would perry work to change the constitution?

[lupinus]

So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"

^This. Couples or other small groups of people who want the same privileges and protections afforded to married couples, should have the same available to them.

While I very much disagree with most all other points made in the issue, this is one I agree with. Marriage, like all other religious issues, is one I do not want the government to have any part in. They should be ONLY in the civil/contract side of it. Drop the marriage title, deem it a civil union, and make it available all small groups of people who want it.

[Doggy Daddy]

And the rest of America doesn't seem to be agreeing with you, either.

I would be careful how far you tread down that path if I were you.  You are dangerously close to making the assertion that right and wrong are relative, to be determined by what the majority of some subset of people deem to be "right" at any particular point in time.

That leaves the door wide open for the public school system (for one example) to teach following generations what is right as opposed to teaching them how to determine what is right using their own experiences and reasoning. 

Or for one religion to decide what is right because they have the most followers.

DD

[roo_ster]

>Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?<

Let me give you an example of the kind of thing we're looking at.

Jim and Dave have lived together for 20 years. Bought a house, supported each-other in successful careers, nursed each-other through illnesses: been, for all intents and purposes, a single entity. Their families both disapprove.

Jim becomes terminally ill. While he's in the hospital, Dave is at his bedside (much like you would be for your wife).

At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.

Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars, drawing up wills and suchlike. To get the same protections Spoon and I got for $65 at the courthouse.

That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful. There have been same-sex partners barred from being at their partners bedside in the hospital, numerous examples of the above story, and other legal entanglements... all of which would have been avoided if they had that protection.

So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"

There is so much logic fail and category error, I'd compare it to the Underpants Gnomes path to wealth, but I fear dissing the shoddy logic of diminutive demi-humans after the last Monster Hunter book I read.

But, time is short, so I'll just hit one teensy myth used as a truncheon by the :

At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.

Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars...

"Dave" is a nitwit.  His nitwittery is of epic proportions. 

It would not cost thousands of dollars to rectify his situation, just a mere $45:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11604502&Ne=5000001%204000000&eCat=BC|84|20522&N=4001505%204294966444&Mo=0&No=0&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US

    Legal Will
    Health Care Directive
    Financial Powers of Attorney
    Executor Documents
    Information for Caregivers and Survivors
    Final Arrangements

And, there's MORE!
    Plan Your Estate (your comprehensive guide to creating the right estate plan)
    The Executor’s Guide (settle a loved one’s estate or trust)
    Easy Ways to Lower Your Taxes (simple strategies every tax payer should know)
    IRAs, 401(k)s & Other Retirement Plans (how to take your money out and avoid penalties)
    Get It Together (organize your records, so your family won’t have to!)
    Long-Term Care (plan and pay for the right long-term care for loved ones and self)
    101 Law Forms for Personal Use (forms for handling every day legal tasks)
    Audio: The Busy Family’s Guide to Money, Retire Happy (1-hour audio book samplers)

"Dave" doesn't need to overturn millenia of social practice and mores, he just needs to have an IQ greater than his shoe size (and $45).   Or, maybe the wisdom to understand that if "Jim," his [Princess_Bride]twue wuv[/Princess_Bride], has had 20 years to square away his affairs but did not include Dave in the arrangements, maybe Jim doesn't want Dave to get his stuff and wants his real family to dispose of his material existence.  That is the price anyone would likely pay for hitching one's wagon to a thoughtless bounder for two decades.

Whoops, my bad.  All "Dave" would need is $35 from nolo for th esame product:
http://www.nolo.com/products/quicken-willmaker-plus-WQP.html


That tool worked for my wife & I.  My FIL, retired lawyer-critter, gave the docs the thumbs-up.

[roo_ster]

You know an atty could make a fortune in writing up legal documents for same-sex couples to cover all the bases.  Wouldn't have to charge a lot but maybe a standard fee schedule based on the types of forms required.

Not if the same-sex couple had two brain cells to rub together and $35.

[geronimotwo]

Ah, logic by assertion.

Whether or not government recognizes same-sex couples as marriages isn't a matter of personal liberty or individual rights. The law doesn't stop them from living together, holding wedding ceremonies, or the like. They are free to do these things, but they can't claim a right to have a non-marriage recognized as one, anymore than I can claim a right to have my Matchbox car licensed as a motor vehicle.

so an amendment that said only men have the right to vote would be okay, as it does not per se discriminate against women, correct?

[Ron]

The whole legal aspect is a red herring (regarding gay marriage)

It is all about legislating morality, apparently if you are on the right it is wrong, if you are on the left it is OK.

Fistful is correct in that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

Trying to shoehorn homosexual relationships into thousands of years of cultural norms and at least several hundred years of jurisprudence regarding marriage is just insanity. They are not the same.

Much of our law regarding true marriage is based on anachronistic concepts of gender roles thereby favoring women oftentimes where it concerns divorce, alimony and child support. No doubt there is an equally unequal aspect that favors men over women. I've heard the horror stories from friends of both genders regarding their divorces. From an outsider looking in it sure seems like that area of law hasn't kept up with the times. Trying to make our byzantine and oftentimes arbitrary system for dealing with these issues work for same sex couples seems ridiculous.    

Forcing social acceptance by use of the coercive power of the state is the real goal.

[geronimotwo]

painting a person as a leftist for supporting gays seems counterintuitive.  isn't it the conservatives that stand for liberty in this country?

[roo_ster]

painting a person as a leftist for supporting gays seems counterintuitive.  isn't it the conservatives that stand for liberty in this country?

The GM debate is about using the force of gov't to force others to acknowledge the legitimacy of an heretofore illegitimate and foreign practice as well as using the force of gov't to violate the rights of free expression and free association.  Toss into the mix an antipathy to both Christianity and the American culture.

Those are leftist means and ends and attitudes, no matter the claims of their advocates.

[makattak]

painting a person as a leftist for supporting gays seems counterintuitive.  isn't it the conservatives that stand for liberty in this country?

I always find it funny when people supporting gay marriage claim it's about liberty.

Yes, it's the liberty to use the government to force other people to accept your relationship and treat you the way you want to be treated.

WOOOO Liberty!!

[Perd Hapley]

I would be careful how far you tread down that path if I were you.  You are dangerously close to making the assertion that right and wrong are relative, to be determined by what the majority of some subset of people deem to be "right" at any particular point in time.

That leaves the door wide open for the public school system (for one example) to teach following generations what is right as opposed to teaching them how to determine what is right using their own experiences and reasoning. 

Or for one religion to decide what is right because they have the most followers.

DD

I'm on no such path, and I'm not dangerously close to any such thing. You, meanwhile, are "on the path" of mistaking a descriptive statement for a supporting argument.

[Perd Hapley]

so an amendment that said only men have the right to vote would be okay, as it does not per se discriminate against women, correct?

No, that's a textbook example of discrimination. A fitting analogy for the current discussion would be to submit a blank postcard as a ballot, then feign outrage when it is not accepted.

[MechAg94]

^This. Couples or other small groups of people who want the same privileges and protections afforded to married couples, should have the same available to them.

While I very much disagree with most all other points made in the issue, this is one I agree with. Marriage, like all other religious issues, is one I do not want the government to have any part in. They should be ONLY in the civil/contract side of it. Drop the marriage title, deem it a civil union, and make it available all small groups of people who want it.

The only problem with this is the radical activists pushing this have refused to compromise.  They want their "marriage" recognized.  They want the govt to declare them "normal".  This isn't about spousal rights.  That is just window dressing. 

[De Selby]

I always find it funny when people supporting gay marriage claim it's about liberty.

Yes, it's the liberty to use the government to force other people to accept your relationship and treat you the way you want to be treated.

WOOOO Liberty!!

Huh?  How does asking for the same concrete legal protections as others amount to "forcing acceptance" of a relationship? 

Requiring a court to divide up assets in a certain way isn't forced acceptance.

Jfruser, there is no contract substitute for the property and personal rights of marriage.  Sorry, but a "make your own will" kit can't deliver better than your state's best lawyers, and none of them can design a contract equivalent to marriage in substantive rights.

[makattak]

Huh?  How does asking for the same concrete legal protections as others amount to "forcing acceptance" of a relationship? 

Requiring a court to divide up assets in a certain way isn't forced acceptance.

Jfruser, there is no contract substitute for the property and personal rights of marriage.  Sorry, but a "make your own will" kit can't deliver better than your state's best lawyers, and none of them can design a contract equivalent to marriage in substantive rights.

Impressive evasion and diversion.

So would gay marriage supporters be happy with a simple reworking of inheritance laws? If your answer is no, perhaps there is more than inheritance laws involved in the "forcing people to treat you the way you want to be treated."

Asking for the "same concrete legal protections" is folly if those concrete legal protections were created for a different entity. Do I have the protections of a corporation in my sole-proprietorship? Do I have the benefits of a handicapped license plate? Can I get the tax exemptions of clergy in my (non-clergical) job?

By FORCING companies and individuals to treat you as though you are one of the entities, you are using the force of the government to change how you are treated. That is what this is about: forcing adoption agencies, insurance agencies, employers, inter alia to treat gay couples they way they want to be treated.

WOOO! LIB-ER-TY!

[Perd Hapley]

Asking for the "same concrete legal protections" is folly if those concrete legal protections were created for a different entity. Do I have the protections of a corporation in my sole-proprietorship? Do I have the benefits of a handicapped license plate? Can I get the tax exemptions of clergy in my (non-clergical) job?

This. It ain't about religion or morality. It's about the substantive difference between marriages and things that simply can't be marriages.

[White Horseradish]

This. It ain't about religion or morality. It's about the substantive difference between marriages and things that simply can't be marriages.

What is it that says they can't be marriages?  It wouldn't be religion, would it?

[Perd Hapley]

What is it that says they can't be marriages?  It wouldn't be religion, would it?

Common sense. Biology. Things of that nature.

Religions tend to condemn homosexuality, but they also tend to condemn stealing and oath-breaking and murder and a lot of other things. Yet we accept those other religious teachings as part of our legal system. Interesting, no?

[Doggy Daddy]

I'm on no such path, and I'm not dangerously close to any such thing. You, meanwhile, are "on the path" of mistaking a descriptive statement for a supporting argument.

You don't take suggestions very well, do you.  Nevermind.  You just continue on exemplifying a good Christian demeanor.

DD

[White Horseradish]

Common sense.

What is that? The phrase is so used and abused I don't really know. Most of the time it really means "because I said so".

Biology.

Marriage is a biological thing now? Do tell.

Religions tend to condemn homosexuality, but they also tend to condemn stealing and oath-breaking and murder and a lot of other things. Yet we accept those other religious teachings as part of our legal system. Interesting, no?

And we do not accept as part of our legal system a whopping pile of other teachings from those same religions.  Interesting, no?

[Perd Hapley]

You don't take suggestions very well, do you. 

And you don't read very closely. And thanks for the smug comment about my demeanor, dad. 

[De Selby]

Impressive evasion and diversion.

So would gay marriage supporters be happy with a simple reworking of inheritance laws? If your answer is no, perhaps there is more than inheritance laws involved in the "forcing people to treat you the way you want to be treated."

Asking for the "same concrete legal protections" is folly if those concrete legal protections were created for a different entity. Do I have the protections of a corporation in my sole-proprietorship? Do I have the benefits of a handicapped license plate? Can I get the tax exemptions of clergy in my (non-clergical) job?

By FORCING companies and individuals to treat you as though you are one of the entities, you are using the force of the government to change how you are treated. That is what this is about: forcing adoption agencies, insurance agencies, employers, inter alia to treat gay couples they way they want to be treated.

WOOO! LIB-ER-TY!

Okay, first off - you could in theory go through the codes and enact changes to match marriage, and then go around identifying every case that's applied them to be sure and find a legislative equivalent.  Or you could just say "a marriage is between two consenting adults of any sex" and get the same result with far less work and far less risk of error.  Doing that amount of work would be catering to people who oppose gay marriage, and nothing more.

Your analogies are absolutely missing the point.  A sole proprietorship and a corporation serve two different functions, and we all agree that they serve two different functions.  Whether a marriage between two of the same gender serves the same purpose as a marriage between opposite genders is precisely the moral question that gay rights activists are challenging.  That's the whole point - they claim that their relationships ought to be treated as equal to any others, and that they are not qualitatively different in the way that a corporation is different from a partnership.

 An appropriate analogy might be one clergyman claiming he should have the same tax exemptions as the clergy of another Church, and that for the Government to deny him such protections would be discrimination against his religion.

We do, btw, force companies to treat members of different races and religions as if they are equal, whether those companies want to or not.  

What this all boils down to is very simple, and it tends to be assumed in the positions of either side.  The real issue: Should people who are gay receive the same legal rights as people who are not gay?  Underlying all this talk about how gay marriage isn't about equality is the assumption that gay people are not entitled to equal legal protections.  

[Perd Hapley]

Common sense.

What is that? The phrase is so used and abused I don't really know. Most of the time it really means "because I said so".

So marriage has been uniformly heterosexual around the world, for all of human history, with very, very few exceptions. That is, it has been accepted by somewhere north of 99.99% of all human beings that have ever lived. That pretty much defines "common sense."

Marriage is a biological thing now? Do tell.

Um. Yeah. You know about sex, right? 

And we do not accept as part of our legal system a whopping pile of other teachings from those same religions.  Interesting, no?

So bringing up religion doesn't get us anywhere, does it?

[White Horseradish]

So marriage has been uniformly heterosexual around the world, for all of human history, with very, very few exceptions. That is, it has been accepted by somewhere north of 99.99% of all human beings that have ever lived. That pretty much defines "common sense."

At one time it was common sense that the Earth was flat. Or it was common sense that marriage should only be between people of the same standing in society. Or that marriage is only between people of the same race. That one was even written into law. Where are those common sense ideas now?

Um. Yeah. You know about sex, right?  

Yeah, and what's it got to do with marriage? People who can't have sex at all can marry just fine.

So bringing up religion doesn't get us anywhere, does it?

There are no logical arguments against GM. Faith, unrelated to logic by definition, is the only thing that is left.

[Doggy Daddy]

And you don't read very closely.

Uh, yes I do.  That's why I was advising that you were close to saying it.  If I read that you were saying it, then I would have used different words.  Words saying that you actually did say it.  See the difference?  Do you even understand that I was trying to help you?  To let you know how others might misinterpret what you were saying?  And for trying to help, I get a snarky response.

And thanks for the smug comment about my demeanor, dad. 

You're welcome, sonny.  You earned it.

DD

[makattak]

Okay, first off - you could in theory go through the codes and enact changes to match marriage, and then go around identifying every case that's applied them to be sure and find a legislative equivalent.  Or you could just say "a marriage is between two consenting adults of any sex" and get the same result with far less work and far less risk of error.  Doing that amount of work would be catering to people who oppose gay marriage, and nothing more.

Your analogies are absolutely missing the point.  A sole proprietorship and a corporation serve two different functions, and we all agree that they serve two different functions.  Whether a marriage between two of the same gender serves the same purpose as a marriage between opposite genders is precisely the moral question that gay rights activists are challenging.  That's the whole point - they claim that their relationships ought to be treated as equal to any others, and that they are not qualitatively different in the way that a corporation is different from a partnership.

 An appropriate analogy might be one clergyman claiming he should have the same tax exemptions as the clergy of another Church, and that for the Government to deny him such protections would be discrimination against his religion.

We do, btw, force companies to treat members of different races and religions as if they are equal, whether those companies want to or not. 

What this all boils down to is very simple, and it tends to be assumed in the positions of either side.  The real issue: Should people who are gay receive the same legal rights as people who are not gay?  Underlying all this talk about how gay marriage isn't about equality is the assumption that gay people are not entitled to equal legal protections. 

My analogies are absolutely apt. A sole proprietorship may resemble a corporation. A motivational speaker may resemble a minister. A guy with a charlie horse may resemble a permanently handicapped person. We recognize that there are actual differences between these people and associations because however much they have in common, they are still different in very important aspects.

And you are quite right, the real issue is that homosexual couples are not the same as married couples. This is the entire argument that is glossed over with the "but they're two people who LOOOOOOVE each other! It's exactly the same!" They are not the same.

Our society has for a significant amount of time recognized and encouraged marriage because a man and a woman in a committed relationship create benefits for society as a whole. This is not the first time our society has tampered with marriage, either. The lawmakers in the 60's and 70's decided that the traditions and laws that had existed for hundreds and thousands of years were just wrong and created so-called "no-fault divorce." They claimed society would benefit as people who disliked each other would obviously create an unstable situation for children. Instead, we have found that children are best raised in a home with their biological parents together in a committed relationship. Even after children are grown, if parents divorce it causes significant harm to their grown children. (Please note, I am not saying that divorce is never warranted. I am saying that it is far too easy, though.)

The argument now is, "the children will adjust, they are resilient.'' We have encouraged adults to follow their fickle desires over the needs of their children. This is not simply the result of "no-fault divorce" legislation but of societal rejection of traditions and laws they do not understand.

This current argument is but another step in stripping away these traditions and mores are not fully understood. Our society suffers for it.

We support and encourage marriage for more than simply child-rearing and stability, however. To apply the same structure and benefits to a homosexual couple simply because some people think it's the same thing will cause harm to our society.