Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[Lowe0]

Let me turn the question on you: If there is no benefit, why does anyone care? Why the gigantic legal battles, propaganda, etc? If there is no benefit, how is anyone being 'discriminated' against?

I noticed that you ignored the part where I also established that there is no loss of freedom in this, by definition. Any comment?

I already covered that, but I'll circle back in detail. You're thinking of marriage licenses as being non-existent at best (no one has a right to a piece of paper with someone else's signature), or at worst, "shall-issue" - basically, the government acknowledging receipt of whatever private contract you've entered into, and filing it away in case it ever comes up in court. Sounds ideal, but it's not what we have in practice. What we have is a lot more like "may-issue" - for better or worse, the citizens have ceded to the government the capacity to determine who can and cannot marry. When we cede control over something to the government, and they choose a less permissive set of conditions for access to that thing, then that's a loss of freedom. For a historical example, your dictionary definition doesn't mention alcohol, but would you really argue that Prohibition didn't result in a loss of freedom?

Your other question - why? - raises the obvious equality angle - who wants to be less equal in the eyes of the law? - but also the more practical concern that marriages already have judicial precedent behind them. If I was being denied the right to visit my spouse in the hospital and participate in decisions regarding her care, then I'd need to call a lawyer and have them get me an injunction against the hospital. With a private contract, the judge would have to review it, along with whatever agreements my spouse had made with the hospital upon admission, etc. Then come the challenges: is the private contract authentic? Legally binding? The hospital's lawyers can drag their feet, and unless she regains consciousness and demands to be taken to another hospital, she and I will have no recourse.

Play that scenario out again with a marriage license instead of a contract. The judge will take one look at it and say "we let married couples participate in each other's care; let him in." If it's an emergency, and I pick the judge's poker buddy as a lawyer, I can probably get that injunction at 2 AM.

You have the burden of proof completely flipped around. If you think that gay marriage should be subsidized by tax dollars and government infrastructure, the burden lies on you to prove that it is socially beneficial.

You just said earlier in your post that you didn't know, or care, how gay marriage is subsidized. So you admit you don't know, yet insist that it's being subsidized anyway? Which is it?

 

[steveh_131]

When we cede control over something to the government, and they choose a less permissive set of conditions for access to that thing, then that's a loss of freedom. For a historical example, your dictionary definition doesn't mention alcohol, but would you really argue that Prohibition didn't result in a loss of freedom?

False premise. Again. The ability to drink alcohol falls under the ability to 'act' in the definition of freedom. It combines basic property rights (the right to purchase alcohol) and the freedom to consume it. Prohibition violates these natural rights.

Two men have the natural right to call themselves married if they so choose. They have the right to act as if they are married in anyway that they want. The lack of a government certificate has no bearing on that. The government certificate offers other benefits, none of which are things that enhance their freedom.

Your other question - why? - raises the obvious equality angle - who wants to be less equal in the eyes of the law? - but also the more practical concern that marriages already have judicial precedent behind them. If I was being denied the right to visit my spouse in the hospital and participate in decisions regarding her care, then I'd need to call a lawyer and have them get me an injunction against the hospital. With a private contract, the judge would have to review it, along with whatever agreements my spouse had made with the hospital upon admission, etc. Then come the challenges: is the private contract authentic? Legally binding? The hospital's lawyers can drag their feet, and unless she regains consciousness and demands to be taken to another hospital, she and I will have no recourse.

If you feel that the hospital discriminates against gay couples, take it up with the hospital. File a lawsuit. A hospital is private property. The true loss of freedom here is the government forcing a private hospital on private property to do things they don't want to do. But let's be honest: you're not looking for more freedom.

You just said earlier in your post that you didn't know, or care, how gay marriage is subsidized. So you admit you don't know, yet insist that it's being subsidized anyway? Which is it?

Oh, come on. I listed a bunch of things. I meant that I don't care to continue with the list or research the list, but they exist. You just mentioned hospital visitation as one. The government puts in place a tax-payer funded infrastructure in lieu of private contracts and free market forces that ought to be taking place. That is a subsidy, and the gays want a piece too. But losing access to a subsidy is not a loss of freedom.

 

[jamil]

All I have to say about the current discussion, in purely theoretical terms, a government sanctioned marriage is just about the legal bennies.

People can define marriage however they want and call themselves married by their own definitions and live their lives together pretty much however they want. But if they want the legal benefits and responsibilities of obtaining a marriage license from the government, you must play by the government's rules.

Steve is correct in that only those benefits that one naturally has a right to are a loss of freedom if the government denies those benefits by denying marriage. So the question is, does a marriage license give some benefits that one would have a natural right to otherwise?

Arguably, survivorship is one example that might be considered a natural right, and you mostly get that by virtue of having a government sanctioned marriage. But that can be obtained though other legal means. Of course the automatic nature of those kinds of benefits legal marriage are definitely superior to those other means. If you can make a case that there is a natural right to efficiency, then maybe you have a case that denying marriage is a denial of rights.

 

[Lowe0]

False premise. Again. The ability to drink alcohol falls under the ability to 'act' in the definition of freedom. It combines basic property rights (the right to purchase alcohol) and the freedom to consume it. Prohibition violates these natural rights.

Two men have the natural right to call themselves married if they so choose. They have the right to act as if they are married in anyway that they want. The lack of a government certificate has no bearing on that. The government certificate offers other benefits, none of which are things that enhance their freedom.

But all of which are only available if you limit your potential spouse to who the government dictates that you may marry. That's freedom to you?

If you feel that the hospital discriminates against gay couples, take it up with the hospital. File a lawsuit. A hospital is private property. The true loss of freedom here is the government forcing a private hospital on private property to do things they don't want to do. But let's be honest: you're not looking for more freedom.

I am, but I'm being pragmatic about it. Legal marriage isn't going away, and even if it did, people like Mat Staver and Tony Perkins would still push against whatever took its place for same-sex couples.

Oh, come on. I listed a bunch of things. I meant that I don't care to continue with the list or research the list, but they exist. You just mentioned hospital visitation as one. The government puts in place a tax-payer funded infrastructure in lieu of private contracts and free market forces that ought to be taking place. That is a subsidy, and the gays want a piece too. But losing access to a subsidy is not a loss of freedom.

Free market forces? When you take your spouse to the hospital, do you ask them to give you a moment to look over the terms and conditions before wheeling her back into the ER? If not, then when exactly are you expecting to allow free market forces to work?

 

[Lowe0]

Arguably, survivorship is one example that might be considered a natural right, and you mostly get that by virtue of having a government sanctioned marriage. But that can be obtained though other legal means. Of course the automatic nature of those kinds of benefits legal marriage are definitely superior to those other means. If you can make a case that there is a natural right to efficiency, then maybe you have a case that denying marriage is a denial of rights.

There's a right to expediency in criminal proceedings in the 6th Amendment. I don't see a good reason why a civil matter shouldn't be treated in the same manner.

 

[steveh_131]

But all of which are only available if you limit your potential spouse to who the government dictates that you may marry. That's freedom to you?

No, all of which can be done with no government participation whatsoever. No definition of freedom includes entitlements to government actions or money.

Free market forces? When you take your spouse to the hospital, do you ask them to give you a moment to look over the terms and conditions before wheeling her back into the ER? If not, then when exactly are you expecting to allow free market forces to work?

Boycotts, bad publicity. There are options. Nevertheless, a hospital that is privately owned and residing on private property has things known as 'property rights'. They may allow or bar visitors as they please. At least, in a free country they can.

That is the price of freedom. Do you want freedom or not?

There's a right to expediency in criminal proceedings in the 6th Amendment. I don't see a good reason why a civil matter shouldn't be treated in the same manner.

Civil contractual matters are handled expediently on a regular basis. Marital contracts would be no different.

 

[Lowe0]

No, all of which can be done with no government participation whatsoever. No definition of freedom includes entitlements to government actions or money.

Sure, ideally. But in the real world, those government actions exist. In the real world, spouses get that "government money" (mind you, we're talking about their own spouse's money, that they paid into Social Security, and a tax benefit that's anything but). And the government only gives that tax money back if you make the decision they dictate to you. Again I ask: that's you're idea of freedom? Do what you're told if you want your money back?

Boycotts, bad publicity. There are options. Nevertheless, a hospital that is privately owned and residing on private property has things known as 'property rights'. They may allow or bar visitors as they please. At least, in a free country they can.

That is the price of freedom. Do you want freedom or not?

None of which a heterosexual couple would have to do; they get those rights automatically. Why? What benefit does the nation receive by discouraging the formation of same-sex couples? If anything, given that we can't feed the people we have, we can't provide medical care for the people we have, we can't educate the people we have, and even if we could, we don't have jobs for the people we already have - maybe it's time we started promoting non-breeding couples until we get our population down to a level that we can actually sustain?

Civil contractual matters are handled expediently on a regular basis. Marital contracts would be no different.

Handled expediently? That's a sick joke. Tell that to the people who wanted a simple legal document in Rowan County recently.

 

[steveh_131]

Sure, ideally. But in the real world, those government actions exist. In the real world, spouses get that "government money" (mind you, we're talking about their own spouse's money, that they paid into Social Security, and a tax benefit that's anything but). And the government only gives that tax money back if you make the decision they dictate to you. Again I ask: that's you're idea of freedom? Do what you're told if you want your money back?

No. Nothing about the social security system has anything to do with freedom. It's a big government crock.

Of course, this could be resolved with a simple contract and a change in SS policies at the federal level. If that's the goal, it could easily have been accomplished without taking a dump on federalism.

None of which a heterosexual couple would have to do; they get those rights automatically. Why?

Because people like to engineer our society with government. It's stupid, I agree. If you want to put an end to it, I'll back you.

What benefit does the nation receive by discouraging the formation of same-sex couples?

They are not discouraged. They just aren't subsidized. It's quite different. I really feel like you need to dwell on this point until you understand it, because it is quite fundamental. The fact that one behavior is encouraged does not mean that the other behavior is discouraged.

Handled expediently? That's a sick joke. Tell that to the people who wanted a simple legal document in Rowan County recently.

You're absolutely right. If this was a simple private contract then none of this would have even happened and these couples could be having them notarized at the nearest 7-11 if they wanted. This is the correct solution.

 

[jamil]

There's a right to expediency in criminal proceedings in the 6th Amendment. I don't see a good reason why a civil matter shouldn't be treated in the same manner.

Handled expediently? That's a sick joke. Tell that to the people who wanted a simple legal document in Rowan County recently.

Okay, so you admit that there's no right to expediency in civil matters.

 

[Lowe0]

They are not discouraged. They just aren't subsidized. It's quite different. I really feel like you need to dwell on this point until you understand it, because it is quite fundamental. The fact that one behavior is encouraged does not mean that the other behavior is discouraged.

If we were talking about interactions among private citizens, sure. But with a government that you're legally subject to, and required to fund? I'm not convinced that such a distinction exists.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Kentucky clerk still in contempt of gay marriage order: plaintiffs | Reuters

 

[foszoe]

This thread reminds me of 24 hour news....it's breaking news for days, weeks, months!

 

[MisterChester]

Kentucky clerk still in contempt of gay marriage order: plaintiffs | Reuters

How tough is it to do your job even after accommodations were made for you? Now I'm convinced she's doing it for attention.

 

[actaeon277]

How tough is it to do your job even after accommodations were made for you? Now I'm convinced she's doing it for attention.

Yup

 

[jamil]

For those who don't want to read the article:

On Friday, the lawyer for Deputy Clerk Brian Mason, who has been issuing licenses since Davis was jailed, told the court Davis confiscated the licenses upon her return and gave him a document that removed references to Rowan County and Davis' office and required him to list his title as a notary public.

​

She's just going to make rules up as she goes, I guess.

 

[MisterChester]

For those who don't want to read the article:

On Friday, the lawyer for Deputy Clerk Brian Mason, who has been issuing licenses since Davis was jailed, told the court Davis confiscated the licenses upon her return and gave him a document that removed references to Rowan County and Davis' office and required him to list his title as a notary public.

​

She's just going to make rules up as she goes, I guess.

She's already learning politician form. Move along.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There is absolutely no difference. As far as procreation goes, where do all these homosexuals keep coming from?

The question people should be asking themselves on this is "how does this affect me?" Is your pay still the same? Have your job duties changed? Is water still wet? Is the sun still shining? etc. If the only way you're affected is your "Ew!" meter is pegged, then the problem isn't with homosexual marriage. The problem is with the people who take issue with it.

The real question that we are asking is: "how does this affect society? Does this have a positive, unifying affect on society, or does it continue the breaking of society into special interest groups? Is it "fair" to denigrate a long-held societal more based on religious beliefs in favor of a secular "religious" more?"

 

[Blackhawk2001]

She's already learning politician form. Move along.

Well after all, she IS a Democrat, and they're apparently taking their cues from the current President.

 

[Arthur Dent]

The real question that we are asking is: "how does this affect society? Does this have a positive, unifying affect on society, or does it continue the breaking of society into special interest groups? Is it "fair" to denigrate a long-held societal more based on religious beliefs in favor of a secular "religious" more?"

By not treating everyone with equal rights, such as allowing marriage regardless of sexual orientation, special interest groups are automatically created. The creation of these special interest groups only further serves to divide society which also serves the purpose of distracting from what the government and big business are doing while we bicker about who can marry whom.

 

[MisterChester]

Well after all, she IS a Democrat, and they're apparently taking their cues from the current President.

If you think the current one is the only one to do that, I've got a bridge to sell you.