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

[emilynghiem]

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"

 

[320 Years of History]

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

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A marriage contract is nothing but a property contract

 

[Witchit]

I see no reason that there should be 'separate but equal' for marriage.

 

[FA_Q2]

I see no reason that there should be 'separate but equal' for marriage.

What does that phrase mean in context of marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

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"

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'

 

[Syriusly]

A marriage contract is nothing but a property contract

. 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."

 

[GaryDog]

How is this still an issue worthy of debate?

Gay marriage is just marriage. Sorry, bigots.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A marriage contract is nothing but a property contract

. 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."

There is nothing sacred about it. it is a property contract as is evidenced by divorce decisions where the major issue is always property

 

[oldsoul]

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.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Uh, no it wasn't. It was almost always a property transaction. Government confers benefits for marriage on the rational basis that it supports and incentivizes stability in the family, and thus stability in the community.

Otherwise, you're claiming my marriage was "religious", when in fact my wife and I are both atheists.

 

[jwoodie]

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.

 

[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

 

[Witchit]

I see no reason that there should be 'separate but equal' for marriage.

What does that phrase mean in context of marriage?

See post #7.

 

[Agit8r]

"so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict"

There isn't a religious conflict. Legal marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one.

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Traditional Marriage"

 

[rightwinger]

"so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict"

There isn't a religious conflict. Legal marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one.

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Traditional Marriage"

Your religion is free to discriminate all they wish

They just can't force their religious beliefs on the government

 

[Agit8r]

"so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict"

There isn't a religious conflict. Legal marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one.

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Traditional Marriage"

Your religion is free to discriminate all they wish

They just can't force their religious beliefs on the government

yup

 

[FA_Q2]

I see no reason that there should be 'separate but equal' for marriage.

What does that phrase mean in context of marriage?

See post #7.

Post 7 has nothing to do with my question at all.

Outline exactly what is meant by the phrase 'separate but equal' in the context of marriage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

which is why the government should no longer recognize marriages performed in religious ceremonies as legal.
If people , ALL people, want there marriages to be sanctioned by the state then the ceremony must be performed by a government official

Quite frankly I think the marriage license should be all that's needed and that the ceremony is superfluous but I understand people's need for such things

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally"

No.

Separate but equal is just as un-Constitutional today as it was in 1954.

Indeed, that the question is even being asked illustrates continued unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans, and a desire by some to violate their 14th Amendment rights.