CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by emilynghiem, Jul 1, 2016.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,293
    Thanks Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,093
    sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

    To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

    In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

    Here are SB original questions:
    ==================
    Dear Emily,

    Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
    ===============

    My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

    They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

    Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

    So the debate question I will frame this as, are
    "Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"
     
  2. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    The question above and the related clarifying remarks found in the paragraph from which the quote comes, understanding all of it to be rephrasings of the title question, is, in my mind, answered, "basically, no."

    My answer is "basically, no" because in the U.S. our laws are written, enforced and interpreted by organs of government. As long as that remains so, some unit of government will have to be involved if/when there are disputes about "who gets what."

    Could people agree to some sort of non-governmental organization or individual being an arbiter? Yes, they could, but that agreement would be binding only on its signatories. It seems highly unlikely that parties on either side of a benefits dissensus such as that which you've described would beforehand sign such an pact.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    38,710
    Thanks Received:
    5,317
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +14,424
    A marriage contract is nothing but a property contract
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Witchit
    Offline

    Witchit VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
    Messages:
    566
    Thanks Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +571
    I see no reason that there should be 'separate but equal' for marriage.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,013
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    What does that phrase mean in context of marriage?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    42,736
    Thanks Received:
    5,611
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +16,212
    Marriage is marriage.

    IF a married couple has legal obligations, responsibilities and benefits for being married, then that extends to everyone who is married.

    If you want to legally differentiate between gay couples who are married and everyone else- the answer is 'no'
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    42,736
    Thanks Received:
    5,611
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +16,212

    . Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
     
  8. GaryDog
    Offline

    GaryDog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    4,371
    Thanks Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +2,529
    How is this still an issue worthy of debate?

    Gay marriage is just marriage. Sorry, bigots.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    38,710
    Thanks Received:
    5,317
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +14,424
    There is nothing sacred about it. it is a property contract as is evidenced by divorce decisions where the major issue is always property
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,237
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,157
    I must admit, I did not read one word of the OP. I have just one question that points to my stance on the whole issue of Marriage; Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

    Why is Government in the business of marriage in the first place? It is, originally, a religious institution after all. Libs love to cite "separation of church and state", except when it serves their agenda.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page