Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[hornadylnl]

I am sure you meant it should be the employer's decision if they want to offer benefits to partners as the sex of the partner shouldn't matter should it?

Employers shouldn't have to offer benefits to anyone should they? It should be completely market driven.

Yes and yes. As an employer, I would look to give the least amount of pay and benefits I could and still get the job done. If I could do that without providing insurance, I would. If I can't find enough employees to get the job done, I will increase pay and benefits to the point of getting the job done or where it's not feasible to stay in business. If I need a guy with a particular skillset to do he job and he happens to be homosexual, I will give him insurance that's what it takes to hire him.

Free market at work.

 

[Lex Concord]

While I haven't read through the whole thread (and likely won't), I find it interesting that very few here have addressed the proposition in the OP (get government out of marriage altogether).

Instead, I see many of the same canards being trotted out by both sides who, apparently are fine with this government intrusion into their lives, whether homosexual or heterosexual, and others who merely wish to count the angels on the had of the pin if government should change the definition while maintaining this additional and, IMNSHO unnecessary control over the lives of a people who claim to be free.

I understand the nature and origins of marriage and that they are far older than the Christian church, and likely older than monotheism; the traditions were started due to a desire to address passage of title to property.

While I couldn't write a dissertation on the subject, I have read enough to believe that it is the "automated" assignment of property rights that a majority of those in search of "gay marriage" are after, not the perceived blessing of any entity, whether religious or secular.

What would be so bad about backing government out of the matter entirely and allowing people to form explicit contractual unions designating the assignment of said property rights and other legal vestiges - such as power of attorney, etc. - rather than continuing on the premise that government should have control over such activities?

 

[Lex Concord]

It should be completely market driven.

As should everything, with protections against fraud, violence, and theft or destruction of property.

Everything else could be adequately handled by civil courts, with the benefit that they would be more likely to be impartial as they would have no dog in the fight.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The rights outlined in the constitution are not are "only" protected rights.

In addition to the Constitution there is another often over looked document. The Declaration of Independence. Where in it was declared:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

----------

The bill of rights was created (at least according to the many writings of those founding fathers involved in it) as a means to restrict the government's ability to infringe upon our "inalienable rights". Of which "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are included (it says so right in our Declaration of Independence).

Again as it was stated by one of our founders:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Jefferson.

Besides Jefferson many of our other founders felt quite strongly about personal liberties and shared the same opinion.

It would seem that based on your argument, because the Constitution doesn't specifically name certain things then I am free to gain enough support to influence the government (at least at a state or local level) to pass laws which infringe upon others' rightful liberties even though their actions "neither pick my pocket nor break my leg".

I understand all that. What you seem to be misunderstanding is that the constitution allowed for states to set up their own governance under which they could decide how they wanted there little slice of heaven to look. The caveat being, they had to agree to the accept the federal constitution as the supreme law of the land...and their state constitutions had to subordinate to it.

Jefferson, Adams, et al wrote some mighty fine sayings...they are not the law of the land.

 

[GBuck]

Jefferson, Adams, et al wrote some mighty fine sayings...they are not the law of the land.

So all of the, "the way our founding fathers intended," is all fine and dandy, until it actually ISN'T what plays into the hands of the users?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What would be so bad about backing government out of the matter entirely and allowing people to form explicit contractual unions designating the assignment of said property rights and other legal vestiges - such as power of attorney, etc. - rather than continuing on the premise that government should have control over such activities?

There are already legal instruments for this, a will for example.

OK. I'm out.

For the record, I don't care what any group of people do in the privacy of their own homes. Thats between them and their maker and their concsience. Everything we do in this life will will echo across time, to one extent or another. And for us "believers", we'll also get to answer in another way.

 

[Yup!]

And if their getting married "picks your pocket or breaks your leg" then you would be correct.

The "damage" to you must be "real" and not just "it offends my conscience or religious viewpoints".

Much like how one can't be arrested walking down the street "OCing" (here in Indiana) just because someone "feels" afraid when they see it.

Now if you have a rule in your particular religion that says "no gay marriage" then that's fine and if anyone in your club doesn't want to support that rule then you kick them out... but again, it is not for the government to pass laws which infringe upon our rightful liberties.

Now I'll admit the attached article is likely flawed, however it doesn't negate the fear of many. Nor does it offer the notion that it's completely false. If the survey is even 10% accurate, it's going to cost taxpayers money to deal with these issues.

The one independent fact that stands out in the article is this one:

"All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," Gates, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience.

This is the basis that many who oppose gay marriage have formed their views on. It's not a direct attact towards gays or lesbians, but the sanctity of the family unit should be protected, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation.

Broken homes contribute to many of the social issues that society has to deal with and face the consequences of. I'd love to see the data on what % of those in prison have come from a broken home. Until then I'll assume it's 10%, and the tax dollars to pay for 10% of the prision population comes from someone's pocket.

The full link:
Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but draws fire from experts - HealthPop - CBS News

 

[churchmouse]

Now I'll admit the attached article is likely flawed, however it doesn't negate the fear of many. Nor does it offer the notion that it's completely false. If the survey is even 10% accurate, it's going to cost taxpayers money to deal with these issues.

The one independent fact that stands out in the article is this one:


This is the basis that many who oppose gay marriage have formed their views on. It's not a direct attact towards gays or lesbians, but the sanctity of the family unit should be protected, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation.

Broken homes contribute to many of the social issues that society has to deal with and face the consequences of. I'd love to see the data on what % of those in prison have come from a broken home. Until then I'll assume it's 10%, and the tax dollars to pay for 10% of the prision population comes from someone's pocket.

The full link:
Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but draws fire from experts - HealthPop - CBS News

Having worked in and around the prison system in this state a good bit I can tell you first hand the stat you question is a lot higher than 10%. Probably closer to 60% plus. A broken home does not always reflect single parent. Abuse comes in all forms from mental to physical and all measures in between.

 

[Yup!]

Having worked in and around the prison system in this state a good bit I can tell you first hand the stat you question is a lot higher than 10%. Probably closer to 60% plus. A broken home does not always reflect single parent. Abuse comes in all forms from mental to physical and all measures in between.

Oh, I completely agree that the broken home is not the sole issue. There are many "good homes" that aren't really good at all. Those issues are equally as troubling.

 

[Apistoman]

Agreed, but the IRS seems to dictate whats permitted to a large extent.

 

[Apistoman]

I'm just saying, if benefits are the issue, take the issue away from the militant LGBT community. A more fundamental problem is the government, at various levels and for the sole purpose of social engineering", interfering with people conducting business as they see fit.

 

[wagyu52]

The rights outlined in the constitution are not are "only" protected rights.

In addition to the Constitution there is another often over looked document. The Declaration of Independence. Where in it was declared:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

----------

The bill of rights was created (at least according to the many writings of those founding fathers involved in it) as a means to restrict the government's ability to infringe upon our "inalienable rights". Of which "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are included (it says so right in our Declaration of Independence).

Again as it was stated by one of our founders:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Jefferson.

Besides Jefferson many of our other founders felt quite strongly about personal liberties and shared the same opinion.

It would seem that based on your argument, because the Constitution doesn't specifically name certain things then I am free to gain enough support to influence the government (at least at a state or local level) to pass laws which infringe upon others' rightful liberties even though their actions "neither pick my pocket nor break my leg".

Wow... The Declaration Of Independence is not used to Govern the United States. It is not law, it dose not guarantee any rights. It is the document that the beliefs of the United States were founded on.
If you want the document that pre dates the Constitution, it is the Articles Of Confederation, Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government, i.e., "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." Marriage is a privilege placed under the jurisdiction of the States, not right granted by the Federal Government.
Anyone who would suggest that Colonial America would have viewed marriage as a right or a pursuit of happiness doesn't understand History.
Colonial America Marriages

 

[Designer99]

In regards to there being just one definition of marriage, I found this interesting. Which age-old definition of marriage are we talking about?

 

[IndyDave1776]

In regards to there being just one definition of marriage, I found this interesting. Which age-old definition of marriage are we talking about?

This opens some disingenuous arguments. First, concubines are not wives, and wives are not concubines. The leverite marriage was a special circumstance in which a traditional marriage was mandated with a specific individual and the first child was considered to be that of the deceased first husband. It is not the three-way marriage of a twisted sort that the picture would seem to indicate. Marriages are still of the same substance whether they are arranged applicable to free or slave, or are with a war captive, or since the rape issue was brought in, it is still one man and one woman with some strong additional protections for the woman which are curiously neglected in the above material. Polygamy is the only true deviation mentioned which has been addressed in previous posts.

You have made an issue of how a given marriage was initiated, and not the substance of the marriage in question, again, with the sole exception of polygamy, which again, has been adequately addressed previously. You will notice that even this piece of drivel does not suggest that man/man, woman/woman, man/beast, or woman/beast combinations had ever been sanctioned.

Do you have a point other than tangential details or is your goal simply that of muddying the water as an alternative to a serviceable argument, or having a point for that matter?

 

[foszoe]

In regards to there being just one definition of marriage, I found this interesting. Which age-old definition of marriage are we talking about?

If you look closely you will find one commonality among all your examples.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you look closely you will find one commonality among all your examples.

This!

 

[Yup!]

If you look closely you will find one commonality among all your examples.

White people can't get married, unless they are dead?

 

[thebishopp]

Wow... The Declaration Of Independence is not used to Govern the United States. It is not law, it dose not guarantee any rights.

It is the document that the beliefs of the United States were founded on.

Seems a little contradictory to me...

If you want the document that pre dates the Constitution, it is the Articles Of Confederation, Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government, i.e., "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." Marriage is a privilege placed under the jurisdiction of the States, not right granted by the Federal Government.
Anyone who would suggest that Colonial America would have viewed marriage as a right or a pursuit of happiness doesn't understand History.
Colonial America Marriages

While "marriage" was undoubtedly used for political, financial, and sometimes practical alliances (history is rife with this), especially amongst the nobility and aristocrats, I highly doubt that all marriages were viewed in this manner.

In addition regardless of the reasons for marriage they also in some way were the pursuit or happiness. Whether it was for "titles", "land", "money", "status", "practical every day survival".

In any case you will probably need to post more "proof" of your assertion rather than the writings of one guy who obviously didn't like the idea of being tied down to just one woman (surprise surprise he is an "artist"). He also seems to be trying to justify having affairs "Love was saved for affairs outside of the marriage contract."

Hey, I'm with the guy. I say bring back the harems! I for one would like to have 1 wife and two concubines. Any more and they may gang up on me... and not in a good way.

 

[GBuck]

This opens some disingenuous arguments. First, concubines are not wives, and wives are not concubines. The leverite marriage was a special circumstance in which a traditional marriage was mandated with a specific individual and the first child was considered to be that of the deceased first husband. It is not the three-way marriage of a twisted sort that the picture would seem to indicate. Marriages are still of the same substance whether they are arranged applicable to free or slave, or are with a war captive, or since the rape issue was brought in, it is still one man and one woman with some strong additional protections for the woman which are curiously neglected in the above material. Polygamy is the only true deviation mentioned which has been addressed in previous posts.

You have made an issue of how a given marriage was initiated, and not the substance of the marriage in question, again, with the sole exception of polygamy, which again, has been adequately addressed previously. You will notice that even this piece of drivel does not suggest that man/man, woman/woman, man/beast, or woman/beast combinations had ever been sanctioned.

Do you have a point other than tangential details or is your goal simply that of muddying the water as an alternative to a serviceable argument, or having a point for that matter?

So you're okay with slave, forced or rape marriages, as long as it's a man and a woman? It seems like you're just making excuses in an exhausted attempt to be right.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So you're okay with slave, forced or rape marriages, as long as it's a man and a woman? It seems like you're just making excuses in an exhausted attempt to be right.

No, I did not say that. I am saying that this post is very much a red herring put forth in the attempt to distract from the point that the heterosexual nature of such relationships are a unifying constant with these extraneous examples turning entirely upon how the two specific individuals were united and not on the general nature of the fact that marriage has been a heterosexual phenomenon throughout history.

I am not making an attempt to be right. I am right. It has historically been this way, and has been that way absolutely within the span of United States history. I feel that I have been adequately clear with my thoughts on solutions that afford liberty (and minimal .gov interference) to all. Trying to make a justification by either misrepresenting or rewriting history does nothing to add to the conversation. We are witnessing the first time in which homosexuality in general has been accepted on any large scale. There is no point in trying to invent an argument based on the notion that the definition of marriage has been more fluid than it actually has. By the standard of the argument presented in that graphic, I could argue that couples that drove to the church in a Chryser and those who drove a Buick shoud fall into two different classes. It has simply raised a bunch of largely irrelevant details in the attempt to undermine the fact that at the end of the day whichever path you take (again barring the polygamy) you end up with one husband and one wife. My view on the issue is that if you want a camel in your personal life, that's your business, but don't try forcing me to accept it is a giraffe. They, by definition, are two entirely different things.