I think I've made a compelling case that until the decision in Windsor, reproduction was a reasonable expectation of marriage. Whatever the merits of the decision it is clear that there was no logical basis for an equal protection claim. The fact that a "Marriage = Marriage" claim is made in the absence of any evidence to prove such, despite the biological differences between the relationships and more than two thousand years of experience showing clearly that marriage usually resulted in children of the married couple, you want me to "just accept" the truth of that claim without proof. And you need me to do that in order for you to assert an equal protection claim. And I'm the one playing fast and loose with the rules of logic? I'll make it simple for you. You assert "Marriage = Marriage". What means "equal"? equal: like in quality, nature, or status http://www.merriam-w.../dictionary/equal One quality of heterosexual marriage is that it can and most often does result in new human beings whose DNA is composed entirely of the married couple's DNA. Does this quality exist in homosexual marriages? No, it does not. Hence, "Marriage != Marriage". qed. Edit: In anticipation that I'll be called a bigot for saying that, let me point out, so that it is clear, I'm not saying one relationship is superior to the other. I'm only pointing out what I think is obvious to even the most casual observer. The relationships are different. One lacks at least one quality of the other. That, I think we can agree, makes them different. Consequently, they can be treated differently by the state without raising an equal protection injury. Edited by mmoffitt July 3, 2013, 01:21:10 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #377,459 by Another Scott 7/3/13 3:04:01 PM Reply	On your addendum. I don't agree with your train of thought. You say the essential difference between straight and gay marriage is the mixing of genes. But as CRC has pointed out, gays can mix their genes via IVF the same way that straights can. The state doesn't give tax preferences based on how the dependent child entered the family. In the tax code, the benefits of marriage (joint filing, claiming exemptions, inheritance, stepped-up basis on home sale, etc., etc., etc.) don't have anything to do with children. They're a benefit of marriage. The tax code benefits of children are explicitly different. I really don't think that continuing to restate your strongly held opinion is helping your case. Society has moved on. We don't issue marriage licenses with the expectation that blacks won't marry whites, or that husbands will have 5 wives, or that brides will be less than 16 years old any more, either. Your citing expectations of children does not change the fact that the law and the rules do not impose that requirement, and the tax code specifically addresses children under different deductions, exemptions, etc., than for marriage itself. The equality argument is based on the equality of people. Not that "breeders" are better than "non-breeders". If legally married people have certain benefits and responsibilities, then it doesn't matter if that legal marriage is religious or secular, or between people who are fertile or those that aren't, or ... Marriage = Marriage because people must be treated equally under the law. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,460 by CRConrad 7/3/13 3:15:18 PM Reply	Yes you did. But never mind that; let's talk people in stead Mike Moffitts: First, I never said "reproduction was a requirement". I did say that the only societal benefit from marriage was procreation. Yeah, that's what I meant: A requirement for you to see it as worthy of the same recognition by society. I also qualified that as my view and asked if anyone could offer any other benefit. What I got was a lot of handwaving arguments that "it makes people feel better" and other such nonsense. Hardly refutation. Refutation that you blithely refused (and still refuse) to recognise, check. Second, your very first line makes a claim without proof. "Marriage = Marriage" is what the fricking DOMA case was about. That is, it was the issue to be decided. Sigh... I think I see where this went wrong, and it's much earlier even than Scott dug out. Let's go right back and define our terms from the beginning. Marriage: A free and voluntary union of two people, two persons (See [1], [2]). [1]: Person = Person -- People are all equal to each other, regardless of race, religion, or... Sexual orientation. [2]: Free and voluntary -- We don't force someone to marry someone in particular, nor stop them from marrying whom they want. People, persons: Actual human beings, with heads and hearts and hands and hopes and cunts and cocks... And rights and duties. (And different people like to stick those dicks into different kinds of people -- but the rights and duties are still the same for all the people, however icky their dick-sticking habits.) Marriage: An abstract entity, a concept to be reasoned and discussed and legislated about... But not an actual person that can have any rights. (Which is good, so we don't have to argue with each and every "marriage" about which people it has a right to include; it's much easier to argue with actual people in stead.) So, yeah, sorry, I was a bit unclear -- too brief -- before. Let me rephrase that: Marriage for some people = Marriage for other people Or perhaps like this: Some people's right to marriage = Other people's right to marriage To reiterate your point again, from the post I replied to above: Heterosexual marriages and Homosexual marriages (I think we can agree) are different relationships if only because homosexual relationships are incapable of producing children. Sure. So what? It's about the people, Mike. You're discriminating against _some_people_ who want to marry _other_people_. Never mind the "marriage" -- what is that? Would Joe's and Jack's marriage license, right there at the back of their dresser drawer under all the old receipts, feel insulted to hear you disparage it here? Would Jill's and Jenny's wedding rings be outraged at you denying their right to equal treatment? No, of course not; "a marriage" can't have any "rights". People have rights. You seem to want to reserve the right to marry whomeverthefuck we want (and have our marriage recognised by the state with tax breaks and other benefits) for you and me and our wives, and people like us -- but deny it to Joe and Jack and Jill and Jenny. It doesn't matter one bit what "benefit society has" from your marriage, or Joe's and Jack's, or Jill's and Jenny's -- the question is, what "benefit" does society have from you and your wife, or Joe and Jack, or Jill and Jenny? And what does it -- society -- owe you all? Does it owe you and your wife a little more -- official recognition of your marriage, say -- than Joe and Jack or Jill and Jenny? Saying everyone is equal regardless of sexual orientation, but you and I can marry and have our marriages recognised by society, while Joe and Jack or Jill and Jenny can't... Didn't people used to be "equal but different" in your South, too, when we were kids? (Heh -- even as to whom they could marry, or not, as the case might have been... The parallel is even more apt than I thought at first.) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #377,640 by mmoffitt 7/6/13 11:36:52 AM Reply	My last bit. A little clarification. You're discriminating against _some_people_ who want to marry _other_people_. No, I'm not. What I am saying is that same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage are two different relationships (a point you conceded). I have no opposition to homosexual marriage. But I cannot accept that whatever "marriage" means to a same-sex couple can ever be the "same" or "equal" to the long-time, widely held, virtually universal definition that applied to heterosexual marriage because my senses (and biological facts) dictate otherwise. Is there significant overlap in the two distinct relationships? I've really no idea, but I suspect that there is. Is there sufficient overlap (or "sameness") to overlook the fact that when legislation was passed concerning "marriage" it meant something different? I don't know. But I don't think it's hatred or bigotry or fear that causes one to pose that question. We've changed the definition of what it means to be married. Isn't it appropriate at this time to review all legislation concerning marriage and (if necessary) alter it to fit the new definition? In my view, it is. That's what I'm saying. And I just can't stand this bit... Some people's right to marriage = Other people's right to marriage. What right? Where in hell is the text of US Constitution that guarantees a person a right to marry? And don't give me that handwaving "Pursuit of Happiness" bullshit. If marriage == happiness then surely more than 1/2 of them would survive. If marriage is a right, my bachelor brother-in-law has had his rights denied him. No one has a "right to marry." The idea is ridiculous. The notion comes from a hyperbolic statement in a USSC decision that, too, had no basis in fact or law. Finally, Scott and others have pointed out that homosexuals can get donor sperm or donor eggs and have children (those making that argument have either failed to acknowledge or refuse to accept that this is different from the usual and customary manner in which heterosexual marriages produce children). They further point out that (in some states) homosexual couples can adopt. In all cases, this is an experiment. We've no idea what long-term effects not having a father and a mother will have on children as they mature. The most similar situation we do have some knowledge of is children of divorced parents. Those kids, too, often live in a one-sex household and the impact of that, in at least some cases, is significant and not always pleasant. All of that said, I'm not opposed to performing this experiment (children growing up in homosexual households) on the next generation, provided that everyone acknowledges that it is an experiment that may have a consequential impact on the children raised in those households and upon society as a whole. Just remember, the lemming who refuses to run is not always the one making a mistake.
Post #377,644 by Another Scott 7/6/13 12:07:00 PM Reply	Wake up. People in the US have the right to marriage. See Loving v Virginia from 1967. http://www.law.corne...0388_0001_ZO.html Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, [p9] Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race. [...] There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [n11] We have consistently denied [p12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. [...] These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. tldr: Equal means Equal. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,647 by mmoffitt 7/6/13 2:19:48 PM Reply	Racial discrimination is a different issue entirely.
Post #377,648 by Another Scott 7/6/13 2:22:57 PM Reply	Equal protection is Equal protection. QED.
Post #377,651 by mmoffitt 7/6/13 2:54:28 PM Reply	Can we discriminate against polygamists? If so, why? Who are you to say their "love" isn't real? I don't want to go down this road, but Christian already conceded a "difference in relationship" on the topic at hand. There was no such difference in relationship when the issue was race. Haven't we beat this up enough? You have your view and I have the correct one. I can live with that. Can you? ;0)
Post #377,653 by Another Scott 7/6/13 3:10:21 PM Reply	Is polygamist marriage legal in the US? No. Even immigrants that have multiple wives must obey US law that prohibits polygamy. http://www.legalzoom...t-legal-immigrate Under US law, legal marriage = legal marriage because of the 14th Amendment (among other things). Haven't we beat this up enough? You have your view and I have the correct one. I can live with that. Can you? ;0) Sure. You can have the last word. (For a while... :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,662 by mmoffitt 7/6/13 5:13:02 PM Reply	How about Amendment 10? AFAIK, "marriage" is a State thing, right? The US Constitution is silent on it, right? That would mean it's up to the States, right? Oh, but wait. You're from up north, right? ;0)
Post #377,667 by boxley 7/6/13 6:31:41 PM Reply	was legal in utah before statehood legal in many parts of the world, even in texas. When the feds told qanah parker he could only have one wife, he told the agent that the agent could go in the house and tell them. 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 58 years. meep
Post #377,661 by boxley 7/6/13 5:01:37 PM Reply	uh, no. Just wont allow them to get stamped by the gummint 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 58 years. meep
Post #377,663 by mmoffitt 7/6/13 5:14:31 PM Reply	Concur. The state no longer has an interest in marriage.
Post #377,681 by Ashton 7/7/13 5:08:00 AM Reply	Re: Wake up. ... Interesting that they cited Korematsu http://www.law.corne...0323_0214_ZS.html (presumably) as an Example of legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination. But not an explicit ... a tacit deduction to be made: because they granted Cert. And USSC did so in 12/'43--thus denying a reversal of Korematsu's appeal against: A) Being singled-out for banishment from this 'military area'--only because of his Japanese ancestry. USSC declared that, then: Constitutional. B) Yet while the 'banishment' was found Constitutional, the matter of 'reporting to assembly centers' aka concentration camps was explicitly Not-considered in this Cert, even though the Cert Finding itself, said 3. Even though evacuation and detention in the assembly center were inseparable, the order under which the petitioner was convicted was nevertheless valid. P. 223. CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 760, to review the affirmance of a judgment of conviction. Emphasis? hell when you read it: that bold + underline comes out in the Voice! Another example, IMO of the pseudo-science of the law + [or via] an {undefinable} level of Judicial 'discretion'--which here seems to limn Piet Hein: sweet and undefinable, like the pineapple All of which illustrates, I wot--that it is an illusory koan, We are a nation of laws, not men. And even if one buys that, given the n-thousands of cases [imagine pre-computer Look-Ups, employing miles of bookshelves] ... rhetoric shall be indispensable) whether or not Tyranny of Words is accepted as an authoritative/relevant document--thus assuring all that follows from the ~~missing Referents~~ er, Paper Chase. ie. One can never prove the ~equivalence of racial- gender- discrimination--within the zeitgerist of a given time without nuance approaching the ineffable: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Fred_Korematsu When such orders were issued for the West Coast, Korematsu instead became a fugitive. The legality of the internment order was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, but Korematsu's conviction was overturned decades later after the disclosure of new evidence challenging the necessity of the internment, which had been [] withheld from the courts by the U.S. government* during the war. To commemorate his journey as a civil rights activist, the "Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution" was observed for first time on January 30, 2011, by the state of California, and first such commemoration for an Asian American in the US.[1][2] * Let's dust-off THAT rationale for finally reversing Korematsu's conviction, apply it to The Perpetual War on Terror--and force a Declaration affecting both Exec and Congressional branches: (call it) The War on tError is Over Act; all Rights suspended/stapled/mutilated since 9/11/01 are declared Restored, the Suspensions declared null/void and Icky. Maybe that capacity for endless argument with no appreciation for Scale, is why we see by THIS USSC, just how omnipresent is the execrable Gaming of Systems (as may kill us re any reform of 'finance' (or any timely response to planetary matters)--via premeditated running-out-the clock.] May the next species be capable of self-government: for a First.
Post #377,668 by CRConrad 7/6/13 6:34:26 PM Reply	A distinction without a difference. Mike Moffitts on: What I am saying is that same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage are two different relationships (a point you conceded). Yeah, sure. But only in the most trivial sense imaginible: Yes, I concede that homosexual marriage is different from heterosexual marriage in that the former is not -- at present -- likely to result in offspring. Well, to be precise: Not the simultaneous traditionally biological offspring of both partners in the marriage. (Though I can see at least one way to get that, too.) What I didn't, and won't, concede is that this difference is in any way whatsoever significant. Marriage is one thing, procreation another, and conflating them is just simply muddled thinking. HTH! -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #377,686 by mmoffitt 7/7/13 1:06:17 PM Reply	And there it is. What I didn't, and won't, concede is that this difference is in any way whatsoever significant. Thank you for making my point. You assume that the relationships are sufficiently similar to raise an equal protection claim. You assume. Not prove. You have not demonstrated that the relationships are sufficiently similar, you've only claimed it. And upon the basis of that unsupported claim, you contend there is an equal protection case. You're certainly not alone in this flawed thinking, and it did prevail in the USSC case, but that hardly makes it "right."
Post #377,689 by drook 7/7/13 1:33:44 PM Reply	Not assume, declare My marriage to my wife is different from your marriage to your wife. Does that mean that laws applying to one can't apply to the other? My wife has short hair dyed pink, and I have a shaved head. How can that possibly be the same as your relationship? We as a society have declared that gender is not a legally significant difference for the purposes of legal protection. No matter how many "differences" you care to point out, you are trying to prove the falsity of a premise. That doesn't work. -- Drew
Post #377,692 by crazy 7/7/13 3:59:28 PM Reply	Oh, he won't answer this one http://en.wikipedia....nt_from_ignorance is his forte'
Post #377,728 by mmoffitt 7/8/13 1:25:35 PM Reply	Where and when was this declaration made? By whom and upon the basis of what? The rationale of the declaration can clearly not be the existence of a one-to-one onto mapping from the set of qualities of homosexual marriages to the set of qualities of heterosexual marriages. In any case, I reject your assertion that any such "declaration" has been made with respect to marriage. Between 1998 and 2012, there were 31 votes in 30 states on this issue, and in all but one case, voters agreed to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The single exception was in Arizona, where in 2006 voters rejected a same-sex marriage ban. However, Arizona voters went on to approve a ban in the 2008 election. In November 2012, Minnesota was the 31st state to consider a constitutional provision limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, and they rejected their proposed ban. http://www.ncsl.org/...n-the-ballot.aspx I don't think "society" at large is with you on this. Not that it matters as the USSC is, apparently.
Post #377,669 by CRConrad 7/6/13 7:21:49 PM Reply	Sorry, you still lost about six levels ago. Wibble the first: And I just can't stand this bit... Some people's right to marriage = Other people's right to marriage. What right? Where in hell is the text of US Constitution that guarantees a person a right to marry Sigh... I'ts not about "right to marriage". It's about equal protection under the law. Here's a fact: Married people get certain benefits under the law -- tax breaks, hospital visitations, inheritance, and so on. Did you know this, or does this come as news to you? This fact is what these discussions are basically all about; has been from the start, is now, and will be until the bigots quit squirming. Do you want to pretend you didn't know this, either? Here's what the heart of the matter is: If people are equal under the law, then all lawfully married people should have the same right to partake of these legal benefits, regardless of whether their spouse is of the same or a different sex as themselves. And *that* is the bit that's guaranteed in your constitution: All people are equal under the law, with the same legal rights and duties. So, sigh, OK, I suppose this is what I should have said: "Some people's right to have their marriage recognized in terms of legal benefits = Other people's right to have their marriage recognized in terms of legal benefits" But honestly: This is too bloody long to fit on a demonstration placard. That doesn't matter, though, because in the context, it is fucking obvious to anyone reasonably fluent in English that this is what the shorthand "Equal right to marriage!" on the placards means. Pretending not to understand this is disingenious in the extreme. But you've quibbled about at the details of this for about five or six posts each from you and me, forcing me to gradually re-write the simple slogan into this fucking huge multiply-qualified definition... You should be ashamed of yourself: Either for being such a dunce that you didn't get what any adult who's ever heard of the question knows, but more probably for just plain quibbling, even though you did know exactly what's at issue. Wibble the second: Finally, Scott and others have pointed out that homosexuals can get donor sperm or donor eggs and have children (those making that argument have either failed to acknowledge or refuse to accept that this is different from the usual and customary manner in which heterosexual marriages produce children). See? Isn't this what I said several exchanges earlier in this conversation? It is all about the sex, the straight hetero children-producing sex. Wibble wibble wibble: ...adopt...experiment...long-term effects...a father and a mother...experiment...yaddayaddayadda Remember that bit I mentioned about fundie and conspiracy whackjobs ranting on and on and on into ever more intricate detail, squirming and weaselling and shifting the goalposts way out of the arena, never acknowledging that on the main big large actual real question, they've been refuted, proven wrong, and lost the discussion long before they got into this silly level of minutiae...? Newsflash: Fags and hags have been raising kids for ages already. So guess what you're coming off as here. Again. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #377,421 by boxley 7/2/13 10:50:48 PM Reply	state involvement in marriage was about division of property nothing more, nothing less. Inheritance in a sane manner 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 58 years. meep
Post #377,429 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 10:58:10 PM Reply	Among DESCENDANTS, right? Where do you suppose they came from?
Post #377,431 by boxley 7/2/13 11:02:21 PM Reply	absolutely, now with dna you dont need contracts to hand out the donuts equitably. Get the state out of the marriage bidness, always said that. Argued with the priest for hours that I didnt need a damn gummint licence to get married. He refused until I paid the $50 bucks 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 58 years. meep
Post #377,433 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 11:03:39 PM Reply	I'm with you. There's no point in the state being involved anymore. At least not as it has historically been involved.
Post #377,435 by Another Scott 7/2/13 11:10:31 PM Reply	<sigh> Any statement about marriage that includes the word "only" or "nothing" is almost certainly wrong. (Excluding that one. ;-) Marriage is like Walt Whitman - http://www.english.i.../whitman/song.htm (I am large, I contain multitudes.) But rather than going through this again, I'll bow out and refer interested readers to one of our previous go-rounds about this topic - http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=135825 Enjoy! Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,442 by boxley 7/3/13 8:33:35 AM Reply	why, I was right that time as well :-) 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 58 years. meep
Post #377,445 by Another Scott 7/3/13 8:55:09 AM Reply	Heh. No. :-)
Post #377,453 by mmoffitt 7/3/13 1:14:14 PM Reply	How'd I miss that thread? ;0)
Post #377,457 by Another Scott 7/3/13 2:49:15 PM Reply	Just lucky I guess. It's fun how threads keep getting recycled every few years, isn't it? :-D Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,641 by mmoffitt 7/6/13 11:39:29 AM Reply	The best part is... as heated as these threads can sometimes get, everyone comes back because for almost everyone, no matter how vehemently we disagree, we all afford each other a measure of respect.
Post #377,645 by Another Scott 7/6/13 12:07:28 PM Reply	Indeed!

Welcome to IWETHEY!