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

[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.