The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

All that stuff can be taken care of with private contracts.

That's complete nonsense.

Verified. (i.e., that it's completely wrong.)

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Agreed. Someone (Billvon IIRC) said in one of the previous gay marriage threads that it would be a whole lot simpler in the long run to have government only recognize "civil unions" between 2 consenting adults, and leave the "marriage" part to the churches. That would take care of survivor benefits, property rights, health care decisions, all that stuff.

All that stuff can be taken care of with private contracts. No need for the state to impose those things at all.

Try telling the military that your death benefits should go to your same-sex SO because you have a contract that says so.

Ideally, it'd be nice if we could take care of those things privately, but in today's world, we can't.

[tkhayes 348]

that is a great essay.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple?

IIRC there are 1100+ rights/privileges granted to married couples at the federal level. The words marriage, husband and wife are in the statutes.

These range from Social Security spousal survivor benefits to family discounts at the National Parks.

SO co-opting a perfectly good word of ancient origin and well defined meaning to mean something new is really just a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Every one of the rights enjoyed by hetero married couples COULD be enjoyed by gay couples without corrupting the English language, but it would take a little bit more legislative effort.

While we are about it, we could just redefine "male" to mean "female", "dog" to mean "cat", and the prefix "hetero" to mean "homo".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

some sort of BS blanket clause, to overcome that.

I don't see why a blanket clause wouldn't just do the trick.

Then, when we realize that treating everybody the same is even more cost prohibitive, we can then go about eliminating some pointless benefits associated with all type of legal, personal partnering.

Effectively eliminating a two special interest groups - those with partners and single people - and start treating everyone as individuals as far as the government is concerned.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

SO co-opting a perfectly good word of ancient origin and well defined meaning to mean something new is really just a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Every one of the rights enjoyed by hetero married couples COULD be enjoyed by gay couples without corrupting the English language, but it would take a little bit more legislative effort.

While we are about it, we could just redefine "male" to mean "female" and "dog" to mean "cat".

The issue really comes down to "separate but equal is inherently unequal".

It doesn't matter what word we use to define the granting of legal status on a relationship, but we have to use the SAME word for all relationships. When we get into the semantics of "you can't have THIS, but you can have THAT." we get into equal rights issues. (I can't drink out of this fountain, but I can drink out of that one...)

We currently have a problem largely because we're using a single word, "marriage", to mean two entirely different things. One is a religious sacrament with a lot of history behind it (along with a lot of emotions). The other is a legal status conferring a lot of rights and privileges along with it.

The government has no business recognizing a religious sacrament, and religions should be free of government interference and regulation of their sacraments. If the government must be in the business of recognizing relationships, let people go to the government for a civil union, and to the church for a marriage. People can then have one, the other, or neither as they see fit. Churches can perform only straight marriages, or perform straight and gay marriages without any interference from the government, and the government can recognize gay and straight civil unions.

As for changing the laws, government codes are re-printed every year anyway. Having to change the wording is not an excuse. A grandfather clause would take care of the status of the current marriages.

[wmw999 2,548]

Quote

I don't see why a blanket clause wouldn't just do the trick.

Because a blanket clause would undoubtedly be challenged in the particulars. Again, and again, and again, to make it as painful as possible, to "teach the gummint a lesson." Either because of some perceived missed thing, or because of disagreement with the thought that homosexuals might actually be getting something.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

SO co-opting a perfectly good word of ancient origin and well defined meaning to mean something new is really just a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Every one of the rights enjoyed by hetero married couples COULD be enjoyed by gay couples without corrupting the English language, but it would take a little bit more legislative effort.

While we are about it, we could just redefine "male" to mean "female" and "dog" to mean "cat".

The issue really comes down to "separate but equal is inherently unequal".

We use the word "person" to avoid gender problems in laws. "Union" would do the same in this context and keep "marriage" to its original well defined meaning.

Quote

It doesn't matter what word we use to define the granting of legal status on a relationship, but we have to use the SAME word for all relationships. When we get into the semantics of "you can't have THIS, but you can have THAT." we get into equal rights issues. (I can't drink out of this fountain, but I can drink out of that one...)

We currently have a problem largely because we're using a single word, "marriage", to mean two entirely different things. One is a religious sacrament with a lot of history behind it (along with a lot of emotions). The other is a legal status conferring a lot of rights and privileges along with it.

Yep.

Quote

The government has no business recognizing a religious sacrament, and religions should be free of government interference and regulation of their sacraments. If the government must be in the business of recognizing relationships, let people go to the government for a civil union, and to the church for a marriage. People can then have one, the other, or neither as they see fit. Churches can perform only straight marriages, or perform straight and gay marriages without any interference from the government, and the government can recognize gay and straight civil unions.

Yep.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Ok, change all the places in federal law that say "marriage" to "union" and "husband" or "wife" to "partner" (or some equivalent).

I am guessing that there would have to be thousands (probably tens of thousands).

And each one would have to be changed.

A blanket "change them all" wouldn't work (for the reasons above).

I think getting the religious types to accept the word "marriage" applied to same sex couples would be easier

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

The issue really comes down to "separate but equal is inherently unequal".

It doesn't matter what word we use to define the granting of legal status on a relationship, but we have to use the SAME word for all relationships...

Well said!

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Southern_Man 0]

Property rights and inheritances can currently be taken care of through private contracts.

Health care decision making can be taken care of through durable powers of attorney.

There are only a few "rights" that depend upon governement recognition of marriage or partnership. The tax status, which I am find w/ doing away with. Some insurance and pension things. The insurance and pension are currently often dependent on legal status but they are not necessarily so, as many private companies have been offering domestic partner rights for some time even in the absence of legal sanction of such arrangements.

It is a long way from where we are now, but it is not necessary for the governement to recognize unions at all.

I am in favor, if the governement is going to recognize unions, of the governement recognizing them all equally and using the same word.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Because a blanket clause would undoubtedly be challenged in the particulars. Again, and again, and again, to make it as painful as possible, to "teach the gummint a lesson." (you're extrapolating to an agenda at this point)

I think it's a great thing to challenge the particulars. It would be an excellent way to look at every single government benefit to see if it's something they should delete for everybody due to it being a burden or a redistribution that adds no value.

Cut the benefit list to a minimum, and only on things that are directly (not inferred) as a default position on property/inheiritance/medicalPOA for unions. Completely delete all the stuff that's just money collection/transfer stuff as these are unequal bias either for or against singles vs couples.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There are only a few "rights" that depend upon governement recognition of marriage or partnership. The tax status, which I am find w/ doing away with. .......... if the governement is going to recognize unions, of the governement recognizing them all equally and using the same word.

absolutely - if the list of benefits was minimal and fair, then it would not be a big deal to make this short list something that can be handled contractually in the first place. Then the gov aspect would be a nit

use the same word - make something up if we have to. we do it all the time

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,548]

Does that mean that you guys are only for equal partnerships if national and state government fix all of the other verbiage to remove all the marriage-related stuff first?

Based on what you guys post, I'd have to say that you're not as much against equal partnerships as against too much government. Not sure how we can get less government (it's not human nature to make things less complicated).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Southern_Man 0]

I am for equal partnerships. I don't much care what they are called.

Somebody hit the nail on the head when they said the basic problem is we are using one word "marriage" to describe what is both a legal (property) status and a religious institution. Religious institutions can recognize or not recognize whoever they want.

I'm for less government in general and see no reason government should be regulating people's personal relationships but if governement is going to be in that business it should treat them all equally.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

I'm pretty good with that response

but I would like to see gov treat all partnerships equally, and if we are making a change to that (the right thing), then it's also a time to clean up what the treatment entails

Quote

from Wendy - fix all of the other verbiage to remove all the marriage-related stuff first

not remove it all, but take a critical look at it and prune it significantly

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

I personally wish the government would get out of the business of recognizing marriages altogether. Let people make whatever contractual arrangements they want between themselves.

I'm a realist so I know it won't happen but it is my libertarian dream.

+1 to me my upcoming marriage has nothing to do with what the govt. is recognizing. It is a commitment I am making to my fiancee and her son in front of those I care about and God. I wish they were out of it totally then if you are gay make what commitment you want and call it whatever you want. The only thing the govt. gives you is a tax benefit and a fee to get married. Right now I believe homosexuals get the same benefit minus the fee to be married. I think the govt should stay out of it and should never even have to define what marriage is to begin with. More than half the people that get married don't even realize what it really means and there are probably many homosexuals out there that have more of a marriage than many hetero married couples. Yup... my libertarian dream also

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The only thing the govt. gives you is a tax benefit

that's not true - sometimes it's a benefit, sometimes it's not - you can only say it gives you a different tax structure to be raped with

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

+1 to me my upcoming marriage has nothing to do with what the govt. is recognizing. It is a commitment I am making to my fiancee and her son in front of those I care about and God. I wish they were out of it totally then if you are gay make what commitment you want and call it whatever you want. The only thing the govt. gives you is a tax benefit and a fee to get married. Right now I believe homosexuals get the same benefit minus the fee to be married. I think the govt should stay out of it and should never even have to define what marriage is to begin with. More than half the people that get married don't even realize what it really means and there are probably many homosexuals out there that have more of a marriage than many hetero married couples. Yup... my libertarian dream also

You can choose to get married in your church and not register the marriage with the government. If your marriage really is just between you, your fiance, her son, and God, why bother getting a government marriage license?

You can also choose to do what most people do and get married and apply for the government benefits pertaining thereto. Gays don't have the second choice, and they should.

- Dan G

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

my upcoming marriage has nothing to do with what the govt. is recognizing. It is a commitment I am making to my fiancee and her son in front of those I care about and God.

So get "married" without the government. I'm pretty sure that we are free to perform whatever rituals we want to (without harming others) without the government's consent. If you don't want the legal part of it, don't take it.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

my upcoming marriage has nothing to do with what the govt. is recognizing. It is a commitment I am making to my fiancee and her son in front of those I care about and God.

So get "married" without the government. I'm pretty sure that we are free to perform whatever rituals we want to (without harming others) without the government's consent. If you don't want the legal part of it, don't take it.

I will take the benefit I get and would be stupid not to take it. That is not my point and my bad on the statement I made I did say "I believe". My point is I don't want the govt. involved at all! I don't think they should have a say in it at all and I also believe they should not be telling me or a homosexual what marriage is.

Just bc I believe the govt. should not be invilved does not mean I am not going to take the tax benefit that helps my family. Uncle Sam rapes me enough so I am going to take any and all advantage I can take to keep that tax as low as possible.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[billvon 3,079]

>I will take the benefit I get and would be stupid not to take it.

>I don't want the govt. involved at all!

And there we have one of the biggest problems with this issue. Would you be OK with your taxes going up by eliminating marriage as a legally recognized union (for purposes of taxation)? Imagine the screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth that would ensue when the pundits start in with "Obama (or Paul, or Romney) wants to TAX YOUR MARRIAGE!"

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

>I will take the benefit I get and would be stupid not to take it.

>I don't want the govt. involved at all!

And there we have one of the biggest problems with this issue. Would you be OK with your taxes going up by eliminating marriage as a legally recognized union (for purposes of taxation)? Imagine the screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth that would ensue when the pundits start in with "Obama (or Paul, or Romney) wants to TAX YOUR MARRIAGE!"

No because that is BS. Why would that give an excuse to raise taxes? Do homosexual couples get the same benefit under the tax code as a heterosexual married couple? It was my understanding that they did. I could be wrong..... Giving equal treatment does not give the right to increase taxes. That is the problem with the govt. as they probably would see that as an option.

I will say this very clearly...... I do not think they should be restricted from being "married" just so we are clear. It seems like I have said that but I'm still getting a bit of push back like I'm saying I think its wrong. I say its your life and uncle sam has no right telling you how or whom you choose to "marry".

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[DanG 1]

Quote

Do homosexual couples get the same benefit under the tax code as a heterosexual married couple?

No, according to the federal government there is no such thing as a homosexual married couple. Even if gay marriage is allowed in a certain state, the federal government doesn't recognize it.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,079]

>Why would that give an excuse to raise taxes?

It wouldn't; it would simply remove a tax break. (Note that it's not even always a tax break; for couples where both members make a similar high salary, there's actually a _penalty._)

But that's not how it would be sold. Right now, low income families, especially low income families where one member makes a moderate income and the other makes little to no money, get a tax break from being married. And for these people, removing that portion of the tax codet _would_ increase their taxes. So it would be sold as "Obama/Paul wants to RAISE TAXES ON POOR FAMILIES!"

I agree with you that eliminating government involvement would be a great idea. But with our current system, that would mean increasing the tax that some families pay, because right now the tax code DOES take into account marital status. And that's why it may be effectively easier to legalize gay marriage than de-legalize all marriages.

(Agree with the rest of your post as well.)