Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, so why are we clinging to a legal definition based on a religious ceremony, why do cling to
"person who am I fucking"?

Because it's not a religious ceremony, in truth it's time as a religious ceremony was a very brief period of human history. It's a legal contract.

 

[homewa]

Because it's not a religious ceremony, in truth it's time as a religious ceremony was a very brief period of human history. It's a legal contract.

But the issue is that it's a legal contract that still depends on the way the religious ceremony operates. Why should the person I fuck be the person I raise my kids with? Why should the person I raise my kids with be the one who gets to make medical decisions on my behalf? Why should a person who lives with somebody and is fucking them, get benefits beyond what a person who lives with somebody who lives with somebody and is just supporting them?

The baggage that we've brought by calling it "marriage" and by tying the legal contract to the previous religious things, is a very serious issue. That's what I take affront at. I recognize that marriage is a legal contract, I just think that we should have a more reasonable and logical legal contract.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Hard to believe that people actually think that that is any sort of rational argument.

They tried the exact same tack back when it was "you have the right to marry someone of your own race". The courts weren't buying it back then, either.

 

[1sickbastard]

But the issue is that it's a legal contract that still depends on the way the religious ceremony operates.

How so?
You say "the religious ceremony" like that has any meaning. The ceremony of which religion? Have you ever been to a pagan wedding? How about a biker wedding?

The idea that a wedding is validated by a religious ceremony is a hold over from the time that governing authority is somehow not legitimate unless supported by a religious authority.
But that ain't the reality under a secular gov't. I don't know where you're from, but in the USA, the principle which underlies our gov't is that power properly derives from the consent of the governed, not from any supernatural entity.
In this country, a marriage contract is about legal access and property rights in as far as the gov't is concerned. More to the point, even before Obergefell decision, two people (opposite sex in all states, same sex in the more enlightened states) could be legally married without ever once having set foot in a church or talked to a preacher. Conversely, any religious ceremony that denotes marriage must still require the proper documentation filed with the secular authorities to be considered legal.
So no, your contention that the legal contract of marriage is somehow dependent on any sort of religious precept, approval or validation is flat out WRONG and what you're left with is marriage equality is bad because 'fags are icky'.

And if that's your reason for opposing marriage equality, just have the guts to say it outright.
Not that 'fags are icky' is any more valid than any of the other bullshit arguments against marriage equality, but at least it's honest. As an added benefit, you'll make it easier to identify yourself as a bigot.

 

[mark_j]

But the issue is that it's a legal contract that still depends on the way the religious ceremony operates.

No it doesn't..

It could be as simple as this:

Do you?......Yes

Do you?......Yes

Cool, sign the papers and hand me $30.

The above being performed by a Notary Public...

Why should the person I fuck be the person I raise my kids with?

Because that is usually a by-product of the fucking.. at least in the hetro sense.

Why should the person I raise my kids with be the one who gets to make medical decisions on my behalf?

Who else is going to do it? For the majority of people who attempt to raise their spawn in the traditional family construct, your other half usually knows you the best and should be at the very least aware of your desires in this respect.

Why should a person who lives with somebody and is fucking them, get benefits beyond what a person who lives with somebody who lives with somebody and is just supporting them?

Without the "contract" (in this case "marriage" being the contract) no one gets the benefits.

The baggage that we've brought by calling it "marriage" and by tying the legal contract to the previous religious things, is a very serious issue.

So?

For the vast majority of people it's a tradition and if they want to wrap it up in all sorts of religious/spiritual/mystical trappings that's their gig. If you don't like it don't rain on their parade just because you have "objections".

That's what I take affront at.

Fine, then next time you decide to have a legal contract with your S.O. or whomever you've decided you want to do this with, head on down to your lawyer's office, have a seat at the conference table, sign the papers (you know that marriage certificate) and boom, pay the fees and you're done.

I'm sure your S.O. will find it most endearing..

I recognize that marriage is a legal contract, I just think that we should have a more reasonable and logical legal contract.

What's more legal or logical than the one that exists? It don't get much simpler than that..

 

[Cyann]

Sorry people I'm still trying to find where it says something OTHER than marriage is between a man and a woman in the constitution of The United States.

Me too. I'll keep looking.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Since Homewa got schooled before I showed I'll just sign off on the above and if I need to clarify something later I'll deal.

Me too. I'll keep looking.

It's not in the Constitution. Now find the part of the Constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[sr71plt]

But the issue is that it's a legal contract that still depends on the way the religious ceremony operates.

No it doesn't. You need to get this out of your head. What makes the marriage legal is the civil license. You don't have to have a religious ceremony at all and many don't.

 

[homewa]

No it doesn't. You need to get this out of your head. What makes the marriage legal is the civil license. You don't have to have a religious ceremony at all and many
don't.

Yes, it does. Why are you guys acting as though I'm opposed to Gay Marriage, or that I'm some kind of religious nut, why the fuck don't you read what I am writing. I am saying that everybody should be able to get married HOWEVER they want to. I'm saying that the legal benefits of marriage should not be tied IN ANY WAY to marriage.

No it doesn't..

Yes, it does, the relationship was originally modeled after the religious ceremony. So that's why society has associated those things.

It could be as simple as this:

Do you?......Yes

Do you?......Yes

Cool, sign the papers and hand me $30.

The above being performed by a Notary Public...

Which is a mirroring of the religious ceremony, only now we have a religious ceremony, a pseudo-religious ceremony being performed by a government official, do you see the problem?

Because that is usually a by-product of the fucking.. at least in the hetro sense.

But that doesn't mean that the person I am fucking is the best person to do it, no? We have all kinds of complicated relationships, why can't we accommodate them?

Who else is going to do it? For the majority of people who attempt to raise their spawn in the traditional family construct, your other half usually knows you the best and should be at the very least aware of your desires in this respect.

They don't fucking care about your desires in that respect, if you pass away, if you get hospitalized. Your wishes don't count for shit. Hell that's why homosexual folks wanted the protection of marriage, so that their wishes would count even when their families objected. Period.

So we should extend that right, that choice to more people, seems pretty simple, no?

Without the "contract" (in this case "marriage" being the contract) no one gets the benefits.

Stop fucking referencing the way the law works now, I know how it does. I'm quite aware of it, I've been talking about it the whole time. I'm saying that it could work better.

So?

For the vast majority of people it's a tradition and if they want to wrap it up in all sorts of religious/spiritual/mystical trappings that's their gig. If you don't like it don't rain on their parade just because you have "objections".

I don't want to ban marriage, or remove marriage, or replace marriage as a ceremony. I want to remove the attachment of civil tax benefits and the ability to make civil decisions from marriage.

Fine, then next time you decide to have a legal contract with your S.O. or whomever you've decided you want to do this with, head on down to your lawyer's office, have a seat at the conference table, sign the papers (you know that marriage certificate) and boom, pay the fees and you're done.

I'm sure your S.O. will find it most endearing..

If, IF I ever get married again, it'll probably involve some kind of ceremony. I just don't think that whatever ceremony I participate in, should be the legal factor, I think that should be done differently or at least have the option of being done differently. Now to be honest, I am not a fringe case. I would probably want to financially support my S/O, and theoretically raise children with them. But I recognize the significance of fringe cases.

What's more legal or logical than the one that exists? It don't get much simpler than that..

What's more logical is that we not have those things enmeshed in a religious ceremony or something based on that religious tradition, even when it doesn't make sense.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, it does. Why are you guys acting as though I'm opposed to Gay Marriage, or that I'm some kind of religious nut, why the fuck don't you read what I am writing. I am saying that everybody should be able to get married HOWEVER they want to. I'm saying that the legal benefits of marriage should not be tied IN ANY WAY to marriage.

I'm not reacting to your position on gay marriage, I'm reacting to your continued dumb statement that marriage requires a religious ceremony. It doesn't in the United States, and that isn't going to change no matter how many times you miscall that.

It doesn't really bother me what other "it just isn't that way until it gets changed" wish you have about any of the rest of it.

 

[homewa]

I'm not reacting to your position on gay marriage, I'm reacting to your continued dumb statement that marriage requires a religious ceremony. It doesn't in the United States, and that isn't going to change no matter how many times you miscall that.

It doesn't really bother me what other "it just isn't that way until it gets changed" wish you have about any of the rest of it.

I didn't say it requires a religious ceremony, I said it was enmeshed in the ideas that came from the religious ceremony. Our current institution of civil marriage is based on the way religious marriage worked in Protestant Churches a few hundred years ago.

We assume (and enforce) that there should be some sort of sexual relationship or at least the intention to have one, or a person may be charged with fraud if they marry. That doesn't happen, but it's certainly frightening.

We assume (and enforce) that a person will want to raise their children with the person they are living with and married to. And if somebody dies, marriage will be treated as higher priority than the the wishes of those people.

We assume (and in this case not so much enforce, but reverse enforce by punishing others), that a marriage will result in financial interdependency, and we do not treat any other relationship that results in a similar financial interdependency as having a valid claim to such.

We assume (and enforce) that our spouse is the person we want to have making end of life choices, and this often happens over our explicit wishes and statements.

I think that these particulars should not be so entangled. I should be able to live with somebody and support them financially, and have the same tax results as somebody who is doing so because of marriage. Hell two married people who don't live together, and who own separate houses and only come together to do the dirty deed, still get the tax break, even if there is absolutely NO financial interdependence. There are real negative consequences to the enmeshment of certain political values and a 17th century idea of marriage.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Except even that's not true.

 

[homewa]

Except even that's not true.

It absolutely is:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35610499/ns/health-health_care/t/living-wills-often-ignored/


http://consumer.healthday.com/senio...ctors-tend-to-ignore-living-wills-520393.html

There we see living wills being ignored due to other factors.

http://www.acfe.com/fraud-examiner.aspx?id=4294977076

Marriages fraud

I could continue to go through there and find how we've enmeshed all of the concepts based on the way marriage used to work, and it used to work that way due to religious factors. Our laws in this case are replications of religious laws, which are fine in their own right, but not fine for preserving the rights of everybody.

 

[RjThoughts]

It absolutely is:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35610499/ns/health-health_care/t/living-wills-often-ignored/


http://consumer.healthday.com/senio...ctors-tend-to-ignore-living-wills-520393.html

There we see living wills being ignored due to other factors.

http://www.acfe.com/fraud-examiner.aspx?id=4294977076

Marriages fraud

I could continue to go through there and find how we've enmeshed all of the concepts based on the way marriage used to work, and it used to work that way due to religious factors. Our laws in this case are replications of religious laws, which are fine in their own right, but not fine for preserving the rights of everybody.

The key words are USE TO.

Now, all you need is a license from the county, a legal officiate - religious figure is NOT manditory - two witnesses over the age of 18, and a notary public when the license has been signed by the officiate, the couple, and the witnesses.

That sure sounds like a contract, not a religious event.

 

[homewa]

The key words are USE TO.

Now, all you need is a license from the county, a legal officiate - religious figure is NOT manditory - two witnesses over the age of 18, and a notary public when the license has been signed by the officiate, the couple, and the witnesses.

That sure sounds like a contract, not a religious event.

Yes, but the issue is that the contract ties together a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be inherently tied together because it descends from a religious ceremony. I can get like six different kinds of contracts to buy a car, why can we only have one, kind of badly thought-out (well it works for many, to be honest it would most likely work for me) contract to cover that wide spread, there should be a variety of options. More freedom and more choice is good in this case.

 

[RjThoughts]

Yes, but the issue is that the contract ties together a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be inherently tied together because it descends from a religious ceremony. I can get like six different kinds of contracts to buy a car, why can we only have one, kind of badly thought-out (well it works for many, to be honest it would most likely work for me) contract to cover that wide spread, there should be a variety of options. More freedom and more choice is good in this case.

Common AND Civil law precedence, that's why.

 

[homewa]

Common AND Civil law precedence, that's why.

Yes, but that precedent follows a track set by a religious institution and is not the best fit for everybody. I mean I realize that what I would like is probably not realistic at this juncture (since most people wouldn't go for it), but for me the best solution would be to have the legal matters legal and based on the desires of those who set them up, rather than a one size fits all, and to have whatever else you want (religious ceremony, whatever) be your own business.

Edit: Again, I know how things are, I'm talking about how I think it ought to be.

 

[RjThoughts]

Yes, but that precedent follows a track set by a religious institution and is not the best fit for everybody. I mean I realize that what I would like is probably not realistic at this juncture (since most people wouldn't go for it), but for me the best solution would be to have the legal matters legal and based on the desires of those who set them up, rather than a one size fits all, and to have whatever else you want (religious ceremony, whatever) be your own business.

Edit: Again, I know how things are, I'm talking about how I think it ought to be.

Today's marriage is distant from all religious connotations, as it should be.
People have different opinions of what they should be able to do, including being able to marry 12 year olds. Most business contracts are one to one.

 

[homewa]

Today's marriage is distant from all religious connotations, as it should be.
People have different opinions of what they should be able to do, including being able to marry 12 year olds. Most business contracts are one to one.

Most business contracts are one to one, and are allowed to vary based on the beliefs and desires of the two involved, that would be what I would want for a marriage contract. Or a legal contract establishing tax dependency, or one dealing with end-of-life. That sort of thing. That's what I would argue for. Anything that's a one size fits all, will eventually wind up excluding people, which is what we should avoid.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Most business contracts are one to one, and are allowed to vary based on the beliefs and desires of the two involved, that would be what I would want for a marriage contract. Or a legal contract establishing tax dependency, or one dealing with end-of-life. That sort of thing. That's what I would argue for. Anything that's a one size fits all, will eventually wind up excluding people, which is what we should avoid.

The problem is that in real life one size fits all tends to simply work out better for everybody an dwe can worry about the excluded when we get there. Because when you let everybody make up their own shit you end up with all sorts of things that turn out to be not only challengable but outright illegal.

And I don't disagree with you on a philosophical level so much as a mechanical one. Believe me I wish I could hava "the" key on my keyboard instead of spelling it out (and for a while I had someway of doing it but I long since forgot how to set it up but when you let people go bonkers they tend to.

 

[homewa]

The problem is that in real life one size fits all tends to simply work out better for everybody an dwe can worry about the excluded when we get there. Because when you let everybody make up their own shit you end up with all sorts of things that turn out to be not only challengable but outright illegal.

And I don't disagree with you on a philosophical level so much as a mechanical one. Believe me I wish I could hava "the" key on my keyboard instead of spelling it out (and for a while I had someway of doing it but I long since forgot how to set it up but when you let people go bonkers they tend to.

Well I don't advocate the removal of all laws, I can't make a legally binding contract that violates the law even now. I'm advocating for the ability to make a contract as I see fit. For example, if I want to have a five-year marriage, why can't I? There is no good reason for that to be banned. Why can't I marry two people, if I'm only collecting the same tax breaks as somebody married to one?

The One-Size-Fits-All we have has already not fit a large swath of people, all homosexuals were originally excluded, interracial marriage was excluded. If we started with a different base point, we would not be needing to fix exclusions, but rather adjust the laws to prevent harm, which is an easier matter. Since fewer people are willing to cause deliberate harm.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well I don't advocate the removal of all laws, I can't make a legally binding contract that violates the law even now. I'm advocating for the ability to make a contract as I see fit. For example, if I want to have a five-year marriage, why can't I? There is no good reason for that to be banned. Why can't I marry two people, if I'm only collecting the same tax breaks as somebody married to one?

The One-Size-Fits-All we have has already not fit a large swath of people, all homosexuals were originally excluded, interracial marriage was excluded. If we started with a different base point, we would not be needing to fix exclusions, but rather adjust the laws to prevent harm, which is an easier matter. Since fewer people are willing to cause deliberate harm.

The same reason I can't have a 'the' key on my keyboard. IT just starts getting to complicated for anybody to keep track of. And remember something isn't 'illegal' if all the people who are present aren't aware they are breaking a law. I mean it is but you won't find out until some one calls you on it.

Yes, gays and interracials were excluded (though illegaly per the 14th amendment) and we patched it as we went.

Trust me, you're obviously not a gamer. Malicious intent is not necessary for completely breaking the rules as written.

 

[homewa]

The same reason I can't have a 'the' key on my keyboard. IT just starts getting to complicated for anybody to keep track of. And remember something isn't 'illegal' if all the people who are present aren't aware they are breaking a law. I mean it is but you won't find out until some one calls you on it.

Lawyers, they go to school for like years, and study case law. Their whole job is to keep track of complicated contract law. I mean business contracts vary depending on the needs of a business, how is that any different from this? That isn't so complex as to be useless, in fact it's much MUCH more useful because the varied needs of businesses can be met with a variety of contracts.

Yes, gays and interracials were excluded (though illegaly per the 14th amendment) and we patched it as we went.

And now single people who aren't fucking but are living together are excluded from the tax breaks. Now married people who aren't financially interdependent get tax breaks they don't need. The problem is that this isn't a game, making it more complex will allow us to address a wider variety of circumstances.

Trust me, you're obviously not a gamer. Malicious intent is not necessary for completely breaking the rules as written.

Laws are not games, they need to be complicated to deal with complex circumstances, that's why we have courts to resolve these issues. Just marriage tends to be complicated on the backend rather than on the front-end. Games are meant to keep an audience focused, laws don't need to have that same focus, they can afford to be complex, that's why lawyers go to school.

 

[phrodeau]

Since Homewa got schooled before I showed I'll just sign off on the above and if I need to clarify something later I'll deal.



It's not in the Constitution. Now find the part of the Constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's not even in the Bible.

 

[mark_j]

Yes, it does. Why are you guys acting as though I'm opposed to Gay Marriage, or that I'm some kind of religious nut, why the fuck don't you read what I am writing.

No one is accusing you of anything other than advocating changing a working system into something that would end up being utter nonsense and chaos.

I am saying that everybody should be able to get married HOWEVER they want to.

You already can.. The state doesn't give a shit what you do other than use the basic form and understand and follow the precepts of the law... Otherwise they don't care how you conduct your marriage..

I'm saying that the legal benefits of marriage should not be tied IN ANY WAY to marriage.

If that is so then what would be the point in it? Without the legal benefits the contract is an empty shell.

Yes, it does, the relationship was originally modeled after the religious ceremony. So that's why society has associated those things.

Could be because people think it is an important event to be revered, celebrated, taken in a most solemn manner this commitment to another person.

People are funny that way...

Which is a mirroring of the religious ceremony, only now we have a religious ceremony, a pseudo-religious ceremony being performed by a government official, do you see the problem?

No, because you could just as easily go to the lawyers office, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace or Notary Public, bring two witnesses, sign off on the paperwork and not say a fucking word to each other. As far as the government is concerned they don't give a shit how or what you do as long as you sign off on it.

But that doesn't mean that the person I am fucking is the best person to do it, no?

You're right. It doesn't mean they are the best person to do so. But that also depends on what type of relationship you have. Is it one of trust and commitment or is it just a fucking business arrangement.

We have all kinds of complicated relationships, why can't we accommodate them?

What more do you want?

They don't fucking care about your desires in that respect, if you pass away, if you get hospitalized. Your wishes don't count for shit. Hell that's why homosexual folks wanted the protection of marriage, so that their wishes would count even when their families objected. Period.

So we should extend that right, that choice to more people, seems pretty simple, no?

Now you are being contradictory. First you say you want to accommodate all sorts of complex relationships and parameters and then on the other hand advocate for the protections of marriage as they stand now.. what's it gonna be?

Stop fucking referencing the way the law works now, I know how it does. I'm quite aware of it, I've been talking about it the whole time. I'm saying that it could work better.

You keep saying "it could work better" but you offer no real solution. What do you want? To break it up into individual parts? Can you even imagine the chaotic mess that would create?

I don't want to ban marriage, or remove marriage, or replace marriage as a ceremony. I want to remove the attachment of civil tax benefits and the ability to make civil decisions from marriage.

Then why even bother to get married at all? In that world there would be no advantage to it.

If, IF I ever get married again, it'll probably involve some kind of ceremony. I just don't think that whatever ceremony I participate in, should be the legal factor,

It's not the legal factor. You and your SO could sign off on the certificate and not say a word to each other and the government isn't going to care.

I think that should be done differently or at least have the option of being done differently. Now to be honest, I am not a fringe case. I would probably want to financially support my S/O, and theoretically raise children with them. But I recognize the significance of fringe cases.

You already can with a civil union except you can't get Fed tax/benefit advantage and you can't call it a legal marriage.

What's more logical is that we not have those things enmeshed in a religious ceremony or something based on that religious tradition, even when it doesn't make sense.

Anymore it isn't based on any religions tradition despite what you think otherwise.

Well I don't advocate the removal of all laws, I can't make a legally binding contract that violates the law even now. I'm advocating for the ability to make a contract as I see fit.

If you want to play the game you have to play by the rules.. Advocate all you want. But trying to make a custom fit in an off the rack world is either going to be extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive... But if that is what you want then good luck with that.

For example, if I want to have a five-year marriage, why can't I?

You already can.. It's called divorce..

There is no good reason for that to be banned.

Why should they include a sunset clause? It's already there. You just have to get a divorce to make it happen.

Why can't I marry two people, if I'm only collecting the same tax breaks as somebody married to one?

Polygamy is illegal. Until that is changed the argument is pointless..

The One-Size-Fits-All we have has already not fit a large swath of people, all homosexuals were originally excluded, interracial marriage was excluded.

And all that got changed.. There is no need to trash the law. You just tweak it when circumstances change. In the case of same sex it was time to change the law, just as it was time to change the law for interracial marriages 70+ years ago.

If we started with a different base point, we would not be needing to fix exclusions, but rather adjust the laws to prevent harm, which is an easier matter. Since fewer people are willing to cause deliberate harm.

The law as it stands already works for the vast majority. When it doesn't, as we have seen, you adjust it. Either way getting a change of significant importance such as we saw with same sex is going to take a while. Whether you start with a different baseline or not the process is going to be the same. Especially at the federal level.

Lawyers, they go to school for like years, and study case law. Their whole job is to keep track of complicated contract law. I mean business contracts vary depending on the needs of a business, how is that any different from this? That isn't so complex as to be useless, in fact it's much MUCH more useful because the varied needs of businesses can be met with a variety of contracts.

I know you don't accept this but marriage is not supposed to be a business contract (and before you jump all over that I am well aware that SOME people treat it that way).

And now single people who aren't fucking but are living together are excluded from the tax breaks. Now married people who aren't financially interdependent get tax breaks they don't need. The problem is that this isn't a game, making it more complex will allow us to address a wider variety of circumstances.

But that is the beauty of it.. It either is or is not. Why is it necessary to make it even more complex?

Laws are not games, they need to be complicated to deal with complex circumstances, that's why we have courts to resolve these issues. Just marriage tends to be complicated on the backend rather than on the front-end..

Easier to get in than to get out. Makes it so that the contract has some meaning other than a throw away agreement.