The argument against the "legalization" of gay marriage

You're missing the point Marshall. If it didn't matter to anyone why would anyone get married to begin with. So of course it matters.

Like I said, married individuals are looking for certain protections from the government and in exchange the government regulates marriage. It's that simple.

we should be seen as individuals by our government...nothing else...our personal lives do not matter.

How about kinship or the situation of a dependent? Should government stay out of legal adoption? Or what would happen in relation to inheritance?

dont see how marriage has anything to do with inheritance.

I wasn't connecting to marriage - I was connecting it to your statement that we should only be seen as "individuals" and that "personal lives" do not matter.

there is no reason to regulate our personal lives. that is tyranny.

How is adoption not relegating personal lives?

I do not think that government should be involved in it...however I do see how there could be an argument for it.

doesnt mean I agree.

So are you for it or against it? Is it tyranny or not?

Thelopes, this is what happens when you take absolutist positions like marshall does - you end up boxing yourself into a series of interlocking paradoxes.

ryoushi

you slay me man...you really do. I thought mobys article on farts was funny....and then I come across your posts.

damn I love comedy.

So are you for it or against it? Is it tyranny or not?

I guaran-@!$%#ing=tee you that when it comes to a division of property or child custody you'll have two individuals looking to the government to care about what happens. Don't you get it?

From #1.3 Oliver Closoff

Under your approach anyone can go off and conduct some type of marriage ceremony of their own and consider themselves married. But does the legal system recognize it? Does that matter to you?

Generally speaking, recognition from the 'legal system' is negative. What I would like to experience in our legal system is more positive recognition. Our legal system should be called the penile system, as in the system of 'add-a-dick-ta-me' that it represents.

When was the last time I as paid a nice friendly visit from law enforcement? Let's see I was being served some kind of papers (not ZigZag). But when my children were born, they never came to visit with flowers or baby gifts.

This country abandoned the Articles of Confederation because we were descending into chaos, and excesses of liberty were just as dangerous as the excesses of power. It was replaced by our current Constitution which established federal power as dominant and created a chief executive. It has lasted much longer!

can we not evolve and do better?

Nature abhors a vacuum, Marshall, which usually gets filled by those with the most guns. Weak governments are quickly toppled.

A marriage certificate is a document by the state. It is either given by the justice of the peace (if the couple does not get married in a church) or it is given by a certificate from a church.

Because the argument being against the legalization of gay marriage is based on the government doesn't give you rights, you are born with you. Your argument is that marriage is a privilege and not a right, but you do not infer that that privilege be restrictive.

Our constitution lays the ground work for future alterations when it becomes evident that a group of people are being denied - like women being allowed to vote.

Blacks and their civil liberties being denied.

And now, gays and lesbians wanting to marry.

Poor logic.

A marriage certificate is a document by the state. It is either given by the justice of the peace (if the couple does not get married in a church) or it is given by a certificate from a church.

I'm not talking about a marriage certificate. I'm talking about a marriage license. Which all states require and grant only if you meet certain criteria. The certificate is granted after the ceremony.

Because the argument being against the legalization of gay marriage is based on the government doesn't give you rights, you are born with you. Your argument is that marriage is a privilege and not a right, but you do not infer that that privilege be restrictive.

It is a privledge. You have to be a certain age, you can't be married to anyone else and in many cases (depending on the state) you have to be a resident.

Our constitution lays the ground work for future alterations when it becomes evident that a group of people are being denied - like women being allowed to vote.

And now, gays and lesbians wanting to marry.

Just playing devils advocate here, but how are gays being denied? A gay man can legally marry a woman just as readily as a straight man can. Likewise, a straight man can not marry another man.

Whenever I see the comparison of gay marriage to women voting, discrimination on race, etc...I believe it needs to be pointed out that it's false comparison. In the cases of voting or black rights, people were denied the SAME rights and privledges that others received based on the color of their skin or gender.

In the case of gay marriage, no one is being denied anything that others are not being denied. Everyone has the right/privledge to marry someone of the opposite gender.

the state in legalizing gay marriage is forcing morality upon the masses....

If your argument is against 'forcing morality' - and legalizing 'any' marriage is 'forcing morality' - then why do you focus your sentences on 'gay marriage'?

if you would like for me to address polygamy I could.....but gay marriage has been the topic of conversation lately....so..........

My question wasn't getting to polygamy, it was more about "straight" marriage.

If you're against "regulating morality" - why aren't you speaking out against a legal institution of marriage altogether.

You're muddying that concept if you start with being against "gay" marriage.

If there were no marriage laws then government would have no right to intervene upon the dissolution of a partnership where assets and offspring become intertwined. Who's house is it? Who's car is it? Who's property and assests are who's? What is the status of custody for the offspring?

Sure there are individuals rights, but what do we say about the person who never brings in any monetary assets to the partnership yet however works day in and day out to create a functioning home and rearing the human beings they've bred? Under "indiviual rights" there is no standard of value for this, only under marriage laws do they exist. That would disappear. Therefore the person who does fill this role in the partnership is completley f*cked. (where's the justice in that?) Not to mention the potential for the horrors concerning custody of children.

Historically, marriage laws were insituted to recognize a mans legal status as the owner of all property within the partnership, including the woman. (chattle) It was an evolved moral sensability and recognition of women as whole legal persons which did away with this legal abomination and it took the same legal system to ensure that the womans "individual rights" within and apart from the partnership of marriage were recognized.

I do believe I have demonstrated the necessity for marriage laws. (quite profoundly)

"that is what courts are for"

OK, but where is the legal precedent for the courts to rule on matters of assets and custody for a partnership that has no legal standing? And the courts ability to give ruling on partnerships outside of marriage only exists because of the expanded concept of marriage laws under the statutes of "commonlaw marriage" which are marriage laws! In either case, the goverment is intervening into the legal partnerships of marriage which is what you yourself are arguing against.

Also, to discount the legal history of marriage as you have is intellectually dishonest. Marriage laws were originally instituted for the purpose I stated.

"people already die daily that are not married...and their estates are handled".

Divorce is not death. There is a legal distinction. (not to mention a biological dinstinction)

"the only reason you are looking at it this way is because they have intruded into our personal lives and you are unable to see it any other way."

My friend, you invited me to this group. At which point I sent you a message thanking you and expressing my intention to be an honest broker of ideas and discussion. I believe that is what I have done here. If it is your intention to flame me as "naive in my indoctrination" every time we disagree, just say the word and I'll not post to your columns anymore.

It was my interpretation and your apology is accepted in earnest. Thank you.

More about the distinction between settling matters of estate in divorce as opposed to death.

There is no law saying one is compelled to have a legal Will of Estate. I'm a married man and because neither me nor my wife have gotten around to enacting Wills of Estate, if either of us dies our assets would go to one another, no dispute. The person whom has (had) legal claim to assets of the partnership is no more. Whether you consider this Estate Law or Marriage law, I actually do not know.

However, should we get divorced, the person who has legal claim to assets and offspring is not dead. There is a legal distinction.

"I am sure if you were with someone for a number of years you could prove it in court.....again....the government is not needed."

I believe we're going in circles a bit here. If you could prove that you were together for years and there was (inevitably) a dispute about assets and offspring and it were for the courts to rule over, this authority of the courts to rule would require laws. As it is, these are "commonlaw statutes" which are marriage laws.

If societies notions of justice concerning the equitable dissolution of partnerships remain a matter of interest for the well-being of a just, orderly and safe society, then I dont see anyway that there can be such an institution without laws governing the institution.

I am sure if you were with someone for a number of years you could prove it in court.....again....the government is not needed

You ccould prove it in court w/o the government? Aren't the courts operated as a government entity? Whether it's at the front end or back end, the government is still getting involved in the decision.

You are correct, you do not need to be married to bring evidence into court proceedings, you just need a pulse and to be sworn in.

However, if a person claims that they are in a partnership and asserts that they have a legal stake in those assets upon dissolution of that partnership, then this requires a legal definition of what that partnership is/was. The court cannot rule on the dissolution of a partnership without first DEFINING THE PARTNERSHIP. That's what marriage law (and commonlaw) and indeed any legal partnership requires for there to be any kind of legal ruling.

I'm not saying you have to be married to prove something in court. I'm saying by having the courts decide something *that* is having government involved. Courts ARE the government. Whether by virtue of marriage automatically granting certain rights, or by going to a court and having them rule on whether you have it, the government is still the one making the call.

In the day....some states banned people with different skin colors from marrying. If they married in another state that allowed this, they might be arrested if they traveled into the state that banned the relationship. Now the same thing can be said of gay marriage. At least this is finally 'out' as a topic. States should be overridden if their laws violate basic 'rights' to live a reasonably 'normal' life.

You're correct again, you do not need to be married to bring a financial dispute to a court of law for a ruling. You can dispute anyone for a claim to assets. However, when you walk into court the first thing that will happen is you will be sworn in and the very next thing that will happen will be the judge trying to discern the nature of the relationship between the interested parties. What is the nature of the relationship? To what extent (if any) is there a claim to a form of partnership?

As it is right now marriage laws and commonlaw statutes cover matters of precedent concerning the the legal rights of those in a "domestic partnership". We can't just "do away" with this...that's like saying "there's no need for justice". It would be chaos. These laws are absolutely necessary for the well-being of society.

No matter what circumstance, the Government is going to be involved in the resolution of legal disputes. Whether it's marriage, commonlaw, Estate. This is not an evil and I certainly do not perciece the Government as an enemy in these matters. ( I dont consider my Government as my enemy at all, maybe a disappointment, but not an enemy)

No you don't need a marriage liscense to track bills and have a court ruling. Heck, watch an episode of "Judge Judy" and you can see matters of bills between interested parties in a "roomate" situation being resolved. But you would not necessarily classify that relationship as a "domestic partnership" if the extent of their circumstances did not warrant it. That designation is held to a more stringent and expansive criteria of definition. Each criteria has its own requirements and precedents. Each is unto its own set of standards and each is necessary.

In one of your post you say how the government shouldn't be passing blanket laws to Govern the masses. Well there really isn't that situation now. There are many levels of legal consideration catered to any given circumstance of interested parties. The point is whether or not all citizens in good standing have equal access and protection under the law should their circumstances warrant it. As it is now, they do not.

Of course Chris Gregoire is about to remedy that situation here in Washington in a matter of hours.

I'd also like to add that I fail to see in which way that these considerations of partnership impinge in any way on "individual rights". I mean, people who enter into partnerships do so of their own volition and by doing so, willingly accept the legal obligations of entering into any given state of legal partnership. No one is forcing anyone to enter into marriage, or commonlaw any more than people are being forced to become LLC's or any other level of partnership.

Excellent thoughts however i think the fundamentalal reason to any opposition is the money factor. Churches, evangelists et.al are making very lucrative livings off the "fears" and repulsion you mention. They stoke the fires of hate for the on flow of donations it brings.

Undoubtedly after the gay marriage concept is in the past, they will conjure up some other dastardly deed or group so their life style can continue. They are the demon, not the gay people who want to put their commitment into ceremony.

What should be and what is are two very different matters. Government has intruded on the "institute" of marriage and biased the tax laws, social security, inheritance and even say so at a hospital. Who wants a court battle at a sad time or one of decision. The right to marriage is important for all.

Nobody has control over you, Marshall. Quit being paranoid. I got married and then divorce, and didn't feel one bit controlled by the government (or state).

In fact, the wife and I agreed to the payments I make far more being required by the state.

The logic presented by libertarians is flawed.

Marriage to the state is a legal partnership between two people, now being altered to include two men or two women.

If you were so libertarian, you wouldn't give a crap, but presumably, gay marriage is really offensive to you.

The government is having just as much control either way if you think about it. It should not have been a government issue in the first place, but not we are stuck with it so it is not a matter of choosing a path it is a matter of correcting one.

in regards to wills, etc upon death.....well there is already such thing as common law marriage...it just needs to go to court.

a.k.a. government!!! Those probate courts need the authority of government and marriage laws to transfer estates to widows and next-of-kins, otherwise they're just engaging in conversation!

I'll offer a deal Marshall - you convince the majority of heterosexuals, me included, to give up all of the automatic legal perks that come with being legally recognized by the state as married, have it be nothing more than a ceremony with no effect outside the two people participating in the ceremony and, instead, have to go through a court system (and pay the expenses associated with such) to provide and protect their inheritence rights, powers of attorney, child custody rights, and all of the others, then we'll drop our push for legal recognition of same sex marriage. If you can find a way to unravel marriage from all of the other aspects of citizenship that it intersects with and impacts, more power to you. Until then, as long as the state of marriage carries civil and legal benefits and repurcussions, we keep pushing.

No. I did not prove your point. Your argument is without merit or any basis of fact.

We have laws (marriage, divorce, and etc.) because not all people behave as myself - I'm not perfect by no means.

Government is you and I (society). Laws are reflections of this society, and as a progressive, I believe they should change over time as we become more knowledgeable.

It's just funny that you pick gay marriage as an example of how intrusive government is.

there should be no perks for being married or single

That's a fine opinion to have, and nothing wrong with having it. But there currently *are* perks for being married and that is the larger reality in which the fight for same-sex marriage must operate.

No perks is an excellent solution. Could not agree more when it comes to tax distribution and social security benefits. But this is more far reaching than that. Pray you don't have to run home to get the legal papers if the hospital denies you say so in the care of your loved one. Marriage involves this legalese with no running home. This issue is about much more than the financial side.

yes...to solve problems....not to create them....getting involved before there is a problem is a sign of tyranny.

Uh, no, it's a sign of awareness. EVERY marriage will eventually end, whether by death or divorce, leaving the courts to settle who-gets-what. It's best to deal with those questions of wills, pre-nups, survivor insurance benefits, and pension plans BEFORE there's a problem!

giving those perks is violating the rights of those Americans who are not married.

Again, that's a perfectly fine viewpoint to hold. But I don't think you're going to have much luck getting the heterosexual couples to give up those built-in perks. As long as we have them, I'll work to ensure homosexual couples have them, as well. Your position is fine to take in a purely academic discussion (ie "what if marriage conferred no legal benefits to anyone?"), but falls apart in the really real world.

You make absolutely no sense. You say out of one side of your mouth that the government should not regulate drugs, home businesses, or guns, but then out of the other side you say if that person violates this unregulated activity then the government can enforce something that you took away. So basically, if you sold high quality booze and drugs from your home and nobody gets hurt from them it's okay, but if you sell inferior products then you are liable. And so you believe you are going to be able to compete favorable with Coors without going through the rigorous safety and health standards they are currently required to undergo. Really? So yes, apparently your smoking pot does affect me because your immature rants about being able to do whatever you want insults the intelligence of the majority of Americans who recognize we are not oppressed by our government despite it's flaws. To follow your philosophy would mean the collapse of civilized society.

MJ - Even if you are a law abiding citizen who would never put your prospective consumers at risk or would never take short cuts that could endanger someone's health or safety, there are ten times your kind that would do just that. The result, even more government intervention to chase down all the abusers, cheats, and greed mongers. Government regulations prevent abuses. Your world would create abuses that would only end in chaos. There is no civilized society in the world that resembles your ideology, and if there was one, it either went extinct or evolved.

if you violate the rights of others....there are things called laws which protect you from them..ie you cannot murder people for example.

Laws are violated and murders happen everyday. Laws don't protect they simply allow for regulators such as police and government agencies

Sorry MJ, but we evolved from what you want and we are better off the way we are. We don't need to back to any time in our history. I understand why you might glorify some past era, but going back would be disastrous. Conditions in our current society (population growth, technology, diversity, advances in weaponry, etc), erase any possibility of going back to a simpler time.

You need to ponder on the reason a society needs a government.....

Only to prevent anarchy

Is the government looking out for our spiritual soul?

It's not the government's to look out for our spiritual soul

Damnation in the Fires of Hell is what our government is working on achieving.

That's unadulterated BS