Most likely what will happen, yes.

I guess I just am not surprised that this is a line in the sand type issue for people.  To them (because I used to be there at one point in my life) this is an issue regarding the very moral fabric of our entire society.  To those with more moderate views that seems silly, but it's an integral part of many people's viewpoints on the world.  To them it's not silly, it's complete truth and their only sense of reality.

I know I'm getting in a little late with this.  I try to have my games take precedence over these discussion.



Well, your insurance company is a private company, and whether or not a private company can discriminate in who they serve is a different issue than a government service.  It's one worth discussing, but giving a private company that right doesn't also extend that right to a govt "of the people, for the people."



Well, the conservatives I interact with socially are all (and they're very few where I live) Ron Paul conservatives.  As a group, they have icky feelings about gays and like to make homophobic jokes, but gay marriage isn't a big issue for them.  I'm getting this from a combination of conservatives writers and commentators and internet comments.  And while internet comments can be stupid, it's easy to find serious ones (otherwise, what are we doing?).  Granted, that is still a small slice of the conservative pie, but it's not nobody.



Besides passively prohibiting homosexuals from marrying, a number of states actually do specifically prohibit gays from marrying.  My first marriage was in Virginia.  Besides being a cruddy place to live, Virginia's marriage court had prominent signs displayed for anyone trying to get a marriage license; they said something like "It is illegal to give a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple.  Any applicant attempting to get a certificate, and any court clerk who provides one, will be prosecuted."  I don't remember the exact wording, just the fact that they got prosecuted for applying.

Also, there is an active movement to pass DOMA.  While it's looking less and less likely to pass, it was close there for a while and it's certainly part of the discussion.



Well, the list of benefits provided by marriage are larger than a tax break and immigration rights.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...-benefits-30190.html

I'm not even sure this is completely exhaustive.



And can be legally challenged by the deceased's kin.  And are not subject to the same estate laws as inheritance.



And they do it with a reason.  I have a friend who is a patent searcher.  His job is to look through existing patents and see if there is currently an existing patent that resembles his client's patent enough that the govt might deny his application.  But the reason my friend has a job is that the applicant has a reasonable expectation that if he can't find a similar patent, the application won't be denied.  In other words, there is a reason why the government denies patent applications and everyone knows what it is.  It's about protecting someone else's property.  Which leads me back to my original question, the one I posed to Heath.

What are the

that gives the government a compelling need to discriminate in the application of marriage licenses?
This message was last edited by the player at 16:27, Tue 15 May 2012.

In reply to habsin4 (msg #935):



Perhaps you mean the Protection of  Marriage Act.  But DOMA (The unconstitutional law titled the Defense of Marriage Act) is law and was signed into law under the President Bill Clinton.  Perhaps you also mean on the discriminatory side, the call by the current presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, to push for a Federal amendment to the Constitution.

I should have been clear; I was referring to the federal government.

I'm actually really okay with laws on this at the state level. I really want my state to have the freedom to better reflect my values and beliefs. You can't manage that at the federal level. If 70% of North Carolinians want to prohibit gay marriage, well ... Fine. It's their state. If you happen to live in North Carolina, and this is a big issue with you, I recommend you move. I've chosen my home based on which laws I'm willing to live under. It's a hassle, but it's still an option, and it may be worth it.



Of course. However, a lot of these can be established through companies (such as medical care benefits/hospital visiting rights), or through other legal measures (such as power of attorney). Taxes, welfare, and immigration are the only ones where the ONLY apparent solution seems to require an act of congress recognizing homosexual marriages.



It can be challenged, but they can challenge a recognized marriage as well (and it's happened!) The idea of getting the lawyer to draw out the papers is that if it's challenged, it'll still be settled. If the judge is entertaining it, that's a problem with the judge not following laws.




There is a reason for denying some marriages, and everyone knows what it is :P

In reply to katisara (msg #937):

Well, I want to know what that reason is.

In reply to katisara (msg #937):

I'm sure people would "like" the same treatment for Abortion.

But you cannot vote on a minorities rights.

It doesn't matter that I don't like what the KKK has to say, they have a right to assemble and to protected speech.  It doesn't matter that you don't like marriage enough (or perhaps too much?) that you want to keep it to yourself.  You don't have that privilege legally.

Further, there is the problem of the Full Faith and Credit.  Could you imagine a state saying, "Your contract from another state doesn't matter here?"

That's the problem with 50 different states having different marriage rules!

Finally, so much of what you say drips with privilege.  This is the usual problem with the generally agreeable philosophy that I would label (but not attached to the label) as libertarian.

To say "even a marriage" can be challenged is to confuse WHAT the challenge is!  It's the challenge that the marriage is real!  Not what rights a marriage confers.

For example, in Indiana, there is a "widows' benefit" that says that even if a home is not in the name of a spouse, upon death the spouse is entitled to $35,000 of the home's equity or half of the equity whichever is greater --- THAT IS NOT PERFECT RECOLLECTION, but the general flavour.

Now, that "matters" even if the value of the house is $25,000 :)

And it's BASED fully on marriage.

If there is a marriage, it happens.

You can "attack" the validity of the marriage (ie, it was fraud; they never consummated, etc.) but you cannot in any way challenge ...we just don't think the marriage rules should apply.

Likewise with you "You can do the same with legal agreements"

The problem is, it's not the "law of the land" which determines things at critical moments.  The Law grinds slowly. Hell, recently a fellow was arrested despite having on his person a certified judge's order informing the pigs that the "traffic violation" which showed on his driving record is an error (that cannot be removed?) and he was still arrested.

People understand "This is my spouse" they don't understand.  "Here's our personal family limited partnership agreement with a custodial LLC for which we are both member, managers"

In fact, to just say it would make most people "activate" their ...I better call a superior.

And we haven't even talked about other issues like a child in the family and the death of the biological birth parent.

The fact of the matter is, while there may be (and often practically speaking are not) some fixes for these problems.  They at the very least put an additional burden and an actual tax on citizens based on their minority status.

In this way, though the struggles are different and their own, it has the same "problems" say the poll taxes did.  And frankly the "pick a box" gender nonsense is not really that difference from "literacy tests" and "citizenship tests"

Revolutionary hit some of the major points.

The first and foremost is, you cannot legislate away a statutory right. If 70% of North Carolinians decide that women should lose the right to vote, they get to grouse all they like but women are still going to vote.

The second is the Full Faith clause.  You cannot have a contract recognized in one state but not in another, and marriage is just a contract.

Third, contesting a marriage only happens under specific circumstances, most of which involve consent.  A few involve consent and adults, which are linked: only human adults can give consent.  Adult homosexuals are-- and this is important-- ADULTS.  They can consent legally.

Not sure how it relates.



Again though, I'm not thoroughly convinced marriage is a right. You did post a strong argument with the quotes from judges, however the laws against polygamy stand. So clearly not everyone is on board with that judge.



Indeed, although that's part of why I hold the position I have. If a couple gets married in Maryland, then moves to North Carolina, enjoys the same insurance coverage, tax benefits (except state taxes), etc., etc. but just aren't called "married" by the state, that seems like a win.



This is such a red herring. Yes, I am white, I am not gay, and I have a good job and am doing pretty well. So I guess I can't vote on anything relating to welfare, treatment of homosexuals, or anything to do with people of any race other than my own? Or bank regulations, for that matter?



Really? So that's what happened with Terry Schiavo?




I understand, and this is definitely a valid concern. If people are not following the law, I don't think anyone can argue that's okay.





I'm not sure here if you're suggesting the average homosexual is suffering the same level of prejudice as blacks did under Jim Crowe laws?

It doesn't matter what you think is a right, or what 90% of North Carolinians think is a right.  If 70% of them voted to remove voting rights from blacks, it would be illegal.  What matters is that everyone is treated equally under the law.

They have that, it's called a Civil Union.  It's a special separate institution for gays.  The only problem?  Since you like quotes from judges so much, here's a famous one for you: "Separate is inherently unequal."

Except that what is a right isn't written down in stone by God, so we can just look it up. If no one agrees something is a right, it effectively isn't.



That has never been a concern. Single people don't get the tax breaks married people. I don't hear anyone complaining about that.

In reply to katisara (msg #943):

There is a discussion concerning taxes and marriage in a separate Community Chat: Politics thread.  To steal another's users posting:



A sensible reason to give a tax break to legally-bound couples, no?  Which leads me again to my recurrent question: what is the compelling reason to deny gay couples the right to marry?

I think I know what opponents of gay marriage think it is, but I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

I'm saying that what we "like" isn't the measure of what is or becomes a right. The right to privacy is recognized and that protects abortion, regardless of how we feel.  it also took a long time.  Which will relate to the last point I'm making....and which you asked for me to clarify.




Huh?  Now it's my turn to not get you at all.  There are states that understand the Constitution and are leading on gay marriage.  I can get gay married in Mass. ...So, I do.  then Jose and I move to Arizona.  Our contact is invalidated contrary to the full faith and credit clause.    And yet, you seem to be saying you see that there's a huge problem with that...???  And you you say it seems like a "win".  I fully trust I just don't follow what you're meaning to say, so I'll wait for clarification.



It is NOT a red herring.  It is a criticism.  However, your rebuttal is like a pyromaniac in a straw-scarecrow factory.

I am NOT saying that someone of privilege has nothing to add not is to be limited upon their freedoms there of...  ...I am suggesting as an activist that with great privilege comes a great responsibility to not confuse the convention and comfort of privilege with "all's well everywhere"

So when you're saying "there's other options" without counting the costs the argument is disingenuous or only an answer to the degree that we ignore the additional costs bored typically by those who (by virtue of their lack of privilege) have even less with which to get it done.



I don't know anything about this name.  And it sounds as if it's a big topic to get "up to speed upon"?



No only would I argue that, I advocate it fully.  I'm an anarcho-revolutionary. The tradition of civil disopedience as well as rebellion and insurretion is to me the highest acheivement of human kind.

The people who risked life and liberty ---AND broke the law of the land --- to help get liberated people who lawfully made to be "property" in the slave states ...all the way to Canada.  These are the ones that make it a moral imperative elevate the phrase "criminal" to that of "hero!"

The Earth First and other environmentalist leaders or the pirates who thwart the whalers and other fishing vessels, even to the point of having the "real criminals" the "port authorities" the FBI and the rest of the pigs...  "take their equipment, jail them, beat them, rape them, etc..."

And why?

So you and I can have a planet.

They are on the right side...and even the MORE RIGHT side because they're willing to damn the laws to make it happen and happen right here, right now.



No.  I even went back and reread the post to which I was replying.  I don't know what I saw or thought I saw there.  So for now, ignore the comment, if you will.

It was probably related to the points I was making about privilege.  This suggestion that people go though all these hoops to get something "like" but not really "equal" to marriage because there are "such things" .

Maybe not in stone, but here we have this thing called "The Constitution" that determines what rights people have.  If you disagree with things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, you're free to complain all you like but you may not pass laws against them.

This is taking a morally neutral stance on abortion, which most anti-abortion types do not hold.  They equate abortion with murder and murder is not protected by privacy.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but stating that you've provided an example that works only because you hold a certain view of abortion already yourself, so in essence, what you "like".

I don't think it costs the IRS $2,000 to process a tax return. I'm not sure who said this, but it sounds like a pretty weak argument.

The Constitution does not specify a right to marriage (nor does it specify a right to privacy, funny enough), nor a right to any form of sexual relations.

And even if they were, those protected rights are apparently not as complete as we like to think. For instance, our right to religion does not permit polygamy, even if that is required by said religion.

And even if they did, the restriction of government recognition of marriage is not the same as not being allowed to marry. For an example of not being allowed to marry, look at polygamy. If you do it, you go to jail. That is a government restriction. I know I brought this up before and people dismissed it, but the argument still stands. Homosexuals are welcome to get married anywhere they like. If you are homosexual, you can pay me $20 and I will marry you personally.

The government failing to recognize these marriages does cause a lot of hardship for these couples. Some of that hardship is undue and needs to be dealt with. Some of it really isn't. But it is not the same as government restricting those marriages.

I think Doulos answered this nicely for me.

If you accept the right to privacy (which is still in dispute), yes, this means you can do some things in your home, such as engage in homosexual sex or read books or do drugs, and the police can't bust you for it unless they become aware of it through a recognized method.

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that suicide is now legal, as long as you close the blinds first. Nor does it mean that your *public marriage* is legal.

I'm guessing you're just using this as an example though, so I won't harp on it. But to get to the point, a right must be recognized near-universally by the people and/or the government, which marriage is not. On that note, I don't think if the government said "we're out of the marriage business. We don't recognize any marriages. Deal with it yourself," we'd cry that this is a violation of our rights.

So I guess my question here is, if most of us could accept the government getting out of the marriage business isn't a violation of our rights (and I assume we do), what is the complaint? The only one I've heard so far is that it's not fair.



Precisely because Arizona cannot ignore full faith and credit. If you are married in Mass., Arizona might not officially say 'yes, you're married', and it might extend a special tax break only to heterosexual couples who dot dot dot, but they DO still need to respect that relationship when it comes to the courts, and the health insurance companies and hospitals still need to respect it as well. Happy Arizona, doesn't permit gay marriage destroying the world. Happy you, you still get everything you want, except Arizona coming straight out and saying 'okay you guys, you're married' (and if you are *really* fighting just for Arizona to admit it, well ... ) Right now that may not be happening, but it's partially because it just hasn't been challenged yet.




If the concern is that the legal costs are too high, or there's some specific issue that's being forgotten, spit it out! I don't think I ever said 'all's well', but I will say that things are not as bad as many people keep saying it is. Homosexuals can get married, they can create wills, they can establish power of attorney, etc. These avenues are there. When there's not an available option (such as immigration, which you brought up) or the options aren't working as they should, I generally agree, yeah, that needs to be fixed. But if there is an option, but it doesn't seem like people are exploring that before trying to change the world, that just doesn't sit right with me.




It was a big case a few years back. Terry was in a coma. Her husband wanted to turn off the machines. Her parents wanted to keep them on. It went to court for a long time.



1) Well there you are. But how can you complain when people are breaking the law contrary to your interests?
2) As an anarcho-revolutionary, why are you turning to the *government* for change??

First off, as an anarchist I don't have an objection to all governance.
Only coercive government.

Second off, I'm not looking to government for this change.  I'm looking
to avoid the threat of violence that is the monopoly of government when
I and my husband have our lives seemingly in what they think is their
Lands.

Third, thank you.

No, but there *is* a right to Equal Protection under the law.  It's in the Fourteenth Amendment.  A law cannot affect one person differently than another without damn good reason.

Polygamy is expected to be the next issue.  I think you're arguing about 150 years ahead of yourself.

Anyway, you're trying to pull a red herring fallacy.  Without legal recognition for a marriage, what good is it?  It's just a commitment ceremony, nothing more.

Is the government using the threat of violence to keep you and your husband from living together? If so, absolutely, I agree that that needs to be changed. But I didn't think that was what was under discussion.




*spits coffee* I ... I ... but ... what?? My marriage retains 90% of its value because of the relationship I have with my spouse. Tax breaks and hospital visitation is nice, but I didn't get married for it!!



And again, I point out that married people can claim a tax break that single people can't. Isn't that a violation? Why? It's not because of the cost of processing tax forms, but even assuming it was, wouldn't it make sense to say every set of people who are pooling resources should be privy to it?

Imagine if you got married, but no one recognized it.  Your family, the government, anyone.  Your kids wouldn't be your kids in the same way, your property would be a mess to settle, you couldn't visit each other in the hospital-- heck, you couldn't even guarantee yourself seats together at family reunions.

Exactly, which is why homosexuals should be allowed to be married.

So you want the government to come and force families to recognize particular marriages??

I'm sorry, but I think this tangent is going a bit far. If your problem is your parents don't recognize your marriage and won't let you sit together at family reunions, that's not something the government can fix.

Why not just not get married at all?

This is not complicated use legal contracts for any household commitment regardless of the number of adults in it and their combination of genders, used dna testing to verify parentage in case of support needs if a party withdraws from said contract and kill marriage or civil unions as options. This way you can keep the government and religions out of this matter.

Once you get to only a single digit number of people opting to marry the system will die out as the government and others must adapt to the new household realities.

I will note ignoring the thing is the best way to kill a thing, it worked for prohibition it was law of the land but it was so ignored as to make the law of the land pretty much unenforceable. Do the same to marriage just take it out and then with it the need for civil unions.

In reply to RubySlippers (msg #956):

Ruby, that seems to ignore three things

1) Why would str8s who get these benefits willfully eschew them? (that is unlike prohibition, people WANT the benefits of marriage)

2) Why wouldn't the state (if we assume it has a legitimate interest in promoting marriage), simply up the benefits if there was not enough "interest"?

And

3) Don't you think there would be GREATER outrage and in face that move and the queers would be blamed for destroying marriage after all :)

I don't think it's likely individuals are going to give up marriage to make a point. However, they may vote to wipe it away for everyone. It's like welfare. I know a lot of people who don't like how welfare is handled, but who will accept a $2,000 welfare check if it's offered (myself included!)

Also interesting to note, I got married for religious purposes, not for tax purposes (or really, any of the other benefits I went on to enjoy). However, when I went to talk to the priest, I was never offered the option of getting only Church, not legal recognition of the marriage. If you want your plan to work, you have to start with the preachers :)