Three Simple Questions No One Can Seem to Answer About Gay Marriage

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think they care HOW they get to remodel society into their own image, as long as they get to.

I'm not so sure that liberals are so much trying to "remodel society into their own image" as they are more concerned with simply trying to rescuing society from what the conservatives would like to turn it into.

I'm sure that's how you'd like to think of it, but given that conservatives "would like to turn it into" what it was previously, "rescuing it" from that would require remodeling it into something different, which makes my statement true by your own admission, and your attempt to contradict it nothing but self-deluding semantic games.

Thanks for playing. Buh bye.

 

[eflatminor]

it’s merely a matter of equal access to marriage laws for everyone.

Question for you. What about a couple that chooses to live their lives as partners, perhaps raise children, but because of deeply personal reasons, cannot be married. Should they be barred from the government provided benefits marriage affords?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Question for you. What about a couple that chooses to live their lives as partners, perhaps raise children, but because of deeply personal reasons, cannot be married. Should they be barred from the government provided benefits marriage affords?

It’s not a matter of being ‘barred’ from anything, as it’s their decision not to enter into a marriage contract. And with that decision the knowledge that they’re not entitled to any benefit of marriage government might afford.

The issue with same-sex couples’ access to marriage is that they be allowed themselves to make the decision to marry or not, not the state.

 

[Cecilie1200]

it’s merely a matter of equal access to marriage laws for everyone.

Question for you. What about a couple that chooses to live their lives as partners, perhaps raise children, but because of deeply personal reasons, cannot be married. Should they be barred from the government provided benefits marriage affords?

Answer for you: Yes.

The government doesn't sanction marriage to benefit the two people involved. It does so because the particular institution - marriage - benefits children and benefits society as a whole. Cohabitation, whether you do it for a long time or produce children or whatever, is not marriage. Not only does it not, as an institution (if it can even be called that), offer the same benefits to society, but it is not government's job to run around investigating each individual relationship as to its nature, longevity, and quality.

Laws are pretty much one-size-fits-all, blanket propositions, and marriages are extremely quick and easy to prove. If you don't want to bother to get the legal, contractual commitment which the government recognizes, then it's YOUR fault you don't get treated as though you did.

By the way, this view of marriage as this endless cornucopia of bennies and opportunity is always fairly amusing to me whenever anyone spouts it. I can only assume that the people saying this have never been married themselves, much less had children inside a marriage.

Allow me to quote Thomas Sowell on this, as I have done before, since I cannot improve on his phrasing:

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

 

[Dr Grump]

Answer for you: Yes.

The government doesn't sanction marriage to benefit the two people involved. It does so because the particular institution - marriage - benefits children and benefits society as a whole. Cohabitation, whether you do it for a long time or produce children or whatever, is not marriage. Not only does it not, as an institution (if it can even be called that), offer the same benefits to society, but it is not government's job to run around investigating each individual relationship as to its nature, longevity, and quality.

The bolded parts. Exhibit A as to why you're a blithering idiot...

 

[eflatminor]

Question for you. What about a couple that chooses to live their lives as partners, perhaps raise children, but because of deeply personal reasons, cannot be married. Should they be barred from the government provided benefits marriage affords?

It’s not a matter of being ‘barred’ from anything, as it’s their decision not to enter into a marriage contract. And with that decision the knowledge that they’re not entitled to any benefit of marriage government might afford.

The issue with same-sex couples’ access to marriage is that they be allowed themselves to make the decision to marry or not, not the state.

You're offering benefits to citizens willing to join your club and barring those benefits from couples that cannot marry. It's not a matter of deciding not to marry, many cannot possibly marry anymore than a gay person can just go straight. It's who they are. That means your marriage benefits are granted to some but not all...and we're right back to the 14th amendment issues you're touting as reasons to allow gay marriage.

Just as importantly, it's a loosing battle. The feds are not going to allow it because it's a state issue, as Obama and Romney agree. The states are generally saying no. You'd be far better off soliciting the federal and state governments to remove loopholes and special privileges for married couples so that any couple can be treated equally. We don't need government to defend, protect or define marriage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Question for you. What about a couple that chooses to live their lives as partners, perhaps raise children, but because of deeply personal reasons, cannot be married. Should they be barred from the government provided benefits marriage affords?

It’s not a matter of being ‘barred’ from anything, as it’s their decision not to enter into a marriage contract. And with that decision the knowledge that they’re not entitled to any benefit of marriage government might afford.

The issue with same-sex couples’ access to marriage is that they be allowed themselves to make the decision to marry or not, not the state.

You're offering benefits to citizens willing to join your club and barring those benefits from couples that cannot marry. It's not a matter of deciding not to marry, many cannot possibly marry anymore than a gay person can just go straight. It's who they are. That means your marriage benefits are granted to some but not all...and we're right back to the 14th amendment issues you're touting as reasons to allow gay marriage.

Just as importantly, it's a loosing battle. The feds are not going to allow it because it's a state issue, as Obama and Romney agree. The states are generally saying no. You'd be far better off soliciting the federal and state governments to remove loopholes and special privileges for married couples so that any couple can be treated equally. We don't need government to defend, protect or define marriage.

What, may I ask, are these splendiferous "benefits" you claim I'm getting from the government for "joining the club"? What are these "loopholes" and "special privileges"?

And unless you're going to claim some sort of heretofore-undiagnosed mental disorder that prevents people from getting married the way other people do, you may color me unimpressed to the point of derisive about this argument. Your commitment-phobia is not my problem or the government's, nor are either of us under any obligation to equate your "shacking up because I can't commit" to marriage, or anything else that's actually deserving of respect. If you can't make the commitment that I made, then you AREN'T equal to me, and shouldn't be treated as though you are. A **** buddy isn't a wife, son, and a cad isn't a husband.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Question for you. What about a couple that chooses to live their lives as partners, perhaps raise children, but because of deeply personal reasons, cannot be married. Should they be barred from the government provided benefits marriage affords?

It’s not a matter of being ‘barred’ from anything, as it’s their decision not to enter into a marriage contract. And with that decision the knowledge that they’re not entitled to any benefit of marriage government might afford.

The issue with same-sex couples’ access to marriage is that they be allowed themselves to make the decision to marry or not, not the state.

Are you saying that the government can give, or deny, benefits based on the choices people make? How does that fit in with your argument that access to those benefits is a right? If they can hinge the marriage benefit on a person's choice to get married, why can't they say that you have to marry someone of the same sex to get that benefit? Do you think that being married somehow prevents people from having sex with anyone they want?

You should shut up now, because, if you keep trying to defend same sex marriage using the arguments you are trying to use, you will end up making the case for the other side.

 

[BillyV]

Don't redefine the word 'marriage' or 'marry'.
Seems simple enough.

No one is seeking to ‘redefine’ anything, marriage remains the same and unchanged: a contractual obligation between two equal parties:

The marital bargain in California (along with otherstates) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals.Perry v. Brown

Because marriage is a union of equals, there is no logical, legal reason for same-sex couples to be excluded from entering into such a contract.
Again, the issue has never been about ‘redefining’ marriage, or ‘forcing’ anything on anyone, it’s merely a matter of equal access to marriage laws for everyone.

I’m not a constitutional scholar (and I don’t play one on TV), but it seems based on the writings of the Court in the Lawrence case, they didn’t consider gay marriage to be settled case law.

Kennedy wrote for the majority in Lawrence:

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

“O'Connor's [concurring] opinion was broader than the majority's, for as Antonin Scalia noted in dissent it explicitly cast doubt on whether laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples could pass rational-basis scrutiny. O'Connor explicitly noted in her opinion that a law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would pass the rational scrutiny as long as it was designed to "preserv[e] the traditional institution of marriage" and not simply based on the state's dislike of homosexual persons.”

(yes, this is from Wikipedia; I said I wasn’t a legal eagle, right?)

Whenever there is a discussion of the “right” of gay marriage it’s at least in part about the benefits heterosexual couples receive (1,138 Federal benefits is the number I have seen), but do gay couples have a right to expect the same benefits as traditional heterosexual couples?

The laws surrounding traditional marriage have evolved over hundreds (or probably thousands) of years (unlike the President’s “evolution” that took just over 3 years). This evolution has always been based on the understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman. Marriage in this sense is a supremely paternalistic institution, and assumes a union of unequals, or at least a union with specifically designed roles. Traditional marriage laws assume that the husband is the main provider, which allows the wife the flexibility to provide for the home and care of children, and therefore the financial wherewithal is assumed to be with the husband. Many (if not most) of the benefits afforded to traditional married couples are the result of this assumption, often to enhance the wife’s security. It would not be necessary, for instance, to allow for spousal health coverage if both spouses are expected to work outside the home. Since the wife relegates her option to pursue a career to being a caregiver, it would unfair if, when the husband dies, she was not able to access the same retirement benefits or the untaxed estate as if the husband were still alive, since she gave up her right to create her own estate for the good of the family unit. Even joint tax returns are only beneficial in situations where one spouse has significantly less income than the other and was really designed with the single support of two in mind; one of the recent problems of two-earner couples was the “marriage penalty” that resulted when the two earned a similar amount.

So, since there is no supposed “weaker sex” in a same-sex union, why would we provide the same protections that are provided to traditional couples? By extension, perhaps we should update the benefits afforded to traditional married couples to reflect the reality of the 21st century, where women often earn more than their husbands and require no such benefits.

I don’t care whether the federal government recognizes gay marriage or not; I have no religious or moral agenda. As a conservative I support less government interference in the right of individuals to free association in whatever way they choose. However, this issue isn’t about the rights of individuals, which as I see it have not been violated (marriage as it is currently defined is available to anyone); it’s about the right of the government to promote what it sees as the common good; whether rightly or wrongly is a matter of debate.

See Romer for the on-point case law.

Marriage is not available to same-sex couples, which violates equal access doctrine, whether one construes that as an ‘individual right’ or not is immaterial.

The fact remains that restricting same-sex couples from marriage represents government excess, is a violation of the rule of law, and undermines the republican form of government guaranteed to the states by the Constitution. Strangely, one would think conservatives very much in support of equal access to marriage law accordingly.

Since you chose to snip pieces of my post that you felt were relevant, I have included the entire post here. As I understand it, Romer not only predates Lawrence but, according to Wikipedia's write up (yes, again), Romer "set the stage for Lawrence". Your comment that Romer is on-point is irrelevant to my point, which was that two Supreme Court justices, writing for the majority, insisted that not only did Lawrence (and presumably prior precedent) not involve nor sanction gay marriage; O'Connor went further, to say that the law simply had to be "designed to "preserv[e] the traditional institution of marriage" and not simply based on the state's dislike of homosexual persons" in order to pass the rational basis test. These opinions were written with full knowledge of the decisions in Romer. I have to assume these justices knew what they were talking about.
As far as "restricting same-sex couples from marriage", that isn't really true; gays can marry and their marriage will be recognized by the government if it meets the definition of marriage. If not, they are not precluded from calling themselves married, their union simply will not be recognized by the government. The government rewards and punishes many types of behaviors; what exactly makes this different? If you want to take advantage of a mortgage deduction, you have to buy a house and live in it as your principal residence. Does that infringe on the right of the next door neighbor who lives in a rental house? No, the government has a vested interest in promoting home ownership to provide stability; ownership ties you to a property in a way that renting does not. Similarly, government has determined that it is in its best interest to promote marriage, based on its current definition. Everyone who enters into a legal marriage has whatever rights and responsibilities that entails. What you want is to amend the definition of marriage to include not only one man and one woman, but also same-sex unions, and that is your right to advocate for that policy, just as it is within other’s rights to oppose it. In the end, the Supreme Court will decide the issue; any law that either recognizes gay marriage or does not recognize it will ultimately end up in court.

 

[Qball]

Hmm, let me try:

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

You make a few subtly erroneous, and in some cases, presumptuous, assertions in your opening that make this question...non-answerable.

First of all, you gloss over the fact that every case that's established marriage as a right does with the understanding that marriage is the union of a man and woman. No case you mentioned establishes marriage as a right while submitting to some newfangled or controversial definition (i.e. same-sex marriage, polygamy, etc)

Second, "equal access" and "equal protection" aren't the same thing. "Equal access", in this case, means changing the law to make something more appealing to a broader group of people, which is decidedly non-constitutional. "Equal protection" refers to laws passed that abridge fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property, and that citizens must be protected irrespective of, not because of, race, religion, creed, nation of origin, etc. Having a legal marriage doesn't "protect" anyone from anything, and if you argue that it does, isn't the real discrepancy that there are essentially more protections for marriage individuals than single individuals?

Third, we're not talking about upholding laws that deny gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex. They're not denied equality under the law; the law just doesn't pertain to their preference of a spouse. That isn't the same as being denied the right to marry.

So, your first question is erroneous, which is probably why no one has answered it yet.

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

Interesting use of "flaming", but no. Many conservatives disagree with gay marriage for any number of reasons, but it's not true that the constitution creates a clear entitlement to gay marriage.

Understand, the unique thing about gay marriage is it's simply not of the law. It's unique because in the other marriage cases you cite, there was a law that precluded marriage to fulfill a penalogical purpose, or rather, to punish.

In Loving, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 punished interracial marriage between a white and nonwhite person with fines and prison sentences. In Redhail, the plaintiff was denied a marriage license for being in arrears for child support. In Turner, a prisoner was denied the right to marry. These cases weren't over the mere definition of marriage, but over laws created to deny the right to marry for reasons unrelated to marriage.

So to answer your question, it isn't true that conservatives support a denial of constitutional rights. First there has to be mutual agreement on what that right is before you go accusing people of denying others of it.

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

Heh, good question. I'd like to know the answer to this as well.