What about childless marriages and polygamy?
The debate about gay marriage in the last comment thread is fascinating and thought-provoking. I continue to have no real firm opinion either way because both sides have perfectly cogent argument points, in my opinion, but it does make me think about it more and at least want to decide what my opinion is at some point in the future. Also gives me more questions! Yay!
1. A lot of people said their opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the fact that marriage has always been mostly (or even totally) intended for the production and raising of children. If that is your stance, do you believe there is any point whatsoever in people like me getting married? If Rupert and I got married, would we not be violating the very purpose of the institution, since we have no intention of making children?
2. Maybe this should be a whole separate thread, but what do you think about polygamy? Personally, I have as much of an opinion about that as I do about gay marriage, but I can say that I don’t see an ounce of difference between them legally. If any adult can marry any other consenting adult, how could it possibly be fair to legalize gay marriage and not polygamy? No one said it would be; the debate just makes me curious what everyone thinks about this question.
(Sorry for the light posting - because of a work situation, I don’t have time to write much but I can sneak in a few minutes to read comments and it’s actually more entertaining than writing anyway.)
Hi Rachel.
The worst thing I can think of coming from the gay marriage stuff is the legalization and therefore insinuated approval (as tankascribe puts it) of anything that comes “naturally”. I mean, really, every damn thing I do can be said to be “natural”. No shit. It comes “natural” for some people to want to throttle rude assholes at Target, right Rachel? Can we get on with changing that law? Just cuz I like it doesn’t make it wise or right. Factions could get better footholds.
Legalized polygamy could wreak havoc with not so well-to-do men’s lives. One rich as hell guy could theoretically get all of the girls.
I think people try to keep it illegal so we all have a better chance at coupling up.
I have read that part of the despair and melancholy guys in some countries have is rooted in their inability to get chicks cuz the oil rich take them all. Easy pickins for brainwashing into believing they’ll get their harem in the afterlife.
Not much to live for, easy out- boom! Martyrdom and paradise. What a powerful ideology and political structure. Scary.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:29 pmESTAll the privileges married couples enjoy were provided back when, short of separate bedrooms, it was pretty much unavoidable for married couples to have kids. (In fact, childless couples were pitied.) Those privileges acknowledge the debt society has to those who are willing to take on the task and make the sacrifice of producing the next generation.
As soon as you start handing those privileges to those who aren’t fulfilling their half of the contract then a lot of people are going to say “why the hell bother having kids?” Not good for society.
For example, I know plenty of two-income “families” without kids who have been living high on the hog while most of my money goes to pay for my kids. Why should the two kids I raised go to work to pay Social Security for those freeloaders is beyond me. They should be able to retire quite nicely on the money they didn’t spend not raising children. What? Forgot to save some? Tough!
So not only would I not grant marriage privileges to gays, I wouldn’t grant them to childless couples either. Close the deal with kids or no benefits.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pmEST> If Rupert and I got married, would we not be violating the very purpose of the institution, since we have no intention of making children?
Not if the purpose of the institution is to recognize and embiggen the complementary natures of man and woman. You would both learn from each other, and from your commitment to each other.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pmESTHow about the flip side of your polygamy question — Do you think that it’s technically a “marriage” if it’s sanctioned by a church? (maybe not YOUR church, but some churches — and I know that the Mormon Church has officially disowned it, but there are still “churches” out there who practice the sacrament)
Who’s to say who’s “married” and who’s not? Who’s church gets to decide?
To me, it just gets back to the meaning of the word “marriage”. After all this broo-ha-ha, it seems like it would be easier if the government just started calling all marriages “Domestic Partnership Contracts” That’s what they are anyway in the eyes of the law. The various religious sects could then argue among themselves who gets to call themselves “married”.
And as far as the ploygamists? YUCK! However, if a bunch of consenting adults wanted to write a contract about a partnership agreement then go for it. None of my business. At least wife (or husband) #2 or #3 wouldn’t get hosed when things didn’t work out because only the 1st one was legal. OH MY LORD I just endorsed a whole new field of law, please shoot me now.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pmESTI guess I don’t see kids as the sole purpose for marriage, though I do see kids as one of the main results of marriage - a man and a woman together. Though NOT have children does not negate a marriage (in my mind).
And I do think there will come a time when polygamists argue for their “equal rights.” After all, it’s just consenting adults getting together and doing what they want. They aren’t hurting anyone. It doesn’t affect my marriage.
That’s the argument right?
Where does it end? Are there any limits? If it’s all about equality…which is stupid anyway. There is no such thing as true equality. There HAVE to be limits somewhere.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pmESTSneaky, Rachel — very sneaky.
I know why I got married, even though I didn’t want kids. It was about making a life-long commitment to my guy, and my guy making a life-long commitment to me. Also, being as I was brought up in the fifties and early sixties, the only man I was going to sleep with would be my husband. If I was going to share a house, a bed, and everything else with another person, I was going to be married to them. And yes, my guy knew I didn’t want children before he married me, as we dated for four years before tying the knot, so we knew quite a bit about each other by then. I knew that he would have liked having kids, but was willing to give that up to be with me, which was pretty darn good of him.
Polygamy sounds like a pretty good game and mostly harmless, but based on what we’ve seen of it in this country (original Mormonism), it doesn’t seem to be the case. Whether it’s because Western society isn’t geared to it, or there’s some fundamental underlying flaw to the idea, it doesn’t seem to make the people involved in it at all happy, mentally stable, or produce well-adjusted children. There’s a ton of books and stories out there from people who have lived that lifestyle and have plenty to say about it, most of it damaging. Closer to home, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area so there’s a lot of “open relationship” stuff all around me. One of my co-workers is part of a menage’ a ‘trois, which more often resembles a menagerie, judging by just the odd domestic detail she lets slips every now and again. This relationship is a little more remarkable in that it’s held together longer than most, although originally it started off as a group of five people — one couple split, leaving the one guy and two gals. But even so, one of them is a divorced widow, while the other two filed “domestic partners” papers with the state. The widow didn’t want to do so because she didn’t need the benefits from it; she had her own already. They have some system of deciding who sleeps with who but I prefer not to know the details. Sometimes tales of this life are amusing but other times there’s something creepy about the whole thing. I’ve known other foursomes, threesomes, and plain anyones — none of which seem to last more than a couple years at best. Sometimes the women break it up — generally one becomes the alpha female and the others get sick or her running everything, despite the fact that there has to be a “general” in charge of every household, or a guy gets tired of restricting himself to his current herd of females and opts out to go bed-hopping again. As an aside, these mutli-partner households were always either areligious, or neo-pagans. The few children coming out of those situations were not by any stretch of the imagination well adjusted”. The best they could do was to throw all that off when they moved out; the ones who didn’t are even more messed up than their multiple parents when it comes to personal relationships.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:46 pmESTThe slippery slope argument is dumb. The very purpose of any law is to draw a line between legal and illegal behavior.
Anything the “comes naturally” isn’t going to become legal just becuase homosexuals are allowed to get married. They want to be like us, why not let them?
My best friend married a closeted gay man who was just using her as a beard. That has happened to millions of women and believe me, they suffer. If legalizing gay marriage would help prevent that, then I’m all for it.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pmESTHeck, we might as well legalize polygamy -first-. As it stands, we’ve got immigrants from polygamous societies coming over here, officially marrying one woman, and putting the rest of their religiously but not legally married spouses on welfare. If we recognized all the marriages, they wouldn’t be able to do that quite so easily. I see no reason why my tax dollars should have to be wasted supporting the spawn of Islamic freeloaders.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:54 pmESTThankfully I’m not the only one who wonders why everyone assumes polygamy means “One husband, many wives”
Why not me, a woman, marrying several men?
I say let consenting adults marry whomever and however many they want. What does it take away from those who believe marriage should be one man/one woman? Absolutely nothing. And those who say, “Oh, the rich dudes are going to get all the chicks”?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pmESTI say if money is the only criterion you see women employing when choosing partners, you’re spending time with the wrong women.
1. I asked the same thing in a different thread and received no answer. I have no kids, and currently no intention of having kids. I do not think this makes my marriage invalid somehow. My marriage reflects a commitment to my wife, nothing more.
2. As one of the people arguing in support of gay marriage, I will also say I support legalizing polygamy. I personally would not take two wives, as that does not mesh with my personal reasons for getting married. But if some fella wants two wives (and can get two women to agree to that arrangement) then more power to him.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pmESTYour childless marriage would uphold social values by protecting families. If you and Rupert are faithfully committed to each other, and solemnly pledge not to go outside your marriage for sex, then other couples in the community can rest assured that you are not a risk for breaking up their homes. It would add to the security marriage provides in society. Just look at how insecure our society has become in conjunction with skyrocketing divorce rates. Marriage, whether it produces children or not, is the foundation of social stability, which only benefits the perpetuation of our culture.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pmESTPersonally, I think the state has no business regulating marriage one way or another. So long as all parties are consenting adults, there is no reason for anyone else to dictate their relationship. This includes gay marriage and polygamy (which can include both polyandry and polygyny).
All this hand wringing about how it’s going to destroy our society is nothing more than pants-shitting hysteria.
I think the problem is that, at least in polygamy’s case, we as a society don’t have any mainstream examples of how it can work. All we have to go off of are the extreme examples of the FLDS church. However, this ignores thousands of years of polygamist traditions in other cultures where it was a mainstream practice, and where it didn’t do too badly. This includes cultures (such as in SE Asia) where single women married multiple males.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be involved in a polygamist relationship (or gay one, for that mater), but that doesn’t mean I think others would be denied that opportunity if they think it would work for them.
Finally, comparing gay marriage to things like beasteality or pedophilia is a logical fallacy (actually, it encompasses numerous fallacies). Gay marriage is the union of two consenting adults. In the other two cases, there can be no consent from one of the parties, either because they are not an adult and lack that capability or because they are not human. They are not comparable, and it does not follow that allowing gay marriage would justify allowing the other two.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pmESTLOL! Not a thing stopping them from being like us; hang out with the opposite gender. Granted, it can be a strain, but…
And the entire point of such legislation is not to “let them be just like us” but for us to become more like them, such that their lifestyle of choice becomes normal. Just another line item of the big checklist of life ’s choices, like living together, or choosing not to have kids, or being part of a plural marriage, or having an open relationship, or fill-in-the-blank. That’s what the game is all about, isn’t it?
People feel conflicted because the the relaxed and easy thing is to go with the flow and we want to do that (after all, it’s not affecting me); the harder thing is to aspire to something more elevated in life and that’s a lot of work (especially when loud public voices are saying the opposite).
May 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pmESTI remember a quote from some fruity author from the 19th century, probably Oscar Wilde. “Bigamy is having one wife too many. So is monogamy.”
I find one spouse is plenty, and my wife would agree
May 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pmESTI used to go for that “consenting adults” bit back when I was in my twenties. I loved reading speculative fiction about various arrangements of consenting adults and couldn’t see any harm in it. But now I’m in my fifties and I’ve seen real people try out those arrangements. It ain’t pretty and I’ve not seen one case where it worked out well for the long term. Granted, five “families” does not a statistical universe make, but even so I can’t admire what came out of those set-ups. So I’ve amended my opinions and discarded that romantic notion.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pmESTI am so intrigued by polygamy. Not that I would ever want a sister-wife, but I love to watch Big Love, documentaries on polygamists. As a matter of fact I have two books on my dresser on the subject that I just got from the library. Because I’m a dork.
Anyway, if we legalize gay marriage, we should also legalize polygamy.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pmESTAs long as we’re talking about “legally consenting adults” here, I don’t see what the big deal is. Of course, the age of legal consent being flexible per state, and “adults” including siblings, I suppose it could open another whole can of worms…
May 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pmESTAnd what about couples such as my husband and I, who have not been able to have kids? Is our marriage worthless and selfish? You know, we have the worry that there will be no one to take care of us when we’re old, not to mention the heartache of not being able to create children out of our love for each other. Also, we work and have retirement funds, so no need to worry about your social security going to us.
Sorry, I get a little sensitive about people assuming childlessness=selfishness.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:27 pmESTWell put, Dr. Feelgood. I take it you also support gay marriage? After all, if a gay couple are faithfully committed to each other, and solemnly pledge not to go outside their marriage for sex, then other couples in the community can rest assured that you are not a risk for breaking up their homes. It would add to the security marriage provides in society. Well said!
May 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pmESTHowever, this ignores thousands of years of polygamist traditions in other cultures where it was a mainstream practice, and where it didn’t do too badly.
Uh-huh, shows you how much you actually met those who have to endure polygamy marriages. As a spawn of a spawn of polygamy, I had to deal with the fallout for the first 18 years of my life until I could leave home and never return. Most women of my grandmother’s situation leaped at the first chance to leave such marriages once polygamy was banned. If “it didn’t do too badly” then why did these women took off as soon as they legally could after thousand of years of mainstream polygamy culture?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pmESTIt ain’t pretty and I’ve not seen one case where it worked out well for the long term.
I have, but minor children weren’t involved.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pmESTFour thoughts here:
May 16th, 2008 at 3:31 pmEST1. When you take the percentage of gays and the percentage of people who are gay and out of that take the number who will want to get married, the size of the population we are talking about is actually quite small and not really worth the energy that is being spent on it and therefore not likely to lead to significant problems. This is consistent with the evidence I’ve seen - admittedly without formal review - where gays can marry.
2. It doesn’t bother me if gays raise children if the environment is otherwise stable. If gays marry and the result somewhere is that kids are taken out of foster homes and into stable households, I think that’s a good result whether the households are straight or gay - especially since it doesn’t appear to have much impact one way or another on a child’s sexual orientation as a child or as an adult.
3. If we recognize gay marriage, gays need to be willing relinquish domestic partner benefits if they don’t marry. The reasoning behind domestic partner benefits is that they couldn’t get married. If this is no longer a barrier, then they should not be able to have it both ways - and should, like heterosexual couples, either marry or forego domestic partner benefits.
4. Having said all of this, the California decision is extremely frustrating because it overturns a vote that was clearly debated and finds a hidden right where none existed. The older I’ve gotten the more I’ve concluded that undermining legal predictability through judicial interpretation undermines the rule of law generally because it makes the law less predictable and therefore less worthy of respect and trust. I also think it is much healthier for societies to debate these issues and arrive at a result through the legislative and electoral process than through judicial review. I am much more willing to support a law (whether I agree with it or not) that has been passed by the legislature or through a ballot initiative than by a judicial interpretation that seems like a clear stretch. So the California decision would frustrate me whether it’s about gay marriage, utility regulation, or zoning law.
I’m not saying that laws excusing behavior some people find abhorrent will be written at all. That is the worst case scenario I am able to see right now and it is virtually impossible. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to say that there is potential danger in the rhetoric of it.
The spirit of the law is loving someone and commiting to them for the rest of a lifetime and having benefits because of it. The letter of the law seems to be subject to interpretation.
Live and let live.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:36 pmESTthe Rising Jurist,
Bad form, inserting opinions. I made it crystal clear in the previous post where I stand on gay “marriage”.
Homosexuals by definition don’t honor traditional marriage, therefore they can’t be relied upon to uphold social norms. Whether one gay couple does is irrelevant because the destabilizing agent is the lack of trust. In other words, we can’t trust them to play by the rules, so they don’t get to play at all.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pmESTGov’t has no business codifying marriage. It is a private matter. Any contractual issues arising (insurance, assets…) should be handled with those companies, persons as necessary. Any other arguments by anyone else are foolish. It’s not about “YOU”.
This is older but still spot-on.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pmESThttp://www.reason.com/news/show/32883.html
obligatory NAMBLA argument:
what about marriage to children above the age of reason? 18+ or whatever is an artificial construct, anyhow. if an individual is capable of making a reasoned decision, they should be allowed to marry whomever they wish. even if he is 8 and the other person(s) is (are) 50 years his senior, he should be treated equally and should be allowed to express his love just like anyone else.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:45 pmESTIf you’re looking at legalizing polygamy, why not look at places where it’s actually practiced…like, you know…the Middle East? Islam? Women have little to no rights in that culture. FLDS? Again, women have little to no rights. The “rights” are given to the men and women’s only access to heaven lies in them being good little wives and bearing lots of children.
That’s not what I want for my daughters. In areas where polygamy is culturally accepted the status of women is quite a bit lower than that of men. And again, you get the problem of young men without access to female companionship, which ups their aggression factor.
Gay marriage? Well, I’m against unelected judges telling us what we have to accept. That is something that should be decided by the state legislatures or the people, not the judiciary. And I don’t know why we can’t just accept “civil unions” with all the rights therein to try out the whole gay marriage thing and see how/if it works.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:47 pmESTIf they’re not going to legalize polygamy, then in the interest of fairness they should outlaw the more mainstream forms of masochism.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pmESTWhile I haven’t personally decided if I approve or disapprove of either gay or polygamist marriages, I cannot personally see why anyone would want to have more that one partner. One partner is hard enough! 2 or more would be pure agony. Speaking of masochism…
May 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pmESTWhat are the effects of polygamy in societies which let one woman marry as many men as she wants?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pmESTGiven that I’m a big ol’ flaming homo, I sometimes feel that I’m expected to be jumping up and down for gay marriage. (Similar to how I’m expected to vote Democrat and hate Dubya.)
Feh. Frankly, I’d rather gay folk work on that whole acceptance thing first. Once we get to where we’re not regarded as TEH PINK MENACE then we can look at marriage. Until then, scaring the fuck out of the hetero crowd just seems like deliberate antagonization.
Granted, there are some legal issues that gay marriage would resolve for some of us. But I think it would be a net loss for us, because of the enmity and bitterness that would be stirred up among those who want us to shut up and go away.
And that’s really what this is about, isn’t it? “Why can’t you fruits just go away? Or go back in the closet? It would be so much nicer for all of us.”
Whoops. Got a little bitter there at the end.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pmESTYou have no idea what you’re talking about lol. Unless you’ve attended an LDS “Sacrament meeting” (they call it that for a reason) please don’t project your thoughts as facts.
It’s funny to see how much people think they know about the LDS faith.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:04 pmESTYes, you did. I was merely calling attention to the fact that your view relies on 1) an unfair stereotype about gay people, and 2) the application of a double standard about the sanctity of marriage.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:07 pmESTNot as many babies, lol.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pmEST1. Just because there are exceptions to the rule, folks like you and Rupert, or myself for that matter, doesn’t mean the rule is flawed.
2. Fred Thompson, today, said something relative to this point for conservatives about a foundation of conservatism and the importance of:
to steal a small tidbit.
There is a tradition at play here. American, Judeo-Christian and Western that holds to our current predominant ‘one man and one woman’ marriage tradition, and we discard that tradition and ignore that cultural history lesson at our peril. Even for agnosts like myself, or, alternatively, even wiccans, atheists, and LDS members.
That said, I’m not sure where my toughts are on the matter at hand. Perhaps all the marriage incentives and subsidies from the gov’t should be discarded. No one would care politically, then, if the State got out of the wedding business. If you wanted a ceremony bonding you to an individual/s that would be your own business.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pmESTFair enough and I’m sorry to hear that. (Hence my remark that childless couples were formerly pitied.) I speak with some authority on this as I am the adopted child of parents who could not have children. My adopted mother survived a burst appendix and we’ve always assumed that messed things up a bit.
Give it a try. Yes it’s a lot harder now than it was in the 50s. If the laws were written in 1957 as they are now, odds are I would have ended up in a trash can somewhere. Another “right” discovered in the Constitution by a bunch of judges. I myself get a little sensitive listening to people talking about a woman’s “right to choose”. To me they’re saying “drop dead”. But we digress.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pmESTSociety as we know it exists, was born out of, was fostered and cultivated BECAUSE of the institution of marriage. That modern society thinks it can change or adapt to a new “understanding” of marriage might at least demand of us that we reflect on this. To change this definition (and the associated concept)might have consequences, after all.
As I said earlier, the original (and primitive)marriage ceremony was a simple public declaration that a certain man and woman had decided (or were forced) to “couple.” Everyone knew that children would be the inevitable result. Because this situation proved to be more successful than any other arrangement, it became the norm. But the marriage ceremony was about the POTENTIAL for children and had nothing to do with the relatively few cases of infertitily (discovered only after the ceremony).
In our modern age, many men and women wish to “make a lifelong commitment to each other,” but do not desire children. Problem is (unless there is infertility) there still exists the POTENTIAL for children, assuming sex ever takes place. And even a couple such as this who do not desire to have children often want “marriage” for the simple sake of the festivity - the familial and communal shared joy and celebration of love that such a public pronouncement creates. This celebration can result in many life-long happy memories - so who wouldn’t want that?
It is simply a waste of effort and taxpayer expense - that simply because many modern marriages fail to meet millenia-old criteria that we today should try to “invent” special case “marriages” for a myriad more petty reasons.
It’s simple: The word “marriage” implies the potential for children. 100,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago (roughly when we started “civilization”)or up to 50 years ago it has always meant this.
Nowadays people want that definition to change to include ANY TWO (and someday 3 or 4 or more) people who want to throw a big party just to publicly declare their love for each other. Call it a party then. It’s not marriage.
See also a brilliant little treatise by Thomas Paine (in Common Sense) about the error in equating society with government.
By all means, Rachel, you and Rupert should marry. You fit the most basic criteria, that is - you are a woman and he is a man. It should be a simple thing. And you never know - I think there are some other women out there who never wanted kids, never planned for them - but ended up with them anyway. The idea of marriage cannot be negated based on what you want today - because desires change over time. Marriage still implies a potential for children.
In the case of knowingly infertile men and women who want to marry - it does not make sense for society (or government) to make an effort here. If we were to make it the business of the state to preclude such people from marriage, then we would require questions to be answered and standards to be met that would be a problem in terms of privacy issues, etc.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pmESTSumie, I’m sorry that I didn’t make myself more clear.
I have read quite a but about the LDS and actually meant to distance it from the practice of polygamy. The “churches” I’m referring to that still practice it are fringe, ones I would say are kookstick demagogue quasi-religious cults (in my opinion) and not certainly not limited to ones with roots in the Morman faith.
There are a lot of things about the LDS that are made fun of in mainstream media in the US. In my experience Mormans are some of the nicest people I’ve met, with (in my experience) one of the strongest commitments to family values of any community. And the things that seem odd to mainstream USA? No kookier than believing that some guy 2000 years ago came back from the dead for all of us . . . whatever works for you. It’s by how you act that I judge.
If I’m mistaken and the Mainstream LDS church still condones poloygamy please correct me.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:35 pmEST1. No, my view relies on the definition of marriage: one man plus one woman for life. Anything that deviates from this is a destabilizing agent.
2. There’s no double standard because of the above definition.
Now, would queerage have the same effect? Unequivocally, no. Homosexuals cannot understand marriage, and they are therefore limited in their capacity to support it. Homosexuals are by definition subverters of social value, how then can they uphold it? Who can hold them accountable?
When a man and woman exchange wedding vows they pledge their unwavering faithfulness to each other. They also pledge to the community that they are out of the mate-seeking game (”forsaking all others”). This pledge grants the community implicit permission to hold that couple accountable for their vows, which is the reason traditional marriages are public events. It’s a rule that must be honored, and transgressions are harshly dealt with. Accountability only works when the participants can be trusted to honor the rules. Once optioned, marriage becomes a duty to your spouse and the community. Queerage could never be the gay analog of marriage in a society that already has a rule prohibiting same-sex unions.
Polygamy has a moderately different set of negative consequences, mostly the risk of inbreeding. It also has a destabilizing component in a monogomous society because the polygamous married parties can’t be trusted to stay out of the mate-seeking game.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pmESTInteresting. Out of curiosity, how many bodies were involved, and how long has it lasted?
I really came to despise those sorts of multi-partner set-ups because of what it ended up doing to the kids who were stuck in them; prior to that, I couldn’t have cared less. I don’t have kids nor particularly like young ones, but you can’t watch those sorts of shenannigans and not get angry about all the casual and unthinking damage being inflicted on those poor souls because some “consenting adults” like horsing around (amongst other things).
But I also thought tranvestites were pretty neat until a guy at my work place suddenly decided he wanted to dress up at work. Perhaps he’s atypical, but it went from “pretty neat” to “excessively creepy” in really short order. I thought I was was open-minded until then, but quickly found out that “open minded” is a totally different animal than “uncritical acceptance” which is what the situation actually called for.
In fact, a lot of stuff that I thought was cool when I was younger is a bunch of crap. Good thing I was too much of a straighty-lace to try any of ‘em!
May 16th, 2008 at 4:42 pmESTChickia,
Actually you WILL be excommunicated for practicing polygamy. period.
I shouldn’t have said anything, i would have loved to sit back and see what people say about Mormonism and polygamy. Too many people think its still practiced by Mormons when in fact, it was cast out of the religion back in the 1800’s.
Lots of crazy things going around about Mormons all the time. Sometimes is fun to sit back and hear about them but sometimes it makes me wonder about people… like the whole horns thing? wtf are people thinking. hahaha, makes me laugh.
But back to the point, Yes polygamy was practiced by the LDS church for a brief peroid in history, but its just that, history. Any people claiming to be Mormon and practicing polygamy have either been excommunicated or are very good at hiding a very big secret.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:44 pmESTI don’t have a problem with gay marriage because it’s a civil right, IMHO. You choose your life partner, you build a life. Done. I can’t get into a debate about morality because that’s between God and the individual(s). Don’t give me the old Leviticus rap - if homosexuality were such a big deal, it would have been spelled out in the 10 Commandments.
I also can’t get into the morality of polygamy, for the same reasons. Polygamy among ADULTS that is. However, I think that at this point in our culture and country, it should NOT be legalized. Our society was structured on a two party system - TWO people get married. I don’t think our infrastructure can handle what it has NOW let alone adding who was married to whom when so and so was begotten. I think it is also imperative that folks who engage in polygamy and have bazillions of children should be able to support them 100% - or not have them.
I am also in a childless marriage, but I have spent most of my life mothering children whose own parents couldn’t do the job. Marriage is a safeguard for the progeny (or at least was originally intended to be) but it is also a commitment to stability - something that we are sorely in need of at this time.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pmESTMy dear Keith, I don’t think you’re a menace. You don’t scare the fuck out of me (I live near San Francisco and once worked as a toll collector at the Bay Bridge — and brother, I have seen it all). You can be as gay as you like (not that my opinion matters, nor should it). I just don’t view you as “normal”. However, I don’t view me — married but choosing not have any children — as “normal” either, so don’t feel like the Lone Ranger.
And yeah, sometimes I feel a little bitter, too. Especially as I have no intention of taking anybody’s hard-earned Social Security bucks away from them, Lucy. As part of a two-earner income couple with no kids, my husband and I are saving a lot of dollars to retire on with no expectation of ever seeing a penny of the considerable Social Security bucks that we’ve paid in, much less anybody else’s. Don’t mind that I can stay late at work to cover you because I don’t have any kids at home, and will have to pick up the extra workload when you’re out sick 4 times more than I am.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pmEST1. Any marriage (straight or gay), as far as the government needs to be concerned, is an act of association, and protected by the freedom of association. Whether a straight marriage results in children or not should only be of importance to the couple themselves (and possibly their family and friends).
2. As for the case of polygamy, we need to take a closer look at the nature of love, the alleged basis of such relationships. True love is a mutual sense of spiritual affinity combined with admiration. True romantic love combines those qualities with mutual sexual attraction.
By this definition’s very nature, love is a relationship among equals, and can thus only be properly and effectively experienced one-on-one. The problem with polygamy is that a “pecking order” naturally develops, and gets in the way of that equality. Also, love is hardly a linear factor. As more people are added to the relationship, the problems develop geometrically.
A loving relation that is between more than two people cannot be based equality, and will effectively deprive at least one person in the relationship of true love.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pmESTI don’t have a dog in this fight but I have to answer that.
That’s the most blatant case of circular reasoning I’ve ever read.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:00 pmESTThis may have been mentioned in the other comments but reading too many folded-arms political opinions depresses me.
All you “Marriage is about children and always has been” people are mixing up your cause and effect. For the millennia marriage has existed there has been no birth control. Married couples usually have sex. Sex without birth control causes children. Marriage and children went hand in hand all that time because there was no other option.
I actually heard that two bills trying to legalize gay marriage in California had passed the legislature but were vetoed by the governor, and that the people weren’t against it at all… I guess that might have been wrong.
Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anything, and I have yet to see a single convincing argument to the contrary. Plenty of tinfoil hat arguments, but no convincing ones.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:00 pmESTlove most certainly does NOT have to be “a relationship among equals”
and a pecking order is not inevitable in polygamy, anyhow
May 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pmESTyes, you’re wrong. what the california supreme court just struck down was a 2000 ballot referendum banning same-sex marriage. just because the legislature passes it, doesn’t mean the people want it. the governor was right to veto any bills to the contrary.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:08 pmESTSorry, but in each of the multi-person cluster fucks I witnessed, there was always one top dog. In four cases out of five, there was an alpha bitch and she made damn sure the other women knew it. And if you think the others were happy about that, guess again.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:11 pmESTGay marriage doesn’t hurt anything, and I have yet to see a single convincing argument to the contrary.
If not for the fact that it would impose additional costs on others, I’d agree with that. But it does. For example, it would load up additional costs on the SS system and force the growth of benefit expenses anywhere benefits are required to be extended to spouses. And yes, that costs others besides the married gay couple. That’s simply a practical example. As a society we subsidize marriage in many way, and boosting the number of people subsidied has a real-world effect.
O course, so would forcing unmarried couples “living in sin” to get hitched.
For the millennia marriage has existed there has been no birth control.
LOL, and WRONG. Believe it or not, contraceptive techniques and practices did NOT begin a century ago. Birth control is at least as old as the written word. The Catholic Church heavily suppressed the practice of birth control for centuries, which is the main reason why westerners seem to think it’s a recent medical invention.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pmESTThis whole thing gives me tired-head.
GMSC, marriage is a societal/religious construct. Love, historically, had nothing to do with it.
The root of this conflict between the ayes and the nays is that the government has injected itself into the equation. If there were no benefits derived from the government as a result of getting married, then there would be no overriding reason for gays to want marriage.
The problem now is that in order to give gays marriage, you have to disassemble what marriage by definition is and reassemble it with different pieces all the while claiming that nothing has changed while simultaneously claiming that even if it has changed, the new is better than the old, anyway. (New Coke, anyone?)
Cognitive dissonance rules the day for us old squares and telling us we’re wrong for seeing the dissonance only makes us suspect that the other side is a)willingly obtuse, b)unwillingly obtuse, or c)just flat-out disingenuous.
The state may say that “marriage” is now broadened to mean things it has never previously meant, but I don’t think society or religion is necessarily there yet.
And, as I tried to gently illustrate on the last thread, you should be very careful what you wish for. Sometimes the consequences go far beyond what you intend, and once the act is done, it can’t be undone.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:21 pmEST“If that is your stance, do you believe there is any point whatsoever in people like me getting married? If Rupert and I got married, would we not be violating the very purpose of the institution, since we have no intention of making children?”
No, becasue the potential is there, andit’s between two people of the opposite sex.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pmESTeven so, the quality of love in a “marriage” shouldn’t be controlled by the state.
but what about 3 men marrying 3 women? that way their love should be equal all around, and since there are an equal number of men and women, a pecking order would be even less likely.
or how about if the man marries 3 women, 2 dogs, and a cow? that way, even if a pecking order develops, the beta bitches can still take it out on the gamma bitches (presumably the 2 dogs and cow) and feel OK about the arrangement. although i guess this doesn’t ensure “equality” in marriage.
but equality between partners shouldn’t be a precondition for marriage. i mean, older people marry younger people, intelligent but ugly nerds marry gorgeous but horrifically stupid bimbos, etc.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:27 pmESTJT Bolt:
Marriage incentives?!?! What incentives? All I’ve gotten out of it from the Government is a bigger tax bill. SUCKY SUCKY SUCK SUCK. If I was motivated my money I’d totally still be living in sin. But it’s not about that, is it? I got married because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with this guy, and wanted to stand up & say so in front of our whole family. Yes, those Judeo-Christian values are well-instilled in my soul.
And so, also, are they instilled in the value systems of homosexuals. They are people who grew up (for the most part) in normal families just like me. Most of my gay friends desperately wanted to fit in while growing up, but knew early on they were different. I know this is a sweeping generalization BUT — most of them struggled with with their identity, with feelings of self-loathing, alienation from society, with various issues with family acceptance. Many tried to be straight for a while because they really did want to fit into regular society. The most well-adjusted of them are the ones where family accepts them for who they are. Is it any wonder that they want what the rest of us want? Acceptance to live their life without being branded as freaks or demons?
Maybe they should be satisfied with a “civil union” so as not to offend those whose idea of marriage does not include them. But to those who are opposed to gay marriage — can you at least understand that it’s totally natural that they would want to be recognized by society? They they would want acceptance? Can you put yourself in their shoes for just one second - imagine that you had no control over it and were only sexually attracted to a person of the same sex. Woudln’t you want to be part of society? Or maybe you think they should just all kill themselves because they are unnatural demons. To be an emotionally stable gay person in a committed relationship is extraordinary in my opinion. All of us growing up struggle with who we are, what we want from life, and how we fit into the overall fabric of society. How much harder is it for people who are rejected because of who they are?
This country has much bigger problems to solve than worrying about who wants to marry who. How about worrying about who’s having 5 welfare children without marrying anyone at all instead?
Back to the financial incentives . . . Gays are pretty likely to be dual income, and generally higher income as well. Want you to punish the evil demons? How about hitting them with the marriage penalty and paying enough taxes to fund your stay-at-home wife and 3.2 kids? OK that was mean, but seriously they pay higher taxes and actually want to contribute to society. They deserve better from us.
Maybe they are pushing too hard, too fast. I really do think that people will come around to acceptance in time. And yes, I would prefer that people pass laws allowing gay marriage rather than have courts invent shit to force it down people’s throats. I don’t really want to argue about that; those of the lawyerly bent can and do argue about fine shades of it ad nauseum. I would prefer to convince people that it doesn’t harm your own marriage to let them call their union a “marriage” too. It just a word, albeit a word with deep religious connotations unfortunately. But in our Judeo-Christian based society as JT Bolt pointed out, the word is inescapably intertwined into our community, making “partners” who are not married less committed than those who are. Fair or unfair, that’s what the word really means to most.
My earlier polygamy comments were off-the-cuff — I personally don’t think that is a model that works well for the emotional well being of the people involved (male or female), and I think it does not work well in our culture. I would probably not be comfortable associating as friends with polygamists. BUT, I support the right of others to live as they choose as long as there was no abuse involved and all were consenting adults. It doesn’t mean I’d invite them over for BBQ though, whereas gay couples I would (and do).
Wow, that was a lot more than I mean to say on the subject. Rachel, thanks again for opening up a topic for discussion that provokes such strong feelings with remarkable little vitriol.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pmESTFuloydo, it may be circular reasoning, but that doesn’t mean the conclusion is invalid. Regardless of whether it’s logical or not, it is the social reality, as demonstrated by CA voters passing the ban.
I have a whole other set of logical arguments against, but they start with the Bible as an axiom, and that’s simply not accepted here.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:38 pmESTI’m not sure if anyone has put the
‘legal’ spin on polygamy yet (I didn’t see it in previous comments) but the Supreme Court dealt with the polygamy issue in 1898–Reynolds v. United States. Reynolds was Mormon. The Court held that polygamy was a religious action, not a religious belief and therefore was not protected by the first amendment. It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone did practiced polygamy for reasons other than religion. Could the Court now say that it was illegal? The Reynolds case dealt with polygamy solely as a religious issue. Now that so much lattitude is given in the definition of what constitutes ‘marriage’ should polygamy still be illegal? The Court found that
So. If indeed marriage is merely a civil contract, then really, why not let it encompass ALL types of marriage? Let the law tax it and regulate it. However, as my darling husband noted–he can barely deal with the four females (me plus three daughters) in his house now. Why add to the pain?
May 16th, 2008 at 5:42 pmESTI guess it depends on the definition of ‘marriage’. To me it is a union blessed by the church and recognized by the state, while a civil ceremony has no church recognition. What I don’t understand is the insistence on ‘marriage’ by some in the gay community. To me there is no difference between a civil union and ‘marriage’ as far as the state is concerned (at least I don’t think there is). Having been married in the Catholic Church and subsequently divorced, I am technically still married as far as the church is concerned, but the state does not see me as a married person. It’s as if in order to keep separation of state and religion those who marry in the church should also get a civil ceremony for the state. Very confusing.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:16 pmESTI noted this in the last thread, but very late, so I’ll repeat it in this one: if marriage is a *right* then the divorce laws must be repealed as unconstitutional.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:37 pmESTKeith, you sound like a decent guy. I don’t think the idea of gay marriage itself is what scares the squares (though I do not pretend to speak for all squares) - rather there have been, at least in the past, some statemens by gay and other “alternative lifestyle” activists that what they really want to do is to destroy heteronormative society. Some of us squares think that gays (or at least some gays) want in on the marriage racket in order to undermine it, make it meaningless, etc. It is intersting that in Canada there have been relatively few takers for gay marriage and most of them are lesbians - actually, that sort of reinforces my notions about the differences between men and women, and the relative benefits that marriage provide for both. While marriage (one man + one woman cohabitation and monagamy, in the primitive sense) provides undeniable benefits for men, it doesn’t really give them anything that they could not get in a marrage-less state of nature - it just provides regular access to one of those things. For women it provides the security (physical and material) that they could not otherwise secure due to their lack of physical prowess and extreme vulnerability during pregnancy and even child-rearing. It’s good for both partners, but is more vital for the female.
All that said, it makes sense that for gay men (who are, after all men) there is a much weaker biological / instinctual urge for marriage than for women. I think this point is being reenforced by the large number of men who choose not to marry these days, and another large group of women watching their bio-clocks run down and complaining that there are no good men to marry. Men can have access to sex and other fulfillment without marriage - so why bother. Most men are not as keen as women are on kids, at least in the abstract, so why marry - it’s just an added cost.
Anyway, the problem with these types of court decisions is that all the arguments that the court fund persuasive will be equally persuasive when laws againt polygammy and incest are challenged - they are just moral constructs, and why should the law regulate that?
Jordan and Pakistan are examples of countries where polygammy and first cousin marriage are common - the future’s lookin mighty bright!
May 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pmESTSee, it’s statements like this that get me all jittery.
I don’t think you know what you’re saying when you ask whether we could legalize “all” types of marriage.
Would that also include adult-child marriages?
Human-animal marriages?
Incestuous marriages?
If not, why not? If marriage is just a civil contract, why NOT let it encompass “all” types of marriage?
May 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pmESTbecause the homosexual community wants to force your legal and financial “blessing” of their relationships.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pmESTBleah.
Comment awaiting moderation at 6:54.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:59 pmESTPolygamy is about power, an arrangement designed to keep women subservient. It’s also inherently destabilizing because it leads to competition by the women in the family for status. In the Islamic world this competion continues into the next generation. Young men frequently turn to fratricide as a means to settle issues of succession. The institution of the harem is perhaps one of the worst ideas in history. Fertile ground, indeed, for intrigue and skullduggery.
Arranged marriage has been the norm through most of history. The notion that marriage is about romance is a relatively recent invention. We can now enjoy the incidental benefits of marriage because effective and affordable contraception has rendered the fundamental reason for marriage null and void. The result for fully developed, post-modern nations is demographic suicide.
Are childless couples selfish? When my mom used to cajole me to settle down in marriage and produce grandchildren, I had an answer: “Mom, if I had two lives, I could live one for you and one for me. But I don’t. I choose me.” Selfish? You bet. Early marriage and children would have meant a life of poverty. I’m not selfless enough to travel that road.
I tell my students that thirty years from now they can visit me in the old folk’s home. I will drool on them. And on Sundays I’ll let that special someone from my past clip my toenails. I’ll explode in a symphony of farts. “But Mr. Paules, you’re a teacher; you’re supposed to love children.” Ha! I am a teacher precisely because I do NOT love children.
Obligatory /jking
May 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pmESTBefore the church and religion, folks just got together and made families, or not, or men buggered each other, or not, and sheep were nervous.
Marriage is a “sacrament” of the Church. Sorry, guys, gals, and gays. You may want the “blessing” of this Grace because it speaks to a deeper something inside you. But you can’t have it both ways, as though you could be of one “logical” nature that denies the other out of hand, but secretly envies the unknown Something possessed by people of faith.
Why can not thinking people see the disconnect on this point?
Get over it and get a Social Contract if you want some sort of legitimacy that’s no deeper than your hormones and needs. I could care less what you call it, even if you call it marriage, it isn’t. Brides who have never given a thought to the idea of a soul, think nothing of asking a preacher to perform a religious ceremony about a sacrament that she will walk away from at the first sign of trouble. That’s not a marriage, it’s a Social Event that went on a bit longer than necessary.
The bigger point is that the State has no business in joining the two ideas as one. The State has no business in a private contract between two sovereign individuals who enter into an agreement. The State should not be in the business of social contracts OR marriage.
The Mexicans are more progressive on this point than we. They have a “civil union” recognized by a government clerk as a binding contract, and they have a Church wedding, sometime afterward. The Mexicans understand the separation of Church and State because they died for that idea. The so-called suffering of the Gays in our country because our Secular Government won’t provide them a Religious “blessing” is nothing compared to that.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:15 pmESTFor those who say there’s no financial benefit from the government for married couples: off the top of my head, how about accelerated basis? You and your spouse own property; your spouse dies; you now own your spouse’s half of the property, and the basis on that half is the current market value, not the original purchase value. It makes a big difference in calculating income or capital gains when selling the property. And there are plenty of other examples. The net result more than offsets the so-called “marriage penalty.”
And for Ed Minchau: you’re wrong; the positive includes the negative. (Free speech includes freedom not to speak.)
May 16th, 2008 at 7:39 pmESTcknight: Free speech does not include the ability of the government to suppress your speech. If marriage is a right then the government does not have the ability to grant a divorce.
I will add that there are certain exceptional circumstances where the government may interfere with the right to speak: the “shouting Fire in a crowded theater” example, so there might be _exceptions_ where the government (ie a judge) could grant a divorce, but no-fault divorces would certainly not be one of these exceptions.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pmESTThe entire purpose of forcing gay marriage down our collective throats (sic) is to give the gay community a weapon with which to damage or destroy the Christianity it so wants to be accepted by. If they can’t have a church wedding, nobody else can either.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:36 pmESTDr. Feelgood,
Let’s be fair now, you would be the first to tell us that matters of the Bible are maers of Faith, not logic. Loic and religion do not go hand-in-hand. It is only with the introduction of faith that religion makes sense at all.
It is illogical to believe that there is a guy in the sky who is all powerful, yet lets millions of good people die each year in terrible natural accidents. We are “supposed” to have free will, to live as the Bible teaches, yet we are just as likely to be killed by a drunk driver or a Tsunami. Where’s the logic in that?
There is none. To believe and OBEY requires faith.
I just don’t have any faith that the Bible is true, given what I see with my own eyes every day. It’s the OPPOSITE of logic.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pmESTyou use that word, but i do not think it means what you think it means.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:45 pmESTI’m feeling no guilt about being married and having no kids. I figure that whack job couple on Discovery Health or TLC or whatever pregnancy worshipping channel it is - you know the ones “18 kids and pregnant again!’ are taking up the slack for me, Rachel, and a small balkan nation. I think they are the Fuggers, or something like that - which is just funnier than hell, if you think about it for two seconds. Maybe it’s the Duggers. Anyway, saw a picture of that family on the internet with the caption underneath “Vagina: It’s not a clown car.’ That’s some serious messed up sh*t there.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:47 pmESTAre you saying it’s logical to understand why millions live in misery and die in tragedy?
You really understand why the world is as awful as it is? I guess since you have the answers, you’d maybe like to share with me?
So, why does your God kill so many innocent people each year? Is he mean?
May 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pmESTPara, I really don’t know how to respond to that. I already said the Bible is my axiom. Its truths are self-evident to those who believe.
For those who don’t believe, there’s no point in beginning a logical argument from a Biblical axiom, hence my restraint.
That’s your baseless and unqualified assertion. I counter that you are simply wrong.
Probably the most concise explanation of God I’ve ever read (well done). For you to say there’s no logic in tragedy is the absolute height of human arrogance. Do you really think God would deign to explain Himself to you, especially when you’re clearly hostile to Him? I’m a patient person and I’d be sorely tempted to tell you to piss off. God is so much better than either of us that He simply extends His invitation to come and see, on His terms. He doesn’t hate you, no matter how you feel about Him.
Everybody dies, Para. God isn’t obligated to do jack for any of us, because we’re the ones that severed ties with Him. Still, He makes Himself available to everyone who honestly seeks Him. Death and tragedy are the natural order of things. God proves Himself in the exceptions, but you have to be humble enough to look at things His way. It’s all there in the Bible.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pmESTWell Dr. If God is responsible for all this tragdey, and can’t be bothered to explain it to any living person, then perhaps he is just an asshole.
That is, if he existed, which I don’t believe he does.
Either he doesn’t exist and I shoudl probably ignore the anti-gay stuff in the Bible, as it doesn’t square with my treat everyone fairly doctrine,
or
God does exist, but he’s a huge jerk, causing misery, generations of wars, people judging each other, natural disasters and crap on TV like American Idol. Really, I’m gonna take my marching orders from that guy? You gotta be kidding me.
Until I see proof, I will follow my gut, which says, simply:
Be good to people, give of one’s self in service to your fellow man, be responsible for your own actions and help others to understand that they are responsible for thier own actions too.
In my opinion, a person who does not fear God, but still lives a good existence is a truly good person and a positive force in the world.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:22 pmESTThere is a world of difference between polygamy and homosexuality. Polygamy is an actual “lifestyle of choice” while homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is a trait or attribute of the person. A homosexual is homosexual whether or not they are in a relationship, and even whether they are sexually active or not. And while at this time there is no evidence of any “gay gene” (now watch a gay guy named Gene get pissed off) it does seem to be in some way an inborn part of the individual’s personality. Polygamy is a way of arranging a specific concept of family, and thus is an aspect of culture. I think this fundamental distinction is often lost in the arguments over the issue of gay “marriage.”
May 16th, 2008 at 9:28 pmESTThe slippery slope argument, that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, is often advanced on the basis that the two things are roughly equivalent, both simply preferences or choices. In fact they are totally different, therefore one might argue that we are left with an “apples and oranges” comparison. Gay marriage would then seem to basically fall into the same or similar category as a heterosexual marriage in which there is no possibility of children.
Big Federal Government has no business in the area of Marriage, polygamy, polyamoury or any other relationship between two or more consenting adults.
The only real reason they are involved is for the tax implications. I am a Roman Catholic, my religion has certain set ideas about what marriage is/should be. However I do NOT see that as reason for me to be dictator to the world and all the people who wish to have differing types of relationships.
When it comes to two/or more consenting adults….it should be up to them and not their neighbors, not the guy down the street, and not big government to tell them they cannot live together in what ever kind of union they can work out.
Lets keep our religion and our big brothers to our selves here in the Land of Liberty…please.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:30 pmESTEd Minchau: I’m not sure what you’re saying. I have the right to marry. I have the right to end that marriage. The government simply sets up a framework within which each process is [supposed to be] more orderly. It does this because it (for whatever reason) grants special privileges to married people. If you choose not to avail yourself of those privileges, and therefore forgo the license and state-recognized ceremony, you and your sweetie can consider yourselves “married” to each other, but the government won’t agree. And if you and your sweetie choose to split up, there’s no need to get the government involved. If one of you chooses to get the government involved anyhow (I’m thinking “palimony”), the government will permit you to avail yourself of its framework for the settlement of disputes.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:37 pmESTLet’s not make homosexuality into more than it is - it’s just plain and simple sin. We all have a sin nature and some of us are more pre-disposed to some sins than to others - the bottom line is.. do u succumb to it or not? adding feelings into the mix makes it a harder choice but “feelings” don’t determine whether something is right or wrong - God does. also, it’s plainly unnatural - stand in front of the mirror - penis meet vagina - anything else is akin to putting a round peg into a square hole… i’ll keep my religion to myself if everyone else keeps their beliefs to themselves as well…
May 16th, 2008 at 9:55 pmESTI personally believe it’s a mistake for the government to legalize and legitimize gay “marriage” - then again, I believe it’s a mistake for the government to legalize and legitimize *any* marriage. As far as I’m concerned, a lot of this debate would be a moot point if we simply separated the religious construct (marriage) from the legal construct (civil union). The California court came close to this line of reasoning, noticing that “separate but equal” doesn’t really cut it, but, instead of doing what they should have done and just declared all “marriages” to be, in the eyes of the state, civil unions (with equal rights for all civil unions), they decided to veer toward “marriage” and opened up a can of worms that’s going to slime up the place. Then again, if the federal government didn’t pass a law that flies in the face of the Full Faith & Credit clause (DoMA), the court might have been able to go where they should have gone.
Here’s the deal: Gay people want the same rights as everyone else. Claiming that they do because they have the same right to marry people of the opposite sex as everyone else is a crock; that’s like saying that everybody has a right to marry white people and ONLY white people, ignoring that, if you’re not white, it would mean it’s technically illegal to marry you, no matter what you want to do. Seriously, why the hell would a woman want to marry a gay guy, anyways, even if he was willing to fake it from time to time? Why would a guy marry a lesbian? Why would we encourage people to put other people through this sort of misery? If someone really believes they’re gay, don’t force them to put some poor sap of the opposite sex through their shit. That said, gay people need to realize that a lot of people are really touchy about the word marriage, and they don’t want gay people, for lack of a better way of describing it, ruining the brand. To a lot of people, seeing gay people get married is like seeing Chrysler crank out K-Cars; it was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now. The only way out of this morass that’s going to please everybody is if we take government out of the role of declaring a legal event (the contractual unification of two people) a religious event (marriage) and let religion deal with whether or not gay people should get to be “married” or not. In the end, everybody would have the same rights, everybody would have the same paperwork, and, as far as the courts would be concerned, everything would look exactly the same.
As for polygamy, from a legalistic standpoint, it’s rather problematic. Our civil union laws assume only two parties - it’s all about equal division of property after a dissolution, whether it’s alimony, child support, custody, or whatever. In a polyandrous situation, though, how do you divide assets? If you’re in a three-way relationship, does that mean that the house is 33% yours and 66% the other parties? What if you were the main breadwinner? Who do you pay alimony to? Who pays you alimony? How does child support and visitation work? Divorce is complicated enough between two people; adding more people into the mix is just going to make a bad situation much, much worse. The way other cultures get around this is by declaring the male the default winner in a divorce. For obvious reasons, our culture doesn’t allow that. If it weren’t for children, we could probably get away with applying commercial law here, treating a polyandrous divorce as the removal of a vested interest in a contract; however, treating children as assets is almost always a bad idea.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:21 pmESTSimple solution, eliminate the concept of “legal” marriage. What purpose does it really serve at this point anyways? Why should the government be involved at all?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:21 pmESTDon’t invoke the wrath of our host
I’ve said my piece, and we were destined to end on a fundamental disagreement. Your most recent comment was so completely opposed to what I believe that it signified the natural end of our conversation. I’m going to disengage this topic, hopefully on good terms. Thanks for staying civil.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pmESTDavid Colborne: ditto, except I don’t think polygamous dissolution would be excessively more complex than a 2-party union. It’s just math. I think the word “marriage” is the problem. Someone previously mentioned the French model: the state recognizes the contractual relationship of a civil union. If you feel a need to have that union sanctified by your God, you do what you need to do in your church, synagogue, mosque, etc. If we changed the words in our statutes, maybe some of the dissenters would calm down.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:22 pmESTWhy should that particular subset of people be special? I don’t consider myself part of society. The things that I find interesting and actually enjoy discussing are not shared by a significant fraction of “society”, though the Internet has broadened the selection somewhat. In ordinary situations, I CANNOT actually be considered part of “the group”. So I fake it. I talk about things that others talk about, because it gives me some social interaction, and I’ve gotten to the point that I actually can enjoy talking about what I consider brain-numbing trivia, sometimes. But it’s not me.
Should I demand that others not look at me askance if I decide to spend 2 hours verbally assessing the coolness factor of carbon nanotube solar cells, or trying to draw them into a discussion of the similarities between Atomic-Force MEMS Memory Memory and old-fashioned punch cards? People can talk about their “dork factor” because they watch goofy comedy and sci-fi shows, but those don’t even make it on the radar by comparison. I can tell you from experience that it can make people turn away from you just as quickly as a man walking up and sticking his tongue down another man’s throat right in front of them would.
Why can’t they just accept the fact that they don’t fit the standard and get over it? Other people who feel just as left out of “society” don’t have the option of shoving their distinctions down the collective legal throat of everyone else under the accusation of bigotry. Redefining the definition of words merely in order to appease a minority is no more valid than if I were to redefine the definition of oil to include water, so I could use the cheaper fluid to lubricate my car’s engine. I’m sure that would work really well.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:24 pmESTcknight, I am saying that the word “right” has a very specific legal meaning. If marriage is established as a right, then that puts constraints on the actions of the government, in particular the judicial branch. Perhaps an example might illustrate my point better.
Suppose Mr. X and Mrs. X have an unhappy marriage, but that there is no adultery, alcoholism, or physical abuse. Mrs. X files for divorce in a “no-fault” state. Mr. X doesn’t want a divorce - perhaps he doesn’t want to lose access to his children and be left homeless and destitute. So, he challenges the divorce on the grounds that marriage is a right, and that for a judge to grant his wife a divorce would be a violation by the government of Mr. X’s right to marriage.
Whoops! there goes the no-fault divorce laws, struck from the books as unconstitutional. Establishing marriage as a right thus automatically voids the unconstitutionally-granted divorces where one partner did not want the divorce. A case could even be made that since the granting of those divorces was unconstitutional, those couples are all still legally married.
This is the inevitable result if marriage is recognized as a right. Do we really want to go down this road?
May 17th, 2008 at 12:17 amESTI really go back and forth on this one. We have gay friends who, on a human level, are just as married as my husband and I, and we’re about to celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary. I want their relationships to be as recognized and honored as ours is.
On the other hand, marriage is about the coming together of opposites. Maybe that’s a minor point, but it does mean that heterosexual marriage will always be different from gay marriage.
Also, while I grant that research has been done that shows that the parenting provided by gay couples is not inferior to that provided by straight couples, I work with children, and I have seen quite poignantly the children of gay couples wish that they had a “normal” family. For better or worse, that is how the kids often think about it.
I worry about what og said. When a gay couple sues a California church because the church refused to perform a marriage ceremony for them, on what possible basis will that church be able to defend itself from the charge that it has engaged in illegal discrimination?
May 17th, 2008 at 1:03 amESTGay marriage isn’t a civil rights issue, it’s a big government issue. Why are your mating habits a matter of public record? Why do you need a blood test to get married? Why does getting laid affect your tax rate?
The usual arguments against gay marriage all boil down to “protecting children”. But wouldn’t a happy gay couple be far better for a kid than a miserable, sniping straight couple? I’ll agree that all else being equal, having both a mom and a dad is a plus — diversity, role models, all that. But all else is never equal. All kinds of people have kids — smart and dumb, rich and poor, loving and cruel. When I think about all the things I value about my own parents, gender identity does not even make the top 50.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:22 amESTI think a lot of the confusion in this issue stems from the simple fact that what is wrong with marriage in modern society is not that we are talking about extending it to Gays, but that we don’t take it as seriously in general as any other kind of contract. Marriage should, damnit, be at least as serious to get into and as hard to get out of as a car loan. Were that the case, a lot of the side issues of this debate would (I believe) pretty much go away.
1) For one thing, it would make Gay Marriage less attractive to Gays in the first place. In fact this is, to a degree, already happening. The Gay who got married in Mass. are discovering to their horror that getting divorced is a complicated chore (and are whining bitterly about it).
2) In a society that takes the marriage contract seriously, and is also serious about equal right for women, Polygamy is going o be vanishingly rare. It’s hard enough to keep a marriage going hen it only involves two people. Three or more? You’ve got better odds of hitting the lottery. This might be fun to watch, especially in the case of immigrants from cultures that treat their women like farm animals; Mustafa brings in his four wives, treats them like slaves for a few years, then one fine day one of them gets mad enough to contact a lawyer and they pull him apart in court like a boiled chicken.
3) The Pedophile and bestial marriage issue vanishes because neither children nor animals can enter into contracts.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:13 amESTDavid, While I do agree that with the current crop of politicians, one wonders if they have the capacity for higher mathematics such as division, but…
May 17th, 2008 at 7:17 amESTIn a poly situation all you are doing is increasing the divisor in the property division proceedings, as for children, hell they don’t have a good way of dealing with two parents who want the children in a divorce case, what would having 3 or more people being involved make any worse?
CSP, I will beg to differ with your assessment about making things serious driving down the Ploy situation.
The problem here is that all anyone seems to be talking about these days is the old version of Polygamy (one old man and 30 wives) versus what is much more common but undeclared in the Metro areas.
What we are seeing here is groups of people, male and female coming together due to common interests and basically just having an open group free association. If you do a little google work you will find that Polyamory is not that rare. Many of them function as small communes and may or may not be desirous of “Formalizing” such things via the state….except that things like HIPPA laws and Taxation really screws them over without an official government recognition.
(No Im not into that scene for myself or the wife, but we have many friends in this type of….relationship)
May 17th, 2008 at 7:23 amESTimmagikman,
Actually, I’m familiar with the scene. My sister-in-law had two husbands until one of them died a year or so ago. I still say it isn’t a problem. The proportion of people who can make a long term commitment like that is vanishingly small. The Heinlein marriages SOUND great in theory, but in practice folks just aren’t that reasonable.
Start actually enforcing marriages as contracts (I.E. go back to the concept of ‘fault’) and I’ll happily accept the variations, with the calm expectation that they will amount to less than 1%.
That might give Pat Robertson a heart attack, but it fits MY definition of “not a problem”.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:42 amESTPeace, out.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:49 amEST1. No, there’s really no point in your getting married and with the tax laws, I’d recommend strongly against it.
The point is that it’s none of our business if you want to make babies or not. There is a possibility that you can so far as anyone has any purpose for knowing, and you’re free to change your mind if you so choose.
WIth homosexuals, there is no possibility that they can procreate. But more importantly, the government has no business condoning their behavior.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:13 amESTWIth homosexuals, there is no possibility that they can procreate. But more importantly, the government has no business condoning their behavior.
There’s no possibility that they can reproduce naturally with same-sex partners, but gays do indeed procreate, usually in the old-fashioned way. Being gay does not seem to eradicate the parental urge.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:29 amESTSoooooo…
back to my first question, which some of you answered by saying that the possibility that Rupert and I could have kids is what would make it a real marriage:
Then what about postmenopausal women? What about a couple of elderly widowed people who find each other late in life? Should they not get married because there is no possibility of children?
What about someone with medical issues that make them sterile? Like a guy who had testicular cancer and had both testicles removed.
What about para- or quadraplegics? If Christopher Reeve, for example, had been single at the time of his accident and later met a lovely lady who he could never possibly impregnate - should he not marry her?
I could go on and on and I’m just trying to get at the insane illogic behind attaching the worthiness of a marriage to its potential for producing children.
As for the rest of the debate, very enjoyable. Much food for thought and aside from the “child” issue, I can see where many of you are coming from quite clearly. On both sides, actually. In any case, I completely agree with the idea that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Civil unions maybe but not marriage.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:45 amESTtankasscribe:
Out of curiosity, how many bodies were involved, and how long has it lasted?
Two sets of “two & two” men/women, and one man with two wives. All are one-household polygroups for over a decade and counting, the longest just shy of two decades at the moment. But as I said, no minor children involved. They seem to be just as (dis)functional as any marriage. The only observation I’d add to that is that in the troika the women are definitely in charge, both of them, but the husband seems to like it that way. To the best of my knowledge all involved in these groups are hetero and not noticeably bi, and I’m pretty sure I’d know if it were otherwise. But I’ve been wrong before, so what do I know?
I also know several long-term committed gay couples that are about as committed and assuredly monogamous as any marriage I’ve ever seen, some of those involve(d) children, and the kids seem to do just fine.
Feh. Frankly, I’d rather gay folk work on that whole acceptance thing first. Once we get to where we’re not regarded as TEH PINK MENACE then we can look at marriage. Until then, scaring the fuck out of the hetero crowd just seems like deliberate antagonization.
I agree, Keith, even though I’m a flaming heterosexual.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:45 amESTWhat the hell does that even mean? Condoning?
Behavior? What behavior?
Be specific Skyler.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:45 amESTMay 17th, 2008 at 11:04 amEST
Para
As opposed to just murdered….ya know being killed in the worst manner possible…I just cannot see how these people are passing this off as a religion of “peace”…..anyhooo
Rachel, I personally don’t see the issue of whether or not you can have children as being part of a “Marriage” It is the idea that you “MAY” have children, at which point a Nuclear family structure which may or may not include extended family members to raise and teach the child.
Thats my take at any rate.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:26 amESTPart of the problem with Mormon-style polygyny (the actual, correct term for their practice) was that there was huge cultural pressure from outside their subculture against it. Polygyny works, when it does, in places where it’s considered completely mainstream and normal.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pmESTRachel,
I think “marriage” was invented originally so that the parentage of children would be known to the tribe.
After all, if everyone has brown hair and brown eyes, it’s gonna be impossible to discern the father of a child - but because the big public announcement had taken place prior to the “coupling” the tribe is reasonably sure of the father’s identity.
So that was original intent of the marriage ceremony. I think you’re too stuck on the “unattractivenes” of that notion - because you personally don’t desire children the very raison d’etre of marriage bothers you, IMHO.
But I should be more clear - though the marriage ceremony was (and is) applied to a SPECIFIC couple, societies have long understood that the broad concept of “marriage” was to be applied to ANY man and woman who desired to form a couple.
To bother with having to make exceptions wastes a society’s time, energy and expense.
I commented about this earlier. What if two people who were completely unable to procreate still wanted to “get married” but also wanted to keep this medical information regarding their procreative abilities private?
Are you really now wanting the state to INVESTIGATE couples, ask questions, pry into medical records, etc? As I said before it will become a privacy issue. Or in the case of the elderly, a discrimination issue. You’re asking for big cans of worms here.
So marriage ought to remain a broad concept (not just a specific utility), left to its original form. Which means one man+one woman.
Everything else is just a twisting of words, of concepts and ignoring history. People who are not MAN+WOMAN desire a big fancy party, they want to be celebrated for declaring their love but that doesn’t make it a marriage. Why, in fact, do any of these “alter” couples feel it necessary to pretend that they are a man and a woman? They are play-acting. Role playing.
There are all kinds of ceremonies, people. My best friend died a couple years ago at the age of 39. He was a good guy. He should have had a grand funeral. I’m thinking full military honors, a 21-gun salute, F-16 fly-overs, and all the rest. Oh, but he was never in the military. I don’t care though. It’s an important and beautiful ceremony. He shoulda been allowed to have that ceremony. The military is a horrible organization for refusing to change their rules so that EVERYONE can have this kind of ceremony, if they want it. Because it’s our WISH here that’s important, right?
Similarly for two gay men to “get married” it means that the rest of society must CHANGE THE LONG-STANDING RULES just for them, to accomodate their wish. This truth is self-evident - that is what we are all discussing and arguing about, isn’t it? Changing the meaning of MARRIAGE. THIS is what’s insane.
But instead you say my logic is insane, though I have at least 10,000 years of history in EVERY known culture to back me up, which declare that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Why is my logic “insane?”
God, this is exhausting…
respectfully,
f
May 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pmESTi’ll take a break from my satire for a moment…
from a religious/natural law perspective, the whole marriage and children being tied together makes perfect sense. but some don’t think religion or natural law makes sense, so eh.
this discussion is more about public policy, anyhow. in this light, i think i’d say the marriage contract is a public necessity in order to protect husband, wife, and children: the family unit. there are some incidental benefits, like getting healthcare from one’s employer, social security benefits…but most of those provisions are based on the idea that the one spouse (not just the wife, i know several house-husbands…) is spending a little extra time taking care of the kids and can’t practically pitch in their “fair share” of the healthcare premium. point is, civil marriage is a legal construct/contract reflecting the reality that people HAVE to procreate (survival of the species, anyone?) and stabilizing the whole process (or trying to…) for the common good. someone in one of these threads started talking about “Little Og” and seemed to make some sense.
anyhow, civil marriage was never meant or designed to be a vehicle for two or more people and/or animals to express their love for as long as it lasts, and if that’s all two or more people and/or animals want to do, they’re picking the wrong contract with which to accomplish it.
sorry, i have a REALLY tough time refraining from satire on this subject. please be comforted to know that i’ve restrained myself from posting the best (or worst, depending on your pov…) of it
May 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pmESTit means legitimizing their relationship by forcing everyone else to legally recognize and financially support it.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pmESTTully: homosexuals are free to procreate, but then they wouldn’t be doing so as part of a homosexual “marriage,” now, would they? There’s no right to stop them from procreating, but that requires a man and a woman, and that’s what marriage is.
Para: Condoning homosexual behavior. What did you think I meant?
May 17th, 2008 at 12:44 pmESTA thought to kick around:
The Politically Gay who are pushing this issue - which is NOT to say all Gays - are not interested in traditional Marriage, which hardly exists anyway, in any legal sense. Based on their public declarations these folk are contemptuous of monogamy and emotional faithfulness, and consider the exaggerated bed-hopping of the Gay Scene normal and good. They want the cover that Gay married couples will provide, particularly if the mainstream press is too politically correct to quote any embarrassing Gay Marriage statistics.
I am just cynic enough to want to give them what they claim they want,good and hard. Allow Gay couples to marry, under the same laws as hetero- couples. And then hold them to the same standards for divorce, and tighten those where possible.
The Politically Gay aside, I see no reason why any Gays who actually wish to live monogamously should not be protected by society from those who do not, but lie. I also fail to see what possible disrepute Gays might bring to marriage that centuries of Upper Class Marriages of State, not to mention marriages among show biz types and political families like the Kennedy’s haven’t already brought.
The ONLY thing that annoys me about the march of Gay Marriage is the arrogance of the Courts. The People, bless their black flabby hearts, may be WRONG to oppose Gay Marriage, but that dies not give the Courts the right to ignore written language, long established law, and obvious intent (or lack thereof). But that’s a large part of what makes me a political Crank. I STRONGLY believe that the drawn-out process of common law is what protects us from the whims of political fashion, which all too often originate from people with their heads jammed far up their rears.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:59 pmESTI know I am late to the party, but Pajamas Media has a link to an article written by a gay man who is against the legalization of gay marriage, basing his views primarily on the slippery-slope argument. It’s a cogent summary of many of the views expressed here and worth a read.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pmESTimmajikman,
Yes, it does look pretty disgusting to see a preacher speak about killing gays in the name of religion, that’s why posted it.
Anonymous- It really annoying to try to have a conversation with someone who has no name, I have no idea if you are the same anonymous person I spoke to yesterday. Please pick a handle if you wish to join the conversation, it’s just too much to keep up with having several “anonymous” persons here.
Skyler- Please don’t answer the question with a question. What exact “behavior” is it you are referring to that the Government should not “condone”? Seriously you could be talking about anyting from sex to filing join tax returns to throwing great parties. I’m giving you a chance to clarify so we can all understand you better.
What behavior is it that are you refering to, when you say the Government should not be condoning it?
May 17th, 2008 at 2:18 pmESTSeems to me the real issue isn’t whether or not any of us approve or disapprove of gay marriage. The real issue is judicial activism which took this decision out of the hands of the voters — WHERE IT BELONGS. Four lawyers in black robes made the decision. Four unaccountable jurists handed this decision down from “on high”. This goes against our form of governance. From what I understand the dissenting votes on this decision stated this very fact: that it is not for a court to decide, but the voters. We shouldn’t be bandying back and forth on the concept of gay marriage at this juncture, but we should be focusing on fact that four judicial activists showed egregious disregard for how these types of laws should be made. We are, more and more, living under a judicial oligarchy.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pmESTI’m with lucy. My wife and I have been married for thirty years, and try as we might, we weren’t able to have kids. Childless does not mean selfish.
As far as I’m concerned, two or more people wanting to make a lifelong commitment to one another is fine by me. But that should be up to state legislatures, not judges or the federal government.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pmESTYou know Frigger, I can appreciate tradition as much as the next guy. But I can’t help wondering how we, as a nation, got past this part of the argument when we were slogging through the concept of freedom and equality for blacks. Didn’t we have lots of folks trying to instill a sense of tradition about slavery then.
Imangine the same line of thinking applied, I wonder what the argument would sound like…….
“
Rachel,
Traditionally, blacks have always been know to be part monkey, and therefore only two thirds human. Not to mention the concept of “Ownership” and branding of slaves was to make sure each owner knew what savage negro belonged to which superior master.
After all, if every Negro slave has black hair and brown eyes, it’s gonna be impossible to discern the owner - but because the big public auction and branding had taken place at the time of the “purchase” the community is reasonably sure of the slave owner’s identity.
So slavery ought to remain a broad concept (not just a specific utility), left to its original form. Which means one man owns another.
Similarly for a black man to “be free” it means that the rest of society must CHANGE THE LONG-STANDING RULES just for them, to accomodate their wish. This truth is self-evident - that is what we are all discussing and arguing about, isn’t it? Changing the meaning of FREEDOM. THIS is what’s insane.
But instead you say my logic is insane, though I have at least 10,000 years of history in EVERY known culture to back me up, which declare that slavery is well known, wide spread and accepted thru the ages. Why is my logic “insane?”
God, this is exhausting…
”
Well, you got the exhausting part correct.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:40 pmESTPara:
I couldn’t have been more clear. You ask, again,
I’m referring to condoning homosexual behavior. I won’t repeat myself again.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pmESTJesus, Para!
That is just about the most asinine attempt at a response I have EVER seen on this blog. I am actually LMAO! Did your 10 year old write that for you? What insight!
Congratulations!
You’ve found me out, darnit! How clever of you - you’ve seen right through me! You correctly guessed that my simple explanation for the historical development of the marriage contract actually equates with my obvious approval and burning desire that we go back to enslaving blacks.
Man, now that I’ve been fingered I will have to go find another blog and hijack it - all part of my dastardly plan to spread my venomous hate, and later, to take over the world, naturally.
Damn you Para, and your superior polemic skills!
May 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pmESTSkyler,
Seriously dude, you have not said what “homosexual behavior” is in the first place, so you would have to say it at least once to repeat yourself.
What specific “behavior” is that you don’t want condoned? Is it the attraction to someone of the same sex, is it the parades, is it the lack of making babies? WHAT!!!!????
May 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pmESTFrigger,
I don’t have a ten year old, or any kids for that matter. ( my 15 year marriage is a sham in the eyes of the Righteous)I’ve already stated several times that I don’t like children and will not have one of those “things” in my house.
But seriously, the point is, this same kind of debate happened 100 years ago when we were talking about giving equal rights to blacks, and the question of tradition often came up. How as a country did we get past it? How did we go against tradition for that issue and not this one?
Yeah, I’ll admit that my post was a strong shot, but honestly, I really do equate bigotry against gays with racism against blacks. Both are ugly and pointless and deny the basic premise that we are all equal in the eyes of the law and should have the same rights, including the right to marry someone you love, even if you are gay or black.
And no, for the 100th time, I don’t think marrying a goat or your sister counts here, unless that’s what straight people are requesting to do. Are you?
May 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pmESTyes. and i would prefer if you wouldn’t address me with that pejorative term. i prefer “gaynimal.” please work on your sensitivity.
i would like to marry a couple stray dogs, since my late wife died choking on a plastic bag. i’ll need some tax write-offs to support these dependents. after a while i may wish to marry a human wife, who knows, and maybe a man or two. i’m glad to know social security will support my loved ones after i pass away having died from some incurable disease acquired from sex with people of alternate species.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pmESTHi Rachel.
I didn’t pipe in regarding childless marriage above because I don’t think marriage revolves around children. Marriage revolves around two people. So yes, people that don’t plan on having children shouldn’t feel like they have any less of a marriage than those that do. Most wedding ceremonies don’t have sermons about kids. The ceremony is about the people getting married. And love. I know ours was. To each their own.
Ever see a greeting on a door that says something like “Friends are family we choose.”?
May 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pmESTPara -
Thank you for this more thoughtful post.
I had forgotten that you were childless, my apologies for the mistaken assumption.
I really really really wish people would understand what we are discussing here.
It is this: we mean to CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A WORD.
That’s all.
But these arguments keep getting dressed up in civil rights talk, government intervention, etc. So we are distracting ourselves from the real issue, that is CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE WORD.
You agree with this premise, whether you acknowledge it or not. That you engage me here, in this discussion is proof of this self-evident fact.
I am trying to strip the concepts down to bare essentials, to irreducible primaries.
Please address my fundamental premise: How were primitive tribal cultures able to “know” paternity? I have asserted that it was due to a public proclamation that had very little to do with a celebration of love, but more importantly, as a survival mechanism. The tribe had to know what man would be responsible for rearing the new burden. I had rather thought you would approve of that term.
We call the ceremony a “marriage.” But let’s call it something else, so we can all get our heads around this.
Let’s say the term “marry” and “marriage” never existed. Let’s say another word was used, like flabbergast…
Flabbergast: (noun) A public proclamation before all members of a tribe where the chieftain declared that one man would join with one woman. This was done so that the whole tribe would know who the father was, should children result from the union.
Thousands of years later gay men declare they want to have a big flabbergast ceremony too. This because they want to wear a dress in public and be the center of attention for a day? That they want rights and priveleges typically reserved to people who take on the responsibility of sustaining the species conferred upon themselves??
But WHAT IS THE POINT???
It’s a freaking Monty Python skit, this whole thing, like when that guy wanted to be addressed as Loretta - and he wanted to have babies - and when people said he “can’t” he angrily replied “don’t you oppress me!” Then Reg said something along these lines: Loretta was not struggling against oppression - he (or she) was struggling against reality!
EXACTLY!
Does anyone else see how perposterous this has become?
We are talking about changing the very fundamental nature of a word, changing the word’s history, and if you oppose this you get branded a bigot.
I am for the preservation of knowledge and of our language. I think they’re important.
You’re a military man, Para - please also address the absurd idea I proposed earlier: That is, that any American citizen should not be DENIED the right to a funeral with full military honors. Afterall, as taxpayers, we support, build and maintain the military. You will now have to form a ridiculously absurd counter-argument to protect the very nature of the ceremony that is dear to you. That is the position we are in today regarding this “marriage” word.
And no, no, no! Slavery was not defended as a “time-honored tradition,” but rather as a “necessary evil.” Yes, the evil institution was defended, but not in terms that demand honor and respect - only in terms of “there is no other way to get this kind of work done,” or “this is the way it’s always been.”
My point is that there is a big difference between “honored” traditions and evil institutions long-practiced. And that was your error when you equated my defense of marriage with a defense of slavery.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:46 pmESTOH AND BY THE WAY:
I’m gonna make it a rule when I create my Comment Guidelines, which I’m working on, but can whoever is posting as “anonymous” please just make up a fake name OTHER THAN “anonymous”? Would it really be that hard to just use “Joe Smith” or something so we can distinguish?
Thanks. Do it. This is the warning: any future comments by anyone named “anonymous” will be given a name by me, and you might not like it. I’m thinking along the lines of “Franks-n-Beans” or “Squirrel Boy”.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:59 pmESTI, for one, WELCOME our new childless, polygamous overlords!
May 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pmESTTully: homosexuals are free to procreate, but then they wouldn’t be doing so as part of a homosexual “marriage,” now, would they?
Yes they would, the children would just not be the biological genetic offspring of both parents. (Like that ever stops straight people–we have heard of adopted children and stepchildren and artificial insemination, haven’t we?) Applies whether daddy was a turkey baster or the random stranger in a plotted encounter.
For the record, I’m a happily married straight guy with kids. I have no personal problem with gay marriage or with childless couples (some of my best frineds…) and my only problem with polygamy is with the minor-children aspect, especially in the cult-like situations.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pmESTAs far as I’m concerned, two or more people wanting to make a lifelong commitment to one another is fine by me. But that should be up to state legislatures, not judges or the federal government.
Echo and huzzah.
I’m referring to condoning homosexual behavior. I won’t repeat myself again.
Someone needs to review the definitions of “condoning” and “not passing laws against.” Failure to make something illegal and agressively prosecute it is NOT “condoning” it.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pmESThey! squirrels are people, too!
and i should be able to get spouse benefits (including a life insurance policy from my employer) and equal rights for my husband who knows how to love me, as soon as the CA supreme court emancipates him
May 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pmESTThere was a married couple at my old job. One of my co-workers quietly said to me one day, “They only got married so that something they were doing wouldn’t be illegal anymore.”
Some people want to get married solely to take advantage of the benefits provided to couples. Things like that will happen. But take a serious look at this:
Option A: The majority of gays pursuing legalization of gay marriage are doing so because they want to be allowed to make a commitment of that gravity to each other just like everyone else can, because they are, in fact, otherwise normal people that want to live happy, otherwise normal lives.
Option B(A tad extreme but I wanted to include everything):The majority of gays pursuing legalization of gay marriage are doing so because they want all the government benefits given to couples(which amounts to: being included on the other’s health insurance, filing taxes, etc. jointly, and getting their stuff, social security and life insurance when they die. This information directly from someone else who’s been married 20+ years), and they are actively trying to destroy the significance of marriage, undermine the moral foundations of the country, corrupt family values(read: spontaneously change the parenting style of half the nation by doing something they passionately dislike and disagree with), and kill Christianity.
Now: Are you going to choose the razor, or the FOIL HAT?
Also, to all you blah blah blah one man one woman blah people: The meaning of everything in the public eye is always changing. Refusal to accept this is just silly. Just because a lot of people now consider marriage a formalization of two people’s (hopefully)lifelong commitment to each other and not a sacred vow before goD anymore doesn’t mean they’re trying to destroy your personal meaning of it. That’s the nice thing about these democracies. Everything thing means, to you, whatever you want it to mean, and no one can tell you you’re wrong. As long as we’re not being stupid about it and saying killing people isn’t murder or some such.
I love tacos. MMMM, mmm tacos.
P.S. Most of the internet doesn’t take the ‘lol’ ‘rofl’ ‘lmao’ thing seriously anymore. It’s all more of a joke to convey sardonic enthusiasm these days. Just, you know, fair warning.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:14 pmESTWell,Frigger I don’t know how absurd my response will be , but I’ll try not to disappoint.
A funeral with Military honors is generally reserved for marking the end of a life of military accomplishment, rather than a wedding ceremony, which marks the beginning of a relationship. One is for deeds done, the other is for deeds yet to be done.
I get where you are coming from, but nobody in the gay marriage debate is being asked to be recognized for an accomplishment that they did not undertake. One marks accomplishment the other marks status. The two aren’t close enough for me to reach my maximum absurdity potential.
sorry.
Oh, and by the way, I appreciate the effort you’ve put into explaining the tribal origins of marriage. No, I’m not being sarcastic.
I just thinkin’ that times have changed since them, I mean, those same tribes also had human sacrifices to volcano gods too, and we kinda figured out that wasn’t kosher.
Our quest as people should indeed to honor our past, but also learn from it and always strive to be better citizens, not only to the folks who look and act just like us, but also to those who don’t.
But let’s be clear about something. Laws are lines in the sand. Just because we have a law that means gays can marry, doesn’t mean we have to move that line past the beastiality or incest mark. That’s the good thing about law, we decide the stopping point.
Our law ( and the Bible says) we shall not kill. But the line has moved to include self defense, warfare and capitol punishment. When we added those to the law, it didn’t make murder legal, just legalized some forms of defense killling.
Seriously, this shouldn’t be scaring anyone.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:15 pmESTAnna, I’ll take a stab at being devil’s advocate for this, sicne I sorta agree with you. But this blog is much more interesting when we all don’t sit and agree with each other, We don’t learn anything that way.
Anyway…
The Supreme Court was not created to listen to the “will of the people”, rather, the will of the Founders. Thier sole job is to look at laws and decide if they are within keeping with the constitution, and if they determine a law is not within the spirit of the law, they must overturn it.
That’s a big part of our national checks and balances which have luckily kept us out of a lot of trouble over the years. I think “legislating from the bench” is a misnomer. The CASC cannot write a single law, they can only determine a law is unconstitutional.
Now, that being said, NO PERSON IS EVER EVER EVER OBJECTIVE, even with the best of intentions, so every Judicial body does have a “lean’ left of right. Luckily,the founders made a way for the voters yo have a say in the process, by electing Governors or President’s who will appoint Judges.
Calfornia has voted Liberal for decades and they are somehow shocked that a Liberal court has interpreted the law though thier own personal prism? It doesn’t shock me at all.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pmESTPara, thanks for trying. I was hoping you would sense the absurdity of the funeral analogy.
But still - you have only defended the “full military honors funeral” by telling us what IT IS, and WHO IT IS INTENDED TO BE RESERVED FOR. Thank you for employing MY LOGIC and welcome to my side!!
In other words, you are reminding us of its definition - a definition that exists today based on long tradition and practice. This is the similarity I am calling attention to.
Why is it argumentively proper for you to defend the full-military-honors funeral by using its long held and long established definition - but it is not argumentively proper for me to do the same regarding the ancient rite of marriage?
Right now the military’s funeral ceremony is not called into question, its function in our culture is not under assault from people on the OUTSIDE - meaning, civilian people, who, by definition, DO NOT QUALIFY for military honors.
So you see, for me, this is an epistimological question, not a civil rights issue. Let’s agree that if it is to be viewed as a civil rights issue, I have lost and you have won. This is the tactic, indeed of the gay lobby - to make it a civil rights issue, when it truly is not.
It’s the accepted premise that determines the logical conclusions. But if EVERYTHING under the sun becomes a “civil rights issue” then be ready to re-define a whole boatload of other tried-and-true practices, institutions, and behaviors that provided the foundation for Western Civilization. I am simply uncomfortable helping that along. I prefer to man the wall, in defense of certain concepts I regard as important to the survival of our civilization. Maybe I am wrong, but I believe this marriage question is no small thing.
And I guarantee that if some nutcase tried to argue for military funeral honors to extend to civilians, I would be first in line to argue against it - on the basis that words have meanings, that words denote concepts.
Making those concepts malleable, subject to the whims of the day, is not necessarily a good thing - it makes for a people completely untethered to their history and culture.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:04 pmESTPara has a brilliant point.
“The job of the Supreme Court is not to listen to the will of the people, but rather, to the will of the Founders.”
Agreed 100%. Love it. That’s a keeper.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:20 pmESTI have not as of yet defended the Military honors. I have simply determined that military honors are tied to accomplishment, as are graduation diplomas and Olympic medals, whereas gay rights is a matter of status, something that is simply assigned, like “citizen” or “game show contestant”.
Still is it bad of me to approach this issue, from the point of a civil libertarian? My gut tells me this is a matter of equality and freedom, I’m sworn to defend those. I know you understand that.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:25 pmESTPara, you and I are each civil libertarians.
Yes, you did indeed “defend” the miltary honors funeral, if only by making a distinction that it differs from the concept of marriage. The concept of “marriage,” we both agree is currently under assualt in the form altering its intended meaning and purpose - by positing that a “military honors funeral” is not similar is an attempt to exempt the concept from the same scrutiny that “marriage” finds itself.
Therefore, it amounts to a defense.
Anyway - You, as a military man, are sworn to defend what you regard as civil rights (and thank you).
I, as a philosopher, however amateurish, am sworn to defend concepts too abstract for most.
I think we understand each other.
Cheers.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:37 pmESTI haven’t been to bed for 2 days now. I’m hitting the wall. Thanks for the stimulating conversation, it helped me get through my travels which took me through several states and thousands of miles during this conversation.
Good night.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:42 pmESTPara, if you don’t know what homosexuality is, I’m afraid you’re in the wrong conversation.
And Tully, there’s a big difference between not making something illegal, and condoning it.
Basic math here,folks. Sheesh.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:13 pmESTSkyler,
I’m in the wrong conversation? ME? You’re the one who’s stalling.
A conversation can only take place when people converse. Your stalling and inability/ unwillingness to answer my question leaves no doubt that you are not even in the converation.
One last chance.
You state that the Government should “not condone” certain “behavior”.
Again, I ask you, SINCE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP:
Specifically, what “behavior” are you talking about?
I’ll make it easy on you, yes or no answers.
Is it okay for the Government condone the issue a driver’s license to a gay person?
Should the Governnment condone the act of a gay person voting?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person’s applying for a federal or state job?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person owning a business and conduct trade with non-gays?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person purchasing a meal at an eating establishment?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person joining a group of people ( both gay and or non-gay) for coctails at a night club?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person going to dinner with another person ( gay or stratght) as a platonic friend?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person going to dinner with a person whom they find attractive?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person being attracted to another person?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person getting Cable TV installed in thier aprtment?
Should the Governnment condone a gay person being elected to office?
Should the Governnment condone any sex other than penile-vaginal, missionary position, without contraceptives?
Should the Governnment condone allowing gay persons to work in jobs where they physically touch straight persons, like barbers or doctors?
Should the Governnment condone a person being gay at all, or should we simply kill them all like the Muslims stated above, (Hitler too.)
Are you CAPABLE of answering these question?
May 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pmESTAnd Tully, there’s a big difference between not making something illegal, and condoning it.
To condone is to forgive, pardon, or overlook. The implicit assumption is that the behavior is inherently wrong and the condoner is actually in a position to rightfully condemn and even prosecute the behavior, but voluntarily overlooks or forgives it, thereby providing tacit approval.
You seem to think that the private sexual activity of consenting adults is something the government should have some involvement with, that they should approve or disapprove or make illegal, that a failure to act against is somehow to condone the private behavior. How exactly does the government “condone” homosexuality, in your opinion? As compared to it just not being any of the government’s business in the first place?
Because, you see, until Lawrence v. Texas homosexual activity between consenting adults in private WAS illegal in many many places, as were certain sexual acts between heterosexual consenting adults in private. Lawrence v. Texas did NOT tell the gov’t to “condone” homosexual activity. Lawrence said that what consenting adults do in private behind closed doors, gay or straight, was none of the gov’ts freakin’ business.
There’s nothing voluntary in the gov’t not
persecuting gaysprosecuting homosexuality–they are following the law of the land as certified by the US Supreme Court, that says it’s not the government’s place to butt into the private sexual activities of consenting adults.Apparently, you believe it IS the gov’t’s business to window-peep and sniff sheets. If it isn’t, then there’s nothing there for the gov’t to condone. It’s simply none of their business in the first place–and it was the Supreme Court that made that decision, not the government in general.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:14 pmESTPersonally, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I’m childless by choice, and I’m in a live-in relationship with a guy rather than getting married to him.
Polygamy… Ambivalent about this one. If it’s between consenting adults, it’s their choice. I can see where one man who was a “better” husband could attract more than one women. But the women might or might not like it foisted on them.
I for one would not like playing second fiddle to another wife, nor would I like the guy foisting another wife on me were I the first wife.
But middle-aged men marrying barely pubescent girls? Ugh, yuck, a hundred times yuck. Those girls aren’t old enough to give consent. And I hate people who think that all females are good for is endless breeding.
Gay marriage? I wonder how many gays would really want to get married if there were no special benefits such as being included on their partner’s insurance. Personally I’m not threatened by it.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:53 pmESTIs it okay for the Government condone the issue a driver’s license to a gay person? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone the act of a gay person voting? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person’s applying for a federal or state job? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person owning a business and conduct trade with non-gays? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person purchasing a meal at an eating establishment? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person joining a group of people ( both gay and or non-gay) for cocktails at a night club? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person going to dinner with another person ( gay or straight) as a platonic friend? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person going to dinner with a person whom they find attractive? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person being attracted to another person? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person getting Cable TV installed in their apartment? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a gay person being elected to office? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone any sex other than penile-vaginal, missionary position, without contraceptives? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone allowing gay persons to work in jobs where they physically touch straight persons, like barbers or doctors? Irrelevant
Should the Government condone a person being gay at all, or should we simply kill them all like the Muslims stated above, (Hitler too.) Irrelevant
It is not for the government to condone or condemn any of the above actions. They are all IRRELEVANT.
The crux of the matter concerns whether or not the government should condone or condemn gay marriage. And honestly, the government should stay out of it as much as possible.
Should gays be allowed to marry? Well, historically marriage has been between a man and a woman. Civil partnerships fulfill all the legal “governmental” requirements of marriage. And please remember that “marriage” is regarded by many people as a religious sacrament. Not just a legal obligation.
I know a lesbian couple who have been together for over a decade and are raising two children - the biological children of one of the women. Unfortunately if they split, “I” has all the rights, “A” has none, since there is no recognition of their relationship in our state.
I also know many gay men - one of which looks like an angel, has an older “sugar daddy”, and a longtime boyfriend. These men are extremely promiscuous and not people I want around my children or raising children of their own. (I have standards, even though I think “K” is a wonderful human being.)
I also know a stripper who is in a similar situation as the gay angel - she has a boyfriend, who knows about her “sugar daddy” (and the sugar daddy who does not know about her boyfriend.) I don’t want them around my kids, either.
I would be all for “gay marriage” if more male couples were like the female couples I know - but they’re not. As it is, by not allowing people to become accustomed to the idea but instead by fighting through the judiciary gay activist are “poisoning the well”. People who would normally support the idea of two people who love each other establishing a legal bond become irate and resentful that the process is short-circuited by activists and unelected judges.
As far as hetero couples who cannot or do not want to procreate - in the past there was no way to ascertain prior to a sexual relationship between man and woman whether or not the relationship would end up producing offspring. So “marriage” allowed both the responsibility for the offspring as well as the inheritance issues to be addressed.
I believe I already addressed polygamy - those cultures that practice it overwhelmingly allow multiple wives (multiple husbands is not a common situation) and the status of both women and children is abysmal.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:09 pmESTI grew up Mormon. I got better.
I’ve known more than a few polygamists (including people in the group that has gotten all the attention in Texas recently). I knew members of the LeBaron clan (which went on an internecine killing spree a few decades ago, with only one of my acquaintances surviving). I’ve known some “cool” polygamists, like the Alex Joseph family–which is as close to a Robert Heinlein group marriage as I’ve ever seen in real life, which is to say, not all that close.)
Here’s the thing about instutitionalized polygamy:
(the word institutionalized is critical here)
Forget the legal and libertarian issues for a minute. Let’s just deal with facts on the ground.
Institutionalized polygamy results in most teenage girls getting parceled out to older men without having much if any say about it. Call this rape, call it exploitation, call it the patriarchal order or celestial marriage.
The bottom line is a lot of 14 year old girls with their eyes screwed shut effing 40 year old men they met for the first time yesterday. These girls are not trying to get back at daddy. These are real innocents and many of them are not having fun, not even after a while. (Yes, I know how crass that sounds–deliberate.) We’re talking about raped as a lifestyle, not an event. Sorry to be so goddamned judgmental.
Here’s how nice tolerant people become huge dumbasses: they think that polygamy and gay marriage are similar abstractions. Legalizing polygamy is a lot more like lowering the age of consent to 8 than it is to legalizing gay marriage.
You think that the Catholic priest scandal was disgusting? Wait and see what happens here if the news media doesn’t lose interest. (And, BTW, the mainstream Mormons have Catholic-level scandals-in-waiting, which is my point here–if you leave standing water in a damp, warm place, then nasty stuff will ALWAYS grow.)
I don’t want to offend the nice people who’ve been thinking this through abstractly. Unless you’re the kind of idiot who thinks on libertarian grounds that the age of consent should be 8 or ideally zero.
This is what polygamy is really about: lowering the age of consent to whatever the reigning authority needs it to be at the moment for political reasons.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:31 amESTDon’t touch my ears!
May 18th, 2008 at 3:08 amESTSorry Rachel, I couldn’t resist.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:08 amESTTully said,
Bingo. But you’ve read more into what I wrote than was there.
Lawrence v. Texas was a good and just ruling. There is no legitimate reason for the government to be criminalizing homosexual behavior.
But that’s a huge step from condoning it by allowing homosexuals to “marry.”
For example, it’s not right to pick your nose in public. Making it a crime to pick your nose is certainly not right for the government to do. However, if the government gives tax breaks to nose pickers, then it has done the opposite and condones and encourages nose picking.
The government should not be condoning homosexuality.
Para, you’re not worth talking to.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:08 amESTEntry into a plural wives situation by women who have education and economic alternatives should not be a concern to the state. In much of nature all females go to the biggest and strongest male. Child rearing is easier in large groups. And in most plural marriages, its the females who choose which three women will sleep with the patriarch that night and whether any of them will try to become pregnant. The male does not do the selection or decision making.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:37 amESTSorry to be taking this one up so late, after Para has said he was going to bed, but to make frigger’s point bluntly:
Gay marriage activists want to change the definition of the word marriage from “the joining of a man and a woman into a family” to “the joining of two people into a family”.
All frigger was comparing it to was changing the definition of a Military Honors funeral from “marking the end of a life of military accomplishment” to “marking the end of a life of a person’s accomplishment”.
ALL of this arbitrary redefining of words pisses me off. Not slang, even though I do understand that slang can work its way into the mainstream of language - that’s the normal way for languages to change. These that I refer to are deliberate, in order to try to FORCE people to change their way of thinking, not allow the social forces to work through on their own.
For example, changing the pronoun that is used to indicate a generic person of indeterminate sex has arbitrarily been changed from “he” (and its variant forms) to “she” (and it’s variant forms). Also the arbitrary changing of dates from A.D. and B.C. to C.E. and B.C.E. There are others, but my memory is not good enough to remember them right now.
Anyway, frigger is right, this is about redefining a word, not civil rights, and THAT is one of the biggest reasons I don’t like it.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:23 amESTI’ve been thinking on this a lot the past couple of days. Here’s a hypothetical:
Mary is divorced. She has two kids. Her ex was an abuser. She was molested as a kid. She is well educated and has a great job with great benefits.
Sue is widowed. Her husband was her soulmate and the love of her life. She has two kids. Her husband had been self employed with no insurance. She has always been a stay-at-home mom and has no job skills. She is now economically destitute.
Sue and Mary have been best friends for years. They both know they never want to marry again. They do, however, want to join households so Mary can support them and Sue can stay home with the kids. They want to join their assets, have benefits for all through Mary’s employer, and pledge to stay together for the rest of their days.
Can they do this legally? Would it be called it marriage? Would they perform some kind of ceremony in a church/synagog/mosque? No. No. And no.
I’ve got no problem with the above scenario. If the government wants to make some kind of legal arrangement for this to happen, calling it a domestic partnership, civil agreement or whatever, fine. Homosexuals could then have what they want under this kind of arrangement. And so would anyone else. I’m not a legal scholar, but from what I understand, there are legal ways to do just about all of this already (except for sharing of benefits-maybe already true in some states).
Marriage has ALWAYS been a contract between a man and a woman. Even when it takes place in a church/synagog/mosque (in this country), it is still a legal proceedure. You have to get a license from the state and the ceremony must be performed by a licensed agent (”by the power invested in me by the state of ____, I now pronounce you man and wife). Then you sign papers–you are not legally married until then.
This is where the whole ‘gay marriage’ argument breaks down for me. They ARE asking the state to condone their sexual preference. It is none of the states’ business what goes on in the bedroom. There’s no test for hetero people getting married to see if they are going to have sex or not. It’s not part of the state’s requirement.
If gays want to pledge to a lifelong committment, fine. But then Sue and Mary ought to be able to too.
Just don’t call it marriage.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:37 amESTNot true in all states. In Texas, if the couple is male and female, they are both the age of 18 or older, they agree to be married, and they subsequently live together and represent to others that they are married, then they are legally married. It’s the divorce that must be in a court, even for an informal or “common law” marriage.
WayneB, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Very good point. This is nothing more than an Orwellian change of the vocabulary to change the mode of thinking.
The ministry of Love, the ministry of peace, etc. Now we have “marriage” being used to describe homosexual relations. Very Orwellian indeed.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:23 amESTSkyler: See MargeinMI’s post, and explain to me how allowing same-sex marriage in such a case is condoning homosexuality. You’re openly conflating government “approval” of sexual activity with marriage (a conflation that would make many an old married person laugh cynically) and sexual orientation with state-endorsed legal status. Yet neither are valid factor considerations under the law for establishing a marital contract.
Lawrence does not make that error, or even approach it. You do. Under Lawrence the state’s interest in regulating non-commercial sexual activity between consenting adults in private is decoupled entirely from marital status–and from the state’s consideration as a valid determinative factor in that status. It is not a valid “state interest.”
As noted before, homosexuals can and do get married NOW–to people of the opposite sex–and even have kids, etc.. That’s not “condoning” homosexuality. And if same-sex marriage were allowed, straight people could also then marry people of the same sex–and raise kids in that framework–and that would not be “condoning” homosexuality either. And people NOW can and do get married with no sex involved in order to enjoy the legal benefits of marital status. People both straight and gay.
The obvious–allowing marriage is not under law condoning sexual activity or sexual orientation in any way. There is nothing for the government to either condemn nor condone there, regardless of your personal opinion.
You can only get there by assuming a state authority to regulate the very thing that Lawrence says is none of the state’s business, and coupling that with marriage requirements. Which means you can only make that as some kind of extra-legal claim, not as a legal one. But government runs by law. And by law the government categorically and definitionally can neither condemn nor condone homosexual orientation or activity per se in marriage.
All of which is a long way from changing the legal definition of marriage. There, GENDER (not sexual activity or orientation) is a part of the definition. Under the law one can certainly argue for not changing the existing definition to include same-gender couples. But without claiming a basis in sexual activity or orientation the emotional and rhetorical case is weakened, and that really really bugs some people.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:20 pmESTOh, and meant to mention. Even in “common law” states, the existence of the marriage is STILL defined by the state, and unless and until that state officially takes notice of the marriage in some form, other states are not in the least ways bound to recognize it either. Also, in many (non common-law) states, an officiating clergy or official is not required–under a state license, people can marry each other as their own officiants, and the only role of the state official or authorized clergy is as a state witness to the proper issue and execution of the license.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:31 pmESTYeah, instead of admitting your capacity to debate this topic ended about five posts ago, it’s better to make a judgement about me (ie: I’m not worth talking to) than admit you are incapable of answering my questions.
That makes sense.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pmESTMikeyLikesIt:
Though I consider myself a civil libertarian, nothing pisses me off more than the harming of children.
A society has to draw a line in the sand - we define the age of majority as 18. Before that age you’re a child.
I have little respect or regard for other so-called “civil libertarians” who call for the lowering of the age of consent or for the institutionalized polygamy you’ve described. Quite disgusting, that.
I think some people simply use the cover of “libertarian” in order to advance their socialist and pedohpile agendas. I mean the ACLU - puh-lease!
May 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pmESTMargeinMI has a point, actually - in a monogamous marriage, it’s fairly clear that both sides are consenting; at the very least, they’re both adults with no legal stake in any existing relationship before the marriage. After they marry, if the husband wishes to marry someone else and live a polygamous lifestyle, how do we know that the first wife is consenting? In a lot of current polygamous marriages, we don’t; then again, in current polygamous marriages, the 14-year-olds that MargeinMI mentioned wouldn’t be legally ‘married’ anyways, and, since their parents are part of the lifestyle, of course they consent on behalf of their child (which, legally, is what the age of consent is all about). In fact, if polygamy was legal, it might nip some of that in the bud, since it would then be possible for all women in a polygamous marriage to receive rights… though I doubt it. Legislation rarely fixes culture, which is what that is all about.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pmESTTully, you have an unusual interpretation of Lawrence. By your interpretation, any state refusing to accept homosexual marriages is in violation of Lawrence. That’s a bit of a stretch of the case.
Lawrence says that what people do regarding their sexual behavior is their own business. I agree. But legal marriage is not about sexual behavior per se, it’s about recognizing children’s parents. If a state is to allow same sex marriage, they would then, by your logic be violating Lawrence because then the marriage has nothing to do with parentage, it has to do with homosexuality. Then the law would be condoning homosexuality, which is not allowed by Lawrence.
I agree. Homosexuals are free to marry at any time they choose, so long as one of them isn’t already married, one of them is male, and the other is female and they meet age and other general requirements. This does not violate anything in Lawrence.
Para, I’m ignoring you because you’re trying to put up strawmen that are irrelevent and then, to quote Rachel, “feet go stompy” and you insist that I HAVE to answer your irrelevent questions. You know what homosexuality is. I’m not playing your games.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:03 pmESTWell if we’re going to follow that brand of logic, then people who don’t have children in the local school systen shouldn’t have to pay that portion of their property taxes that goes to the school system. Or that portion of their state taxes that goes for universal health care for children.
Being able to reproduce doesn’t make breeders special. Sorry you feel put upon by spending most of your income on them. Maybe you should have thought that through better and realized the financial and social consequences of it for the next 20 years
Your bitter poorly thought out ‘logic’ is what’s bad for our country. We live in a child-centric society, where they are coddled and spoiled and taught that they are the center of the universe. And then we wonder why they care about themselves and money and little else.
I’m sorry you feel like a mommy-martyr but there are a lot of reasons that people don’t have kids. Who they hell are you to question why and say that our decisions are wrong? That comment was so hurtful to so many people for so many reasons. Even if their reason is that they just don’t want kids.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:16 amESTexactly!
my squirrels and i will never be able to have children the natural way, and who are you, Locomotive Breath, to object to the government forcing my employer to provide spouse benefits to my loving husband?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:27 amESTYou’ve got it exactly backwards. That would be otherwise be known as forcing the childless to pay at least part of their fair share for raising the next generation.
What I’m put upon by is freeloaders who are getting the milk without having to pay for the cow. Bascially what you suggest is that I should have spotted the opportunity and become a freeloader too.
Complete non sequitur. And please provide data to support your assertion. My properly made and irrefutable point is that society has changed since the rules were set up. Give people a chance to take advantage and they will.
People are free to have kids or not have kids. But when I see people in the market buying steak with foodstamps I gripe about that too.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pmESTIf christians don’t like however the state defines marriage they should stop asking the state for marriage licenses and only recognize “marriages” sanctioned by their church.
A license or contract recognized by the state is not legally required. All 50 states have some form of “common law” marriage that includes marriages sanctioned by churches, with or without a license.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:21 pmESTI don’t recall having to sign any sort of social contract for being lucky enough to be born an American. It is not my responsibility to help raise the next generation. That’s why they have parents. I work, I pay my taxes thus supporting the ’system’ and the current people in it. In fact by the time I get to retirement age social security will have been bankrupted. You might call that a sacrifice. Of course I plan to have savings to take care of myself.
I’m sorry tell me again how I’m being ’selfish’ by not popping out a couple of kids? Your point was made in a smug manner which indicated that you hold those who are childless or childfree (there IS a difference) in contempt and see yourself as being better for making the ’sacrifice’ of raising the next generation. My other point was not a non sequitur. Recent generations have been poorly raised with little or no value for other people than themselves. They would go under the collective banner of “Parenting: Ur doing it wrong” I’d be afraid to have to have one of them take care of me if I were infirm. They’re mostly dumbasses with a sense of entitlement.
Let the gays marry. They’ll be just as miserable as everyone else is that’s married and look on the bright side - they’ll generate tons of income for future divorce lawyers. I wasn’t suggesting that you missed an opportunity to become a feeloader. I was suggesting that you sound like an angry bitter harpie because you don’t have a childfree lifestyle or at least sound so damn burdened by parenthood.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pmESTOf course I know what homosexaulity is, but it is you that brought up the concept of the Government condoning certain ” behavior”
Now, I’m wondering what “behavior” you are addressing. Are you against all things that gay people do, or just the things that only gay people do.
It’s not a hard question or a straw man. I am simply asking for clarification. I even tried to make it easy on you with some very simple yes or no questions.
Hey pal, you’re the one who brought it up. Why can’t you explain your own statements? Don’t you think that if you are going to advocate that some of your fellow Americans are going to have less equality than you do, you’re bound by the rules of decency to explain why?
Why can’t you answer the question; “What behavior are you refering to that the Government should not condone?” How is that an irrelevant question?
Let’s try something different, I’ll ask you one question, and you can answer it. Okay?
QUESTION FOR STRYKER!!!
Q; Should Gay persons be allowed to vote.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:52 pmESTI never said anyone should have less freedom. Where did you infer that nonsense from?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:23 pmESTI’m opposed to gay marriage. I’ve got no problem with gay civil unions. And I have a gay friend who is in a long term monogamous relationship, so I do understand that they can truly have that sort of relationship. The problem for me is that marriage is a religious sacrament. I’m starting to think the solution is to separate the state from any involvement in marriages. Let that be a strictly church sanctioned event and let the state issue only civil union certificates. I think too much of this push for gay “marriage” will vanish when marriage is only done in churches.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:04 pmESTI’m with Dr Feelgood. His logic is bulletproof, not circular.
It’s a shame that more of you aren’t willing to accept his premise. It’s easier to just toss such his reasoning aside and say, “Well, I don’t believe in all that Bible stuff, so that invalidates your entire point.” Uhm, no.
I have always held that when you come out championing some kind of social reform (in this case, changing the definition of marriage), the onus is on YOU and yours to make the case. Not on your critics, not on the defenders of the status quo.
According to what I’ve heard and read about the Supremes’ decision, they decided to overturn Proposition 22 for no reason other than they saw “no reason gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married.” Excuse me…somewhere along the way I missed the compelling legal argument that they should.
Granted, properly interpreting the laws based on the state and federal Constitutions isn’t a matter of what’s popular or unpopular with voters. My contention is that this should never have gone into the court system to start with. The first judge to hear the case should have thrown it out of court, and the next one up the food chain should have refused to hear the case.
You see, what bothers me about this the most is that the activists who sued, went about foisting this on the rest of California in the most undemocratic method possible. In classic leftist form, they got nowhere at the ballot box or in the state Legislature…so they got some justices to cram it down our throats even though it’s clear from the Prop 22 returns that we don’t want it.
And didn’t Clinton sign a measure back in 1996 (Defense of Marriage Act or something?) that put the kibosh on this at the federal level?
I’ve been hearing, however, that this isn’t over in California, despite S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom’s arrogant little speech (”It’s coming, whether you like it or not…as goes California, so goes the nation…”). Good golly, I wished I had a rotten tomato to throw at that arrogant liberal.
Supposedly there’s going to be a November ballot initiative out here to stop it a 2nd time. Whether or not it will pass is another story…I’ve been hearing that our voters are now evenly-divided on the question. At best.
Sodom and Gomorrah, people. Sodom and Gomorrah. I’ll be praying that the Lord is willing to show mercy on our arrogant, rebellious little society. The California Supreme Court honestly has NO idea what it has just done.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:04 amESTI shouldn’t have said anything, i would have loved to sit back and see what people say about Mormonism and polygamy. Too many people think its still practiced by Mormons when in fact, it was cast out of the religion back in the 1800’s.
Yes…because the federal government told the residents of Utah territory that they would not be permitted to join the United States until polygamy was outlawed…something the rest of the country found reprehensible on moral grounds. America was still a Christian country at that time, and Scripture was (and is) pretty clear on this at one point in the New Testament.
The civil leaders of Utah, in turn, demanded (and received in 1890) that the Mormon Church leaders declare an end to polygamy within their ranks. Utah then joined the Union.
It was a political move. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Mormons seeing the error of their ways on moral grounds.
The breakaway sects such as the FLDS are renegades who did not recognize the official church ruling.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:12 amESTI think it takes one to know one
May 20th, 2008 at 7:07 amESTI care plenty about other people. Just not so much about entitled rugrats who have no manners. I don’t worship at the altar of the child. And I resent parents insisting that we collectively as a country make them the same priority level. The’re YOUR children. YOU raise them. It was YOUR choice.
I don’t think that taxpayers should be responsible for paying an entire lifetime of property taxes to pay for their schooling. Cut people a break after a certain time. They’re are just other priorities I’d like to see my tax dollars be spent on. Like mandatory military service once a kid turns 18.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:35 amESTLoco, (may I call you loco?) I have a few questions. You said:
The ‘freeloaders’ are married people who do not have kids and that is the reason you are against gay marriage? So the milk I am getting is paying huge property tax bills and other taxes to pay for public education and your tax break per child? Or as someone else pointed out, I get to not have to pay for a will because I want my wife to get it all. My milk is a little sour, you can have it. I will give up all the ‘rights’ and ‘milk’ to marriage and all the bills, and stay down with all those gays who can’t be married below you child bearers if I also do not have to pay the costs. Or maybe I do not know what the term ‘freeloader’ is?
If you say something is a ‘complete non-sequitur’ you should not immediately invalidate yourself by asking for information to support the assertion. It does not follow… get it? (if not, please look up the definition of non-sequitur, it’s funny)
There is nothing free about having kids. The costs are legion, but the costs to try and fail are even higher. My ex-wife had three eptopic pregnancies that changed her to the point I could no longer live with her. Emotionally it crippled both of us. Adoption is for the rich these days and we weren’t so no relief there. And after all the fun, our property tax doubled that year to help pay for all the kids we couldn’t have go to school.
As far as the ‘takes one to know one crack’, wouldn’t mare have to be a parent to be a bad parent? Or perhaps you only meant mare had bad parents, but your courtesy bears out that there were then at least two sets of bad parents. It may be unfair to call all the parents of the 48% of all kids who won’t graduate from my district’s public schools this year, but then the other 52% aren’t guaranteed saints either. I am guessing that a goodly portion of those 30% of married couples choosing not to have children see that the best methods for raising kids are now politically incorrect or even outlawed and have thus made good choices. Most research shows that lack of parenting and giving up parental rights to places like schools and daycares have been the primary reasons for the lowering of the national learning. More than half of people over forty can name 35 or more states, less than of high school and college students can name more than 20. I still laugh at that every time I hear about how teaching health and sex ed is moving down a grade. YOU should care about that, all parents should. But wait, let’s blame the freeloaders for…not paying enough!
May 20th, 2008 at 8:50 amESTHere I am disproving my own point. That should read ‘national learning curve’ and less than ‘half’ of students.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:55 amESTThanks Tuerq, you made the point with more eloquence than I did.
There are so many reasons people don’t or can’t have kids. But you know, I guess we’re just bad thoughtless freeloaders for not trying harder to spawn.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pmESTNo I meant that mare was whining about owing nothing to nobody and simultaneously talking crap about how people raise their kids to be selfish. It sounds to me that mare was the product of such an upbringing.
I’m amused when people who won’t have kids complain about property taxes paying for schools. The problems with the educational system are a whole ‘nother debate but are not a reason for not having children.
Tuerqas, I’ve already expressed sympathy with your situation. I do not consider someone who’s tried to have kids and cannot a freeloader. I do so consider people who can and do not. The least they can do is to stop whining about having to pay the comparably small price of a school system.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pmESTI never said we don’t owe anything to anyone. And it can sound to you however you want to make it. You don’t know me, you don’t know my (both deceased) parents and you have no idea whether I was brought up in the ghetto or in a wealthy neighborhood. I just think there are more important places to spend my tax dollars than ‘the children’ What about old people who can’t afford medications? Don’t you think they’ve earned the right after a lifetime of working and paying taxes to be taken care of? What about Veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan? Their sacrifice certainly entitles them to a lifetime of care.
I think it sucks that you think you deserve some sort of privilege and extra help because you had sex and proved to the world that you can reproduce. Big deal, it happens at the prom every year, you don’t deserve a gold star and a wad of cash for it. I’m sick of hearing how parenthood is just the hardest. job. ever. Really? ‘Cause people all over the world have been doing it for centuries with a hell of a lot less whining than goes on in this country. If you think that kids today aren’t selfish then you haven’t been watching the news much.
I do not consider paying between 8-12K a year in property taxes to be a small thing. Our district spends $11,949.00 a year per child. I don’t think that sum is excessive. What I DO think is excessive is expecting people to pay those kinds of taxes their entire lifetime. What I do think is excessive is people having more than 2 children and expecting society to help them bear the burden of educating them. What I do think is not fair is that you get a tax credit for them and then bitch that the rest of us aren’t paying our fair share to help you raise your kids. I’d love to have a tax credit like that so I can travel, buy more antiques and afford more than 2 dogs. Those are things I love to do.
What if I don’t have kids because I just never found the right person and I don’t believe in doing it by myself because I think a kid needs two parents? What if I don’t have kids because of a genetic illness that runs in my family and I wish not to risk passing it on to a child? What if I just plain can’t afford it?
I’ll give you a hint dumbass, it’s a combination of two of the above reasons. So is it ‘ok’ with you now that I don’t have kids? Here’s another hint, I really don’t give a fuck.
I’m so glad it amuses you when we complain about property taxes, perhaps it will amuse you less when people wise up and start voting down township budgets because of excessive educational spending and poor jimmy and susie have no extra-curricular’s to put on their college apps, parents have to start paying for books and the school system starts charging the parents for more than 2 kids per school system.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pmESTOnce again, your beef is with how the school system is run. If your school system were perfectly run and not wasting money I can then presume you’d agree with me and pay your taxes without complaint. There are plenty of ways the government wastes money and I don’t like any of them. BTW, my two children are in private school because I don’t like the way our public schools are run here. So yes I feel your pain about paying for something from which I do not directly benefit but the alternative is to let all the kids whose parents cannot afford private school go without the benefit of ANY education. That would be way bad. Which point would be reinforced when some unemployable punk breaks into my house. Which kind of thing already happens too much but not to me (yet) thankfully. Private school and college is the reason we stopped after the second child and the reason they are 5 years apart in age.
There’s an old saying, “be nice to your kids because they will pick out your retirement home”. This works collectively as well as individually.
Nope, historically society as a whole got together and conferred on me and my wife certain privileges because they recognize the value in the society continuing with well raised children. Those privileges are already conferred on purposely childless couples on the off chance that they might have children. The gays now want them too.
I have been very civil while discussing this point. You, however, have sunk to the level of name calling and vulgar language. I used to work in a shipyard for a time. You cannot begin to approach the level of crudeness and vulgarity of that crowd. But those were uneducated men; they didn’t know any better. What’s your excuse?
May 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pmESTLoco, Can you go over one more time the benefits that society has conferred upon me for being a childless married person? I was not whining about paying for education. I was using that as an example of the things I do as a citizen not raising kids. You do know that public ed. is only funded 2/3 (1/3? I can’t remember right now)or less with property taxes right? I am paying more taxes than you (tax credits per child) in all other areas as well. While I did mention that schools as public institutions are currently miserable failures, that was not the point. The point was that I am not a freeloader, I pay many parents’ bills for them through taxes. Then I get no say in how they are raised and shiver at the warm fuzzy math and 7th grade sex ed. As disgusted as I am as a non-parent, however, I can’t believe the complacency of actual parents who can’t get up enough energy to even half-heartedly fight for their kids education. There is a news story every night about at least one violent crime and a family whose kids are running amok. Last night it was a Mom who wanted her kids facebook paswords in a sealed envelope in case something happened to them. They said ‘no’. That is not a news story, it is a tragedy and a lack of parenting.
I understand and even approve of the idea of everyone pitching in to help educate the next generation, because it affects us. It affects in the way clerks treat us as customers, in the way we feel safe walking down a city street at night, etc. So when clerks are punks and we get nervous every time we see a shadow on a street, I think we have a right to bitch about how parents are failing more than succeeding today. As taxpayers we certainly have a better right to complain about bad parenting than you do to call us freeloaders. I do agree with you on the vulgarity thing, though I am inclined to give mare a pass here. It is a very emotional thing not being able to have kids if you do want them. I thought maybe she owned horses too with the name.
I really would like to hear the benefits married people without children get for being married. I don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:57 amESTIt’s none of the government’s business.
So California says men can marry men and women can marry women. Ho-hum. Does this really change the number of men doing men and women doing women?
Texas says polygamy is a ‘no-no’ and takes the children into foster homes because they suspect some of the mothers may have been underage when they conceived. So how come any unwed 18-year old doesn’t have to give up her child to CPS?
How is it OK if some gangbanger has half a dozen ‘hos’ who each has two or three children from as many fathers, but some FLDS guy who has 3 wives and a dozen children who actually know who their father is grounds for police action?
How is it that we should just ‘move on’ when the governor of a major state keeps a high priced mistress less than half his age in addition to his wife, but not OK to have polygamy? What’s the difference besides cost?
And isn’t some welfare mother with 5 kids from 5 different fathers an example of common-law polyandry?
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 amESTThe whole system was set up to give benefits to married women on the assumption that they could not economically support themselves once they were married and had the inevitable children. This assumption is now broken.
e.g. medical insurance for a non-working spouse.
In days gone by it was assumed that the married woman would be involved full time in the raising of children and was therefore unable to get her own health insurance. In fact, a working married woman would be given a pink slip immediately upon her employer learning she was pregnant. Many of them got pink slips immediately upon being married since it was assumed they would automatically start a family. So society made up for it by letting her (and the kids) get health insurance through the productivity of the husband alone.
With no kids, why should (typically) the woman be allowed to sit home and do nothing economically productive. I know plenty of women without kids who do exactly that. She should earn her own health insurance through her own productivity. In that situation there is no reason for having the health insurance of two people be covered by the economic productivity of one person.
This BTW is a big reason for the gays wanting to be “married”. It’s an uncomfortable fact that AIDS is endemic in the (male) gay community and an “unmarried” gay man who can’t work is going to have a tough time getting health insurance. How convenient if he can get it by being “married” and co-opting a benefit created for an entirely different reason.
We could also talk about the right of survivorship in which the entire estate of one person passes tax free to another person. Again, it was assumed that the woman was economically disabled by having raised kids and was incapable of earning an income and that since the family had been supported by the already-taxed man’s single income it was unfair to tax it a second time when he needed to give it to his wife upon his death.
Surviving spouse Social Security Benefits are in the same category. It was assumed that the woman had not been in the workforce long enough to earn them so she got them by virtue of having been married and presumably raising kids.
Digression: Since it was created a century ago to break up family owned trusts, all of which have been long ago broken up, the inheritance tax is another idea that has outlived its usefulness. For example, even Bill Gates doesn’t own that much of Microsoft. The solution is to do away with the thing entirely but with the Dems in control of Congress you can count on it coming back full force.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 amESTAs far as insurance costs go, I don’t know about yours, but mine costs double if I put my wife on it. It is cheaper for her to take hers individually and me to take mine. There is a problem with gays there only if there are no rules for civil unions and one of them is not working. Not too common except in Gov’t jobs and they should keep up with the private market who charge more for married couples and even more for families. No one should be fighting for gay rights for Government benefits, we should all be fighting to make Gov’t workers pay for health insurance for themselves and their families.
It is the same case with death taxes and we seem to agree on that. We should all be fighting the Gov’t taking already taxed money from us because someone dies, but the majority of childless marriages are two family incomes much of the marriage so it makes sense that childless or not, a spouse should be protected from those taxes and that should include civil unions.
Social security for a surviving spouse is a true advantage, do you know the rules(Honest Q, I don’t)? Does a widower receive continuing benefits if his wife dies? The bottom line is that I favor privatizing social security, and I would have no problem with it counting by family. If both husband and wife paid in to it over a lifetime, or the husband paid it all, I would have no problem with that family receiving back a portion they paid in. The original idea of social security was to force people to save for their own retirement. That is not a horrible idea as people are stupid. The problem is that the politicians have made the social security system in to their own national game of Fuckopoly.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 amESTOk, mare. Then when you get old, and you are expecting someone to pay your Social Security and Medicare, my kids will just opt out.
They won’t much care about entitled old farts that we collectively as a country make the same priority level.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:51 pmESTAre you kidding me? Social Security and Medicare will have been long gone by the time I go to use them.
And it’s not entitlement if you work hard for what you have and save. It’s called responsibility. Your children’s generation will still probably be living at home with their parents playing their Xbox’s and I’ll be vacationing in Europe.
I just think people have too many children and then expect society to bend over backward to accommodate them and offer them some sort of prize (tax breaks) for being able to reproduce. I’m not a bad person because I don’t like it.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:10 pmESTBesides Tony,
Mare and I have been paying in to SS all our lives…why? It was never meant to pay for the next generation. Politicians stole from it and then instead of paying back, they let it slide to the next generation. That is not a talking point about children, it is a talking point about Gov’t intervention and irresponsibility. SS is supposed to be a forced retirement savings not a burden for the next generation to support the last generation.
The idea that you would use a ‘fund’ that I have paid in to all of my life in addition to all the public ed. I have paid for, is galling to me and so lowly pathetic on your part that all I can do is laugh that there are people in the US with that way of thinking in their head. Wow, I am not going to insult village idiots by calling you one, after all they have standards too, but…Wow.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pmEST