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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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"

The answer is this

The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people

Religious fanatics and extreme rightwing haters are trying to prevent those rights to gay couples

There is no other entity than the GOVERNMENT that can enforce those rights

Correct.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts – contract law that can accommodate two equal adult partners in a committed relationship – same- or opposite-sex.

And that contract is not just between the marrying couple, but involves the state as well, where the state recognizes marriage to be beneficial to society as a whole and acknowledges that benefit accordingly.

For government to not acknowledge the benefit of a same-sex marriage contract predicated solely on bigotry and an unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Indeed, just as the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law, so too are the states prohibited by the 14th Amendment from denying married same-sex couples the benefits of the marriage contract entered into with the state.

 

[rightwinger]

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"

The answer is this

The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people

Religious fanatics and extreme rightwing haters are trying to prevent those rights to gay couples

There is no other entity than the GOVERNMENT that can enforce those rights

Correct.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts – contract law that can accommodate two equal adult partners in a committed relationship – same- or opposite-sex.

And that contract is not just between the marrying couple, but involves the state as well, where the state recognizes marriage to be beneficial to society as a whole and acknowledges that benefit accordingly.

For government to not acknowledge the benefit of a same-sex marriage contract predicated solely on bigotry and an unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Indeed, just as the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law, so too are the states prohibited by the 14th Amendment from denying married same-sex couples the benefits of the marriage contract entered into with the state.

It all comes down to the YUCK factor

For generations, the idea of a black person and a white person marrying and having children of mixed race was considered Yucky
The government responded by banning such unions on a state by state basis

Many today have the same YUCKY feelings about same sex couples. It is yucky to see them holding hands and showing affection in public. That is why they tried to use government to ban such unions.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Except marriage is not a religious institution in the United States.

We do have separation of church and state when it comes to marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Civil marriage has only one legitimate interest- the welfare of children, which is almost always better with twp parents in the home. Otherwise, the government has no business rewarding the living arrangements of consenting adults.

As a married person, it gives me great pleasure to say you are of course wrong.

The State doesn't care whether my 80 year old uncle marries a 70 year old- because marriage is not primarily about children. It is primarily about a partnership between two people.

Two people are almost always better than one when it comes to being financially independent.

 

[depotoo]

And general happiness and length of life

Civil marriage has only one legitimate interest- the welfare of children, which is almost always better with twp parents in the home. Otherwise, the government has no business rewarding the living arrangements of consenting adults.

As a married person, it gives me great pleasure to say you are of course wrong.

The State doesn't care whether my 80 year old uncle marries a 70 year old- because marriage is not primarily about children. It is primarily about a partnership between two people.

Two people are almost always better than one when it comes to being financially independent.

 

[Dragonlady]

What I fail to understand is all of the animosity directed towards gay marriage. Canada has had gay marriage for more than 10 years. It has absolutely no impact on the straight population, other than those who work in the wedding industry, which has seen a boost in use of their services.

Gay marriage does not impact on straight marriage at all. Opposition to gay marriage is based entirely on bigotry.

 

[320 Years of History]

Gay marriage does not impact on straight marriage at all.

IMO, the biggest threat to marriage is divorce. LOL

 

[jwoodie]

The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people

For what purpose?

 

[jwoodie]

Gay marriage does not impact on straight marriage at all.

IMO, the biggest threat to marriage is divorce. LOL

Actually, one of the biggest threats to marriage is No Fault divorce, which allows either party to destroy their family on a whim. In such circumstances, it is tantamount to child abuse.

 

[Slyhunter]

The Federal Government should not regulate marriage.
Problem solved.

 

[rightwinger]

The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people

For what purpose?

To piss off libertarians

 

[rightwinger]

The Federal Government should not regulate marriage.
Problem solved.

Who enforces the legal obligations as they relate to common property, and children?
Who provides tax exemptions?

 

[Slyhunter]

The Federal Government should not regulate marriage.
Problem solved.

Who enforces the legal obligations as they relate to common property, and children?
Who provides tax exemptions?

business contracts.

 

[rightwinger]

The Federal Government should not regulate marriage.
Problem solved.

Who enforces the legal obligations as they relate to common property, and children?
Who provides tax exemptions?

business contracts.

Who enforces business contracts?

 

[yiostheoy]

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"

With the SCOTUS having decided this issue already, in a close vote, with Kennedy casting the deciding vote in favor of gay marriage, the issue is now finally decided.

With Scalia now deceased, and Hillary set to nominate the next several SCOTUS justices, you are wasting your breath and everyone else's time.

That marriage in the USA like so many other nations involves tax, inheritance, and visitation rights and benefits, the issue is significant and therefore now settled.

As far as the church related issues of what to call marriage versus civil unions, the last time the Catholics were in charge they gave us the Inquisition and torture.

The last time the Protestants were in charge they brought us the Salem witch trials and burnings at the stake.

Do you really want to marry church and state again? Really?

 

[FA_Q2]

The Federal Government should not regulate marriage.
Problem solved.

Who enforces the legal obligations as they relate to common property, and children?
Who provides tax exemptions?

business contracts.

Who enforces business contracts?

Enforcement does not equal regulate. That is why they are 2 different words.

 

[Picaro]

The government should promote marriage and stable families, and should not only through tax breaks but subsidies to promote strong nuclear families. IT does have a very strong interest in such a national policy, especially with financial stress being a primary cause of divorces.

'Gay marriage' is a joke, a red herring, and serves no purpose other than validating a neurotic fetish and mental disorder; allowing them to adopt children is a crime, pure and simple.

 

[GaryDog]

Gay marriage does not impact on straight marriage at all.

IMO, the biggest threat to marriage is divorce. LOL

I think you meant "cure" haha

 

[GaryDog]

The government should promote marriage and stable families, and should not only through tax breaks but subsidies to promote strong nuclear families. IT does have a very strong interest in such a national policy, especially with financial stress being a primary cause of divorces.

'Gay marriage' is a joke, a red herring, and serves no purpose other than validating a neurotic fetish and mental disorder; allowing them to adopt children is a crime, pure and simple.

You're a bigoted sack of shit. Pure and simple.

 

[Picaro]

The government should promote marriage and stable families, and should not only through tax breaks but subsidies to promote strong nuclear families. IT does have a very strong interest in such a national policy, especially with financial stress being a primary cause of divorces.

'Gay marriage' is a joke, a red herring, and serves no purpose other than validating a neurotic fetish and mental disorder; allowing them to adopt children is a crime, pure and simple.

You're a bigoted sack of shit. Pure and simple.

You're a sick degenerate with zero morals or principles; that's probably why your 'career choice' was 'tax attorney'.