THIS IS IT. Gay Marriage Goes B4 Cali Supreme Court Today!

[JWBear]

That's the thing I've never gotten about Libertarian ideals. They never seem to take Human nature into the equation. They seem to be saying that, if we do away with all these laws and government controls, then everyone will just co-exist in perfect harmony. I'm sorry, but IMO, that is incredibly naive.

[Alex]

I have no expectation that we'll co-exist in perfect harmony.

It is interesting that the things that would be difficult to maintain in the absence of state defined marriage are the very aspects of traditional marriage that we are told don't really carry in weight when deciding to expand it to include gays.

Why do retirement benefits continue with a surviving spouse? Traditionally, because of the assumption that the non-earning spouse gave up any attempt at earning an income so that they could run the household of the breadwinner. What does that have to do with modern marriage?

So far as I know, Health Insurance Company A has no obligation to pay for the medical bills of a spouse (Lani's certainly doesn't pay for me unless we pay more for her insurance) except insofar as that is negotiated. Besides, get your blessed universal single-payer healthcare and that issue goes away.

Again, I have no illusion that the transition would be easy. Nor would the result be the exact same system we have now. But it would be a lot less stupid than the system we have now.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Gays and lesbians have been trying for many years to create a "quasi-marriage" relationship via contract -- you think a regular family law divorce is bad? Try dissolving that stuff when it's contractual only. I've been to seminars which talked about this -- and the legal nightmare that is created in trying to "divorce" and/or enforce the contract would turn your curly hairs white (and that's BEFORE you get the attorney's bill).

But I would argue that a large reason this is difficult is because it is forced to operate within the existing structure where government has carved out for itself the primary responsibility for establishing control over such relationships and therefore private contracts must be something less significant.

Also, responsibilities towards children have already been largely rewritten to exist independent of marriage exactly because government defined marriage has proven inadequate to the realities of how people actually live. So I would say it is the current institution of marriage that doesn't seem to take human nature into account and not vice versa (I know it wasn't you that said that part).

But you're right. The idea of state sanctioned marriage and looking to your politicians to define the obligations thereof is way too ingrained to go away. But then, the inherent assumptions of societies sometimes change very quickly so I'll hold out hope.


But again on the topic at hand, good luck and I hope everybody doesn't regret getting what they wished for.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I say it's more difficult to deal with because the contracts have to be drawn up and filed individually, with a filing fee and lawyer time (or a paralegal).

Filing a marriage: one license ($35), filing at the Social Security Office (free), and change my name at the DMV (small fee). Quick, easy, and done. I get all kinds of benefits; marriage is a shortcut to them. I'm not even sure what all that includes.

[Alex]

Yes, it is more difficult to deal with. Unless you want to be married without the financial entanglements. Then it is much easier to deal with.

But easier doesn't mean better when easier also comes with all kinds of built in discrimination as to who is entitled to the ease.

[alphabassettgrrl]

http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html compares civil marriage with civil partnership. Most of them deal with taxes and financial arrangements; not available to civil unions.

If you're going to keep totally financially separate, it's hardly worth being married, right? To pass on your money to someone else when you die, separate health insurance, whatever.

But easier doesn't mean better when easier also comes with all kinds of built in discrimination as to who is entitled to the ease.

Thank you.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

If you're going to keep totally financially separate, it's hardly worth being married, right?

I don't know, I try not to define for others what it means to be married.

As far as I am concerned I was married to Lani for years before we bothered to get the state involved and what I consider essential to us being married has absolutely nothing to do with the entwinement of our health insurance (which, despite being married, still hasn't happened) or the dispensation of our estates when we die (which, despite default inheritance laws we have done our best to supersede with alternate contracts in the form of living trusts, wills, powers of attorney, etc.).

Since the institution of state marriage exists I support completely it being expanded to include gay couples. But I also support it being extended to include any combination of consenting adults.

[I Heart Disneyland]

This issue makes me so angry! Why government has to get in the way of gay marriage blows my mind!!! I have so many wonderful gay friends who deserve the right to be married the same way as much as me and my hubby of 21 years.

[Morrigoon]

Alex: all that you suggest may make sense on a purely intellectual level, but in a real world translation, you now have additional marital discrimination, since many low-income people cannot afford the lawyers for all these contracts, making "marriage" such as it is in your world, only for the rich. It also provides yet another disincentive for citizens to enter into an institution which is recognized as contributing to social and emotional stability in our society.

It also leaves out the fact that, by definition, marriage is a way of declaring your relationship to one person as superceding all blood ties (defining one person as your "closest relative", and granting all rights therein). I have yet to see a contract that can do all that a marriage can do in one fell swoop. Shall we start adopting each other then? Is a wife to be declared a daughter? Does that blur the line between what you can do with an adopted daughter (provided Woody Allen hasn't already blurred it enough).

Marriage IS the contract. It defines those rights without having to lay them all out individually.

I find it terribly ironic that the "defense of marriage" people are doing more to threaten the existence of marriage by causing us to have to even discuss possibilities like this, than simply allowing gay marriage ever would.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Alex: all that you suggest may make sense on a purely intellectual level, but in a real world translation, you now have additional marital discrimination, since many low-income people cannot afford the lawyers for all these contracts, making "marriage" such as it is in your world, only for the rich.

I disagree, there would quickly be standard contracts that cover what most people want out of it, just like there are for other common legal relationships. But it is moot in the real world, I agree.

It also provides yet another disincentive for citizens to enter into an institution which is recognized as contributing to social and emotional stability in our society.

Recognized by whom? And if it has reached that recognition under its traditional definition then maybe it is important that we not mess with the traditional definition?

I have yet to see a contract that can do all that a marriage can do in one fell swoop.

Again, I would argue that the biggest reason such does not already exist is that in the current system it has traditionally been unnecessary.

It's kind of like saying there was no purpose in inventing cars since there were no good roads to drive them on.

Shall we start adopting each other then? Is a wife to be declared a daughter? Does that blur the line between what you can do with an adopted daughter (provided Woody Allen hasn't already blurred it enough).

This just makes no sense. But of course, the idea that your closest living blood relative automatically has some claim on your stuff and decision making is itself absurd.

Marriage IS the contract. It defines those rights without having to lay them all out individually.

Yes, marriage is a contract where tradition has created the rules. The rules are all laid out individually in statute and judicial precedent. So I fail to see why the idea of using a different contract where the participants create the rules is so absurd. Though it is moot.

I find it terribly ironic that the "defense of marriage" people are doing more to threaten the existence of marriage by causing us to have to even discuss possibilities like this, than simply allowing gay marriage ever would.

This also doesn't make any sense. I fail to see how any threat has been made against marriage by the suggestion that its definition be left to the parties rather than to the state.

There is no absolute definition of marriage and what it entails, it has varied widely over time and geography. All we're relying on currently is tradition with one party arguing they should be included in the tradition while continuing to exclude the other forms. I say just let all the forms in, since it really isn't anybody else's business anyway. And the only way to keep it that way is if the state stays as far out of it as possible.

The first offense is that we even have to ask permission to get married. It is only the second offense that the government isn't fair in granting it. And even if gay marriage is allowed, it will still be unfair in granting it, just in ways currently more palatable to some people.


I know what I think is the best way will never happen. I'm not operating under some delusion it will, though I think in a hundred years group and, possibly, incestuous marriage will likely also be allowed. But I find it an interesting thing to discuss.