obama endorses same-sex marriage

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Bassoon » Mon May 21, 2012 9:21 pm UTC

My point is that you should understand what you're saying and what it implies. Because saying

Griffin wrote:I've only got one plank I'd never give up to see others win, and both parties are fundamentally opposed to it, so... yeah, you know, I'd give up the gay marriage thing to win. Especially since its one of those things that feels incredibly inevitable, it's already legal in my state, and if the Republicans ever try to change that they are going to be handing the pro-marriage side a huge victory.

(emphasis mine)

seems to imply that you don't actually understand what civil rights actually mean to people. The phrasing of your post definitely has the condescending "sit down and be quiet while the grown ups do work" attitude about it. I'm happy that your state has legalized same-sex marriage. However, you come from one of the six states that have legalized it. Six. Forty-one states restrict marriage to one-man, one-woman. Nineteen states ban any legal construction that would recognize same-sex couples.

The fight is not yet over. Just because you come from one of the 12% of states that have same-sex marriage doesn't mean we all do. In fact, most of us don't. Your battle may be won, but the war isn't over. Far from it. There's still forty-four states to change. Don't rely on the power of society to change itself. Nothing is inevitable.

What's my point?

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. North Carolina just banned same-sex marriage, and refuses to recognize any same-sex couples. That's not moving forward. That's sliding backward. This fight is far from over, even if it's pretty much won when compared to the drug war.

User avatar
darkone238
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:37 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby darkone238 » Mon May 21, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Those are all good things, and I am in full support of extending them to everybody. And not just the married either. The whole situation is, quite frankly, bullshit. But yes. Those are all small potatoes, a thousand times over compared to people losing years of their life in jail for something that harms no one at all. and those people are going to be overwhelming. The drug war ruins lives and gets people killed. A lack of gay marriage leaves people... exactly as bad off as most people already are in this country.

Seriously, making a couple more people a member of a privileged class is not as important as saving lives (healthcare reform), getting people out of prison and giving them their freedom back (ending the drug war), or even saving lives by pulling out of overseas wars and protecting our essential freedoms by dialing back the security state.

And if you think otherwise, I'll honestly state I have no fucking clue where you are coming from. Yes, gay people should be just as able to enter a privileged class with the person of their choice as straight people. But, especially since it's going to happen anyway and the worse that comes from ignoring it is that a few people can't enter a fucking privileged class, no.

It is not more important than any of those other things.

It is not even fucking close.

And your retarded rhetoric isn't a fucking argument - all your empty hyperbole results in is making you look like an idiot. So either say something worthwhile or shut the fuck up.

was it a pride thing for blacks to get the right to marry whites?

Yes, it was. It was about pride and cultural acceptance with a good deal of symbolism in there and it's a damn good thing. And gay marriage is a damn good thing. But if it was "mixed marriages" or "female suffrage" on the block? Yeah, one of those is way more important. It doesn't mean the other ISN'T important, but that's never what I've argued. The relative importance is not the same.

It seems that you think that marriage is just a title, that we're fighting to be able to say "yay we're special snowflakes." You do realize there are Rights and Responsibilities associated with marriage right? Also, you realize that's why we're fighting, right?

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Mon May 21, 2012 9:39 pm UTC

Yes, I fully realize that marriage entails membership in a privileged class. I said that specifically.

And Basoon, your words are stupid and pointless, and I'm beginning to suspect you're arguing vehemently against someone else and just using me as a stand in, so I'm not going to bother responding to you any more.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby eran_rathan » Mon May 21, 2012 10:00 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:An interesting question if we're going to the historical argument... Has Gay Marriage existed in any form prior to modern marriage? I'm not a historian, but if we're going to be talking about history and other marriages... it'd be best to come up with a solid historical example of gay marriage.


Nero?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
darkone238
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:37 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby darkone238 » Mon May 21, 2012 10:06 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Yes, I fully realize that marriage entails membership in a privileged class. I said that specifically.

And Basoon, your words are stupid and pointless, and I'm beginning to suspect you're arguing vehemently against someone else and just using me as a stand in, so I'm not going to bother responding to you any more.

So you recognize that there are over 1000 rights (including several that involve health and safety issues), but you seem to just kind of pass it off as unimportant. When you say "membership in a privileged class" it's a much bigger deal than you are implying.

Save Point
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Save Point » Tue May 22, 2012 12:49 am UTC

Griffin: It just boggles my mind that you can claim marriage isn't a big deal - that it's merely about being in a privileged class. I don't think you realize the extent to which marriage permeates everything and how the legal status effectively minimizes the costs of all sorts of planning: tax, estate and testamentary, property and real estate, family/visitation/custody/adoption/divorce, health, criminal (ex. testifying and privilege) and the list goes on. Any effective estate plan is going to take advantage of marriage. If you die intestate, it will ensure your spouse and children get some of your estate despite not having independently created any kind of testamentary scheme for them. It insulates gift transfers and estate taxes from taking hefty chunks out of what you've acquired and want to pass onto your family. The same logic applies to health proxies, etc and parental rights. It's about the safest holistic we have for couples, their property, their health, and their kids in virtually every arena, which is important. This is why NC's constitutional ban was so problematic: it captured a lot of domestic partnerships that were not homosexual couples and now kids are hung out to dry. Not everyone has the same span of time to plan for every possible need, contingency or misfortune, nor do most people have equal access to the legal services to do so.

There is also, most certainly, an equal protection question at hand here. I consider it a fundamental principle that free societies do not arbitrarily treat classes of citizens with discrete characteristics as unequal before the law, and advocating this is not mutually exclusive to combating other important issues.

I realize you've been repeatedly harped on so I'm trying not to paint you as this Really Bad Guy, but I feel like you exemplify a larger problem in America where people just haven't wrapped their minds around the many important layers of the gay marriage debate.

EDIT: I think this article highlights exactly why gay marriage is such an important issue, and about more than being part of a "privileged class." Apologies if it has already been linked.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3988
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Dauric » Tue May 22, 2012 3:42 am UTC

The problem is that American democracy, and probably democracies in general, have become games of strategy in their function. Which "pieces" on the "game board" are you willing to sacrifice to achieve your broader goals against your "opponent".

So, homosexual marriage is an important issue, but so is finance reform, healthcare reform, dealing with expanding government surveillance of random citizens, extracting armed forces from a region where things have never gone well for any foreign force, a national debt and deficit so high (and with members of congress unwilling to do anything about it) that it threatens to close down essential government services on a yearly basis...

To dismiss all those other priorities as "luxuries" is pretty damn narrow minded. A government shutdown will cut unemployment benefits for 8%-10% of the population, which is around as much of the population as the -highest- estimates of the homosexual population. If the government goes in to shutdown that kills unemployment benefits so people will miss rent and mortgage payments, subsidized health insurance payments (medicare/medicaid) will go unpaid. You want the right to visit your partner in the hospital, at least they're in the hospital in the first place. J.P. Morgan just last week proved that the financial industry is still quite capable of making stupid and risk-unaware choices and not knowing they did it until years later, so our financial institutions are -still- one "innovative product" away from meltdown, and that nails -everybody- straight and homosexual alike. It's not a "luxury" to deal with the potential for people to lose their homes or jobs because some fucknuts in Wall Street or Washington DC is a short-sighted jackass. It's not a "luxury" to deal with how people can be put in debt for the rest of their lives if their lives are saved from life-threatening trauma or disease. It's not a "luxury" to figure out how to pay for the weapons and armor our troops overseas need to do their jobs, nor is is a "luxury" to figure out how to get them home without making the sacrifices of their peers for naught.

And our government is attempting to resolve these issues and more by playing games. They're essentially "trading favors" as a form of compromise, and those trades are getting harder and harder to get in an environment of increasing partisanship. Each policy you hang on to has to get the biggest bang for the effort to get re-elected so you can continue to push for the policies that you find important.

Don't get me wrong, I think that this is a horrible tragedy that our system of governance functions this way, but the vernacular of the political process is all about treating it as some sort of game. Hell, the very process of electing representatives is frequently equated to a horse race. I don't like that democratic politics has to come down to pushing for policies that benefit the greatest numbers at the sacrifice of the minority to favor polling numbers and re-election bids. This kind of shit clearly leads to situations where you get the "tyranny of the majority".

It's unfortunate but Griffin's being a realist. I don't fault Griffin for being a realist, the fault lies in a system of governance that emphasizes issues as pieces and movements on a game board with the ability to continue playing the game (re-election) as the ultimate reward, instead of statesmanly discussions about real issues of rights and welfare of the citizens.

*The supporters of the re-election game generally posit that the process of looking towards one own re-election is supposed to produce the best set of rights and the optimal welfare as a by-product. I remain unconvinced.

I wish that we could address the topic of gay marriage independent of other issues. I wish that in 2008 Obama didn't have to choose between healthcare reform or banking reform, they're both desperately important issues. For good or ill though that's not the way the system we are currently burdened with works. Dislike what Griffin said all you want, but realize that unless there's major reform of the democratic process, quite possibly at a very fundamental level, he's right that support of policies in the game-environment of Washington DC, and in the political party centers that reside there, support of various governance policies frequently boils down to a strategic choice.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Tue May 22, 2012 5:02 am UTC

The problem here is that we're running assumptions that having a new plank in the platform would seriously cost someone the election (and no one has addressed my question earlier as to how the president's positions on healthcare reform, education, and governmental organization turn away far more people than his mariage equality stance does by virtue of what people prioritize). There's also this insidious view that legislation comes at the expense of other legislation. No, congress make-up is largely what determines what legislation will be passed. Congress has plenty of days to get myriad bills worked on and passed -- they just cockblock each other for political reasons. If your pet legislative goal is not accomplished, it's not because attention was paid to marriage equality -- it's because you couldn't secure the votes for your own goal, while marriage equality did.

And the fact is, no amount of time in the world or continued, undivided attention on issues like healthcare reform and financial reform was going to produce different results given that it's in each party's interest to prevent the other from achieving something that might have them seen favorably. People want to stay in office as long as possible, so they can establish business and power connections and pass legislation favorable to their friends and sponsors.

Start setting stiff term limits and limiting the rewards of being in public office, and you might see some slight return to policy-making that's actually interested in the voters.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Tue May 22, 2012 5:33 am UTC

EDIT:
Forgot to mention, for the prioritization discussion, I definitely agree that sometimes you just need to pick one issue over another. That said, I don't think marriage equality is really one that is going to matter for that (at least for more liberal issues). There's also a possibility of getting too cozy with the idea of same-sex marriage being inevitable due to its increasing popularity; a balanced revenue/spending cut approach to deficit reduction is widely popular with the people of the US (I think it's even in the majority opinion for registered republicans), but it is in no way inevitable. As things stand, same-sex marriage certainly seems inevitable, but things may change. It's all a big balancing act; I know there are many things I'd prioritize above it given the chance, and I'll even admit part of it is because I see the sea of change going in favor of it.

Lucrece wrote:The problem here is that we're running assumptions that having a new plank in the platform would seriously cost someone the election [...]

This is true, but not all "planks" are equal. If the dems just toss in "oh yeah, marriage equality or something" on their platform, it won't really cost anybody anything. If they actually push for it (i.e. make it an addition that matters, instead of just an hollow statement) then that is going to come at the expense of other things they could push. Campaigning time, advertisements, staff, whatever -- none of those are free.

Lucrece wrote:There's also this insidious view that legislation comes at the expense of other legislation. No, congress make-up is largely what determines what legislation will be passed.

This, however, isn't true. Even after you get everyone to agree that we need a law that does 'x', you're going to have a hell of a time getting them together to get a law that does it in a way that enough of them like. Even if they had all of the votes for it, passing a federal same-sex marriage law could take months of discussion to find the wording that would get all of those people to vote on it at the same time. Bills dealing with complex issues don't form out of thin air. There very much is a limit to how much different legislation congress can handle over a period of time. They might be horribly inefficient at that right now (lots of extra bickering and constant vacations) but there is still a limit there.
Last edited by Ghostbear on Tue May 22, 2012 5:46 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Save Point
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Save Point » Tue May 22, 2012 5:39 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:This, however, isn't true. Even after you get everyone to agree that we need a law that does 'x', you're going to have a hell of a time getting them together to get a law that does it in a way that enough of them like. Even if they had all of the votes for it, passing a federal same-sex marriage law could take months of discussion to find the wording that would get all of those people to vote on it at the same time. Bills dealing with complex issues don't form out of thin air. There very much is a limit to how much different legislation congress can handle over a period of time. They might be horribly inefficient at that right now (lots of extra bickering and constant vacations) but there is still a limit there.

Why does it have to be an affirmative federal law? Why not work towards repealing DOMA, since the states have traditionally dictated marriage in the first place? SCOTUS will eventually have to deal with another legitimate right to marry case sooner rather than later, anyway, effectively requiring more states to fall in line.

EDIT: Although, not to lose your broader point: yes, crafting legislation has costs, but it's not at the point where big issues like healthcare will ever realistically be forfeited in the name of gay marriage. Gay marriage really isn't being "pushed" at the expense of other issues so much as we're witnessing the result of decades of activism that has finally culminated into realistic legislative potential.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Tue May 22, 2012 5:45 am UTC

Less Than Liz wrote:Why does it have to be an affirmative federal law? Why not work towards repealing DOMA, since the states have traditionally dictated marriage in the first place? SCOTUS will eventually have to deal with another legitimate right to marry case sooner rather than later, anyway, effectively requiring more states to fall in line.

Because I was responding to a post dealing with legislation in congress. A DOMA repeat will be an important step to pulling it off, but I certainly wouldn't consider that a "mission accomplished" moment, and I doubt many others would either. If you add in a supreme court ruling being crucial on this, then we've just made any supreme court justice nomination being that much more complicated. Moreover, I was dealing with the general idea of legislation not coming at the expense of other legislation.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Tue May 22, 2012 12:24 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Yes, I fully realize that marriage entails membership in a privileged class. I said that specifically.

And Basoon, your words are stupid and pointless, and I'm beginning to suspect you're arguing vehemently against someone else and just using me as a stand in, so I'm not going to bother responding to you any more.

i don't think you actually understand the fight going on here....the fight isn't to automatically make all homosexuals a part of a privileged class. it's to allow homosexuals to join THE SAME class that everyone else is already in.

all heterosexuals are already in the same class, the class with the potential to get legally married to whomever they choose. not all heterosexuals get married, however, they're all still in that same class.

which is why homosexuals consider themselves to be part of a second class, the class that doesn't have the right to even potentially get married.


your drug war has this same concept as one of it's facets.....people would like to have the right to do drugs. not everyone who fights for that right would do drugs, they just think everyone should be able to do drugs.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Tue May 22, 2012 12:45 pm UTC

There is also, most certainly, an equal protection question at hand here. I consider it a fundamental principle that free societies do not arbitrarily treat classes of citizens with discrete characteristics as unequal before the law, and advocating this is not mutually exclusive to combating other important issues.

Oh, wow, imagine that. You just spent an entire fucking post railing against your own principals then. Fucking magnificent.

Marriage in the use, by definition, is 100% about arbitrarily treating classes of citizens as unequal before the lore. All you are doing is shifting the line between the winners and the losers.

And, as I've said again and again, if we have to have it, it deserves to be shifted, and I don't see it running contrary to anything, and see no reason we shouldn't pursue it, and the whole scenario was based on the eminently retarded hypothetical of "even if there WAS something else we'd lose, it wouldn't be worth giving up gay marriage". And I couldn't disagree with that more.

But then, I guess it's clear I have a different view of this issue, so whatever.

Also, DSennete - your last post is stupid as all hell. You might want to consider re-reading it, because it doesn't make any sense.

"It's not about making more member of a priviliged class, it's just about letting more people join a privileged class!"
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 22, 2012 12:52 pm UTC

Griffin, cool down. Your lasts posts are full of insults

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Роберт » Tue May 22, 2012 1:44 pm UTC

I really don't get what you have against marriage, Griffin.
Last edited by Роберт on Tue May 22, 2012 1:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Tue May 22, 2012 1:54 pm UTC

The usual argument against marriage is that it discriminates against single people for no good reason. Heterosexual couples need no incentives and deserve no financial help with raising children, so the benefits associated to marriage would be abolished and have the system revamped to cover individuals instead. Yasmin Nair is a lesbian activist that makes some controversial writing against gay marriage -- you can read some of her socioeconomically focused pieces if you want to see where Griffin's claims about marriage are coming from.

I don't think Griffin has anything against marriage. He's just stated his priorities, and nowhere in the thread did I see him insisting that people share his priorities and notions about what should be important. Obviously a gay person with kids and a job that doesn't compensate for their financial disadvantage will have a different prioritization of marriage than Griffin, but I just think he worded his posts poorly in a way that made seem marriage frivolous when that wasn't his position to begin with.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Роберт » Tue May 22, 2012 1:57 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:The usual argument against marriage is that it discriminates against single people for no good reason.
I'm confused. Who would single people want all their stuff (including children) to automatically belong to?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Tue May 22, 2012 1:59 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:
There is also, most certainly, an equal protection question at hand here. I consider it a fundamental principle that free societies do not arbitrarily treat classes of citizens with discrete characteristics as unequal before the law, and advocating this is not mutually exclusive to combating other important issues.

Oh, wow, imagine that. You just spent an entire fucking post railing against your own principals then. Fucking magnificent.

Marriage in the use, by definition, is 100% about arbitrarily treating classes of citizens as unequal before the lore. All you are doing is shifting the line between the winners and the losers.

And, as I've said again and again, if we have to have it, it deserves to be shifted, and I don't see it running contrary to anything, and see no reason we shouldn't pursue it, and the whole scenario was based on the eminently retarded hypothetical of "even if there WAS something else we'd lose, it wouldn't be worth giving up gay marriage". And I couldn't disagree with that more.

But then, I guess it's clear I have a different view of this issue, so whatever.

Also, DSennete - your last post is stupid as all hell. You might want to consider re-reading it, because it doesn't make any sense.

"It's not about making more member of a priviliged class, it's just about letting more people join a privileged class!"

because "people who have basic civil rights" shouldn't be considered a privileged class...and i'm not sure why you think it should.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 22, 2012 2:18 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The usual argument against marriage is that it discriminates against single people for no good reason.
I'm confused. Who would single people want all their stuff (including children) to automatically belong to?

Housemate, brother, good friend, business partner, attorney, doctor. What happens to your stuff and kids if you die? Who shares your tax breaks, or a pension? Who makes decisions if you are unconscious on the IC, or developing Alzheimer? Etc.

You can get a paper from that state that says fuckbuddies married couple, and suddenly all of that stuff is arranged. Which made perfect sense in the days that fucking was highly likely to lead to children. But sex and children have become a bit decoupled nowadays, and the system hasn't quite caught up.

Since a few years, Dutch law has aprovision to be 'tax partner' with one person. The requirement is that you live on the same address, that's all. And you get most of the tax advantages of marriage or a civil partnership. Brillaint idea, since lots of singel people like the tax breaks but don't want to marry their dorm mate.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Роберт » Tue May 22, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The usual argument against marriage is that it discriminates against single people for no good reason.
I'm confused. Who would single people want all their stuff (including children) to automatically belong to?

Since a few years, Dutch law has aprovision to be 'tax partner' with one person. The requirement is that you live on the same address, that's all. And you get most of the tax advantages of marriage or a civil partnership. Brillaint idea, since lots of singel people like the tax breaks but don't want to marry their dorm mate.

Sure. How is marriage discriminatory here?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 22, 2012 3:25 pm UTC

because the provision didn't exist before. And only covers a few tax and social insurance issues, not the whole spectrum of marriage.

it's an example how people once took for granted that married people got special treatment from the law, but that's changing.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Роберт » Tue May 22, 2012 3:35 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:because the provision didn't exist before. And only covers a few tax and social insurance issues, not the whole spectrum of marriage.

it's an example how people once took for granted that married people got special treatment from the law, but that's changing.
But it's not like they couldn't marry their dorm mate if they wanted to, is it? Are you saying it's unfair to have a system set up without having an easy way of picking and choosing the pieces you want?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Tue May 22, 2012 3:40 pm UTC

But it's not like they couldn't marry their dorm mate if they wanted to, is it? Are you saying it's unfair to have a system set up without having an easy way of picking and choosing the pieces you want?


In order to marry, you must share joint accounts for the marriage to not be suspected as fraudulent, and there's a whole lot of legal fallout to ending a marriage as well. Even when signing a prenup. Not to mention the social difference of marrying a relative or friend -- it creates all sorts of trouble.

And while you can claim that marriage does not discriminate because everyone can marry, that's making the assumption that everyone will have a stable, life-long person to spend existence with. Which is just plain false and will never happen -- some people will reach the end of their lives single, whether it's their fault (personality, desires) or not(physical appearance).
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Роберт » Tue May 22, 2012 3:45 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:And while you can claim that marriage does not discriminate because everyone can marry, that's making the assumption that everyone will have a stable, life-long person to spend existence with. Which is just plain false and will never happen -- some people will reach the end of their lives single, whether it's their fault (personality, desires) or not(physical appearance).

But how is that any different from any other form of legal contract signed between two people? Of course you need to get someone to agree to sign it with you.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Tue May 22, 2012 3:55 pm UTC

Yeah, but the conditions to get that signature tied with the benefits to it makes procuring and maintaining the benefits of a marriage far more difficult and exclusive compared to the "Tax Partner" laws Zamfir referenced.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3988
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Dauric » Tue May 22, 2012 4:04 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Lucrece wrote:And while you can claim that marriage does not discriminate because everyone can marry, that's making the assumption that everyone will have a stable, life-long person to spend existence with. Which is just plain false and will never happen -- some people will reach the end of their lives single, whether it's their fault (personality, desires) or not(physical appearance).

But how is that any different from any other form of legal contract signed between two people? Of course you need to get someone to agree to sign it with you.

Most contracts have a stated limit on their duration rather than assume an indefinite end, and most contracts have built-in clauses about things like "Breach of Contract". Marriage on the other hand has state and federal rules about breach of contract and to override those rules (ie: a pre-nuptual agreement) requires additional expense.

Also most contracts don't have built-in social implications. Sure the Christian Social Conservatives are full of shit claiming that marriage is their religious right and shit, but "Marriage is just like every other contract." is clear on the other side of the scale with the historical perspective of the social functions marriage serves somewhere in the middle. I mean I'm not big on the whole "threatening the sanctity of marriage" argument from the right, but it's like you're putting in an effort to try to do exactly that. The concept of marriage, of a lasting pair-bond between two individuals that wish to be known in their community as a couple rather than as two separate individuals predates civilization and it's in every society in the world. It's not "just like any other contract", it's a deeply human function of the social part of our brains to have a distinction between individuals and those who have chosen to pair-bond.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Роберт » Tue May 22, 2012 4:15 pm UTC

I was talking about the legal side of things. The social side of things has nothing to do with the government. This is why I would be okay with the government switching its terminology to "civil unions" only.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 22, 2012 4:18 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Zamfir wrote:because the provision didn't exist before. And only covers a few tax and social insurance issues, not the whole spectrum of marriage.

it's an example how people once took for granted that married people got special treatment from the law, but that's changing.
But it's not like they couldn't marry their dorm mate if they wanted to, is it? Are you saying it's unfair to have a system set up without having an easy way of picking and choosing the pieces you want?

well, yeah,that was the question? How the law can be disadvantageous for single people?

I can't decide for you what is fair and what is unfair. Should the tax code for example be connected to an age-old social institute to organize sexual relations?

There are obvious reasons in favour of that, of course. Long term sexual relations are a basic building block of our society. Even without children, couples tend to behave like single social units in a way that very few other social relations do.

Marriage was, and to some extent still is, the clear indicator when people became such a unit. So laws and taxes were attached to that institute to reflect the special social status.

But it was never a perfect indicator, and it is becoming weaker indicator still. So I personally support steps to loosen the link between marriage and laws, even when I think that the laws should try reflect social practices, such as the common practice that couples form long-term social units.

Save Point
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Save Point » Tue May 22, 2012 9:14 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:
There is also, most certainly, an equal protection question at hand here. I consider it a fundamental principle that free societies do not arbitrarily treat classes of citizens with discrete characteristics as unequal before the law, and advocating this is not mutually exclusive to combating other important issues.

Oh, wow, imagine that. You just spent an entire fucking post railing against your own principals then. Fucking magnificent.

Marriage in the use, by definition, is 100% about arbitrarily treating classes of citizens as unequal before the lore. All you are doing is shifting the line between the winners and the losers.

Sorry, I meant immutable, not discrete characteristics. Homosexuality is different than marital status in this respect. So, no, I did not just rail against my own principles; I was thinking one word and wrote the other. Mea culpa on that much.

Also, note that I said arbitrarily. I do not find it arbitrary at all for states to have reasons to treat married couples and unmarried couples differently (see the part of my previous post where I talk about it being a convenient holistic.) They also treat domestic partnerships differently, giving those couples significant rights and benefits not afforded to similarly situated not-domestic-partnership couples, and most people seem to have no problem with that because they are so obviously a practical solution for couples who have similar needs but can't or do not want to get married. Are there any good reasons to treat homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples? Secular ones that cannot just as easily be applied to their heterosexual counterparts (ex. concerns over fraud)? I don't believe so, and I know you were not arguing as much, but I'm trying to highlight the distinction between treating married/unmarried differently than heterosexual/homosexual. Even if you disagree with the married/unmarried distinctions, I think that is a far more reasonable disagreement than what is had over the gay marriage debate.

Oh, and with regard to the marriage/contract discussion, Volokh has a pretty good post on it, for the curious.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: freezeblade and 13 guests