Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Delta4Embassy]

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”

Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

Yes, very interesting. And? Did you have an opinion to discuss or do you work for the source and want more circulation?

 

[Ravi]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

If three people enter into an LLC, if one of the partners died does the LLC still exist, and who gets custody of the client list?

All you have to do is look at the LLC founding docs

It's boilerplate crap

So your answer is that a marriage contract is like an LLC and if one member dies, the remaining members are still married?

Might be, on the other hand, the founders might have agreed on dissolution, upon the death of a partner, prior to acceptance of the terms.

Either way, boilerplate crap

So no survivor benefits?

 

[Pop23]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

If three people enter into an LLC, if one of the partners died does the LLC still exist, and who gets custody of the client list?

All you have to do is look at the LLC founding docs

It's boilerplate crap

So your answer is that a marriage contract is like an LLC and if one member dies, the remaining members are still married?

Might be, on the other hand, the founders might have agreed on dissolution, upon the death of a partner, prior to acceptance of the terms.

Either way, boilerplate crap

So no survivor benefits?

Read the founding docs and any amendments.

Capice

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So, let's see here. We have been taught that something is icky poo. Nobody can say WHY it is icky poo, only that it is. Since we have been taught this, and despite the fact no real reasons have been provided as the basis of our beliefs, we don't want all those icky-poo people to have the same rights we do. Accordingly, we need to go on message boards and fight over the use of words, because tat is the REALLY important thing, here.

Am I missing anything?

 

[Ravi]

LLCs are business entities. Not sure the comparison would be valid.

 

[martybegan]

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”

Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

Yes, very interesting. And? Did you have an opinion to discuss or do you work for the source and want more circulation?

I think he's pretty spot on, especially about the silliness of arguing FOR gay marriage but suddenly saying it won't lead to/be against legal plural marriage.

 

[martybegan]

Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.

Yes, massah, guess wes gots to leaves the figurin of our freedoms to our bettahs. Move alon, Move alon.

Your do not live alone in society. End of story.

So living in society means bending to every whim of said society, no matter how minuscule or nonsensical?

This is right around where you earn your "Starkey slurps governmental dick" reply. Congrats.

You're just upset because you look like a fool.

LOLZ.

 

[martybegan]

Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.

You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.

First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.

Actually, you are responsible for the information you post. I'll make a note of your Republican posting integrity and personal responsibility.

So if I post a tract from Mein Kampf, I have to agree with it?

Duh.

If you are using it to argue in favor of your case, yup.

So I would agree with mein kampf If I stated my case is "Hitler is a fucktard who could have been stopped if the leaders at the time read the damn thing, because his whole plan was all there" ?

That's using it to argue in favor of my case, not agreeing with it.

Your point is invalid.

 

[candycorn]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Appropriate quote of the day:

Josh Lyman: I like you guys that want to reduce the size of government, make it just small enough so it can fit in our bedrooms.

 

[Pop23]

LLCs are business entities. Not sure the comparison would be valid.

The boilerplate exists. No need to create a buttload of new laws.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Since the definition of marriage has now been completely turned upside down, I don't see how you can now argue against other partnerships wanting to marry.
What is the argument against more than two people agreeing to be wed together ?

 

[bodecea]

You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.

First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.

Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.

There is a large difference like I explained.

There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.

His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.

There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"

No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.

And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).

Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?

Right next to where straight marriage is enshrined as a civil right.

 

[Ravi]

LLCs are business entities. Not sure the comparison would be valid.

The boilerplate exists. No need to create a buttload of new laws.

It exists for a business and it exists for a two party marriage.

It doesn't exist for multiple marriage unless you claim multiple marriage is simply a business arrangement.

 

[dilloduck]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

LMAO-----do you intend to tell people how to define things now ? I define you as a partisan hack. What are you going to do about it ?

 

[dilloduck]

First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.

Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.

There is a large difference like I explained.

There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.

His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.

There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"

No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.

And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).

Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?

Right next to where straight marriage is enshrined as a civil right.

There is no "straight" marriage. There is marriage and there is what homosexuals call their union.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

LMAO-----do you intend to tell people how to define things now ? I define you as a partisan hack. What are you going to do about it ?

Point you out as a fool every time you do it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.

There is a large difference like I explained.

There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.

His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.

There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"

No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.

And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).

Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?

Right next to where straight marriage is enshrined as a civil right.

There is no "straight" marriage. There is marriage and there is what homosexuals call their union.

There is only marriage.

 

[dilloduck]

His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.

There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"

No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.

And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).

Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?

Right next to where straight marriage is enshrined as a civil right.

There is no "straight" marriage. There is marriage and there is what homosexuals call their union.

There is only marriage.

no there is not----there are different types of marriages now. You have to embrace the difference, liberal boy.

 

[Dana7360]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.

Such a simplistic understanding of how the world works. Its almost precious.

There can be plenty of other restrictions on a contract, even the marriage contract. You have to pass a blood test, you can't be related within a certain degree, and you can only have one at a time. All of those are perfectly valid legal restrictions above the three you posted.

Next, I would vote FOR same sex marriage if it came up in a referendum, my opposition comes when it is based on judicial fiat in opposition of the separation of powers found in the constitution.

Next, unlike gays, blacks are smart enough to go to service providers who want to cater to them. Also, sooner or later black religious people will be sued for this crap under PA laws, once the degree of acceptable "outness" in the black community approaches that of the white community. Watch how support for PA laws among the socially conservative blacks dried up after that.

Finally, the definition of a PA has been warped to include every business out there. Services for a wedding are not PA's.

Maybe in your state you had to go through all that to get a marriage license but I didn't in my state. All hubby and I had to do was go and fill out a form. No one asked for a blood test and no one asked if we were related. We were asked our age though.

So whatever backward place you live in sure isn't where I live.

As for a contract, I took business law in college. I learned about contracts. What I stated is all that's required for a contract. Some contracts need to have a notary emboss but that's mostly for legal court documents such as garnishments etc.

Contrary to what you believe, gay people go to where they will get the service or goods they need. They won't go where they will be denied whatever service or goods they're looking for.

There are exceptions like when the gay person has no other option. Then they will go to the only place they can get that service or goods. Just like any other person.

You can try to turn this into something it's not but you're not going to succeed with intelligent people. Especially people who have known gay people for decades. Like I have. I even know a, gasp in horror, transgender person. Who went through the surgery for the sex change.

There are all kinds of people in this world. Just because they're different isn't any excuse to discriminate them.

One of the things that makes America such and exceptional place is the fact that we don't discriminate and when it happens, we can correct it. As what is happening now with marriage equality.

None of it affects you. If you're not gay then none of this will have any impact on your life in any way. Which is why I have to wonder why you care about it so much.

 

[JFK_USA]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.

I would add a 4th item in that you need valid consideration for an enforceable contract but that's usually a given because of the relationship of the parties.

But you hit it on the head with the business license part. They signed a contract with the government to abide by the law and to serve the public. That's what you agreed to do. If you didn't want to do that, don't apply for a business license. Unless someone held a gun to your head or threatened some sort of violence to you or your immediate family (ie. Duress), then you are bound by the terms of the agreement in the business license contract. YOU agree to sell to the public, then YOU sell to the public without discrimination. That's the law you agree to abide by.