Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Kuciwalker]

I agree with Ben Kenobi, not in that it's a bad thing for gay people to get married, but that I don't see any particular intrinsic right for them to get married.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the state is going to give marriages involves men and women certain economic benefits, then they have an obligation to provide those same benefits to marriages involves the same sex.

No. That's like saying a bachelor ought to receive equal compensation, or the example previous of Veteran's benefits. Not all benefits need to be distributed on the basis of equality. Marriage entails specific costs, especially in the case of raising children and ought to be compensated for the benefits society receives from marriage.

The same with the Veterans. The state gains a benefit from their sacrifice of their lives, hence the state ought to compensate.

State recognition of a marriage should be automatic, because as far as the state should be concerned, marriage is simply a contractual agreement between two adults.

And this is where the two differ. Even in Massachusetts, you do not have this consensus, with some state legislators pushing for an amendment to reword the marriage provisions as one man and one woman.

The state does not have an obligation to recognise all partnerships as marriages. Why should they recognise gay unions?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why does marriage have value to society, Ben? If it's for religious reasons then it doesn't matter, because the US is a secular state. If it's for child-bearing reasons, gays can still raise children, they just can't have biological children. Why must marriage be treated as special?

LORIZAEL

(SCANNING AVATARS GETS ME IN TROUBLE).

SORRY!

There are several reasons why marriage has value.

Most children grow up with parents who are married, and the ones who don't do not do as well as the ones who do.

The state also has an interest in encouraging reproduction, something that a recognition of gay unions will not do. It's a step in the opposite direction.

So in both childrearing, and for reproduction, we see marriage, on the whole, having large benefits for the state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No. That's like saying a bachelor ought to receive equal compensation, or the example previous of Veteran's benefits. Not all benefits need to be distributed on the basis of equality. Marriage entails specific costs, especially in the case of raising children and ought to be compensated for the benefits society receives from marriage.

I may disagree with your position (I believe in gay marriages), but this is an excellent point. The only counter I can argue is that a man and woman marry who are infertile can also gain the same benefits without dealing with the costs of childbirth.

[Ramo]

No. That's like saying a bachelor ought to receive equal compensation, or the example previous of Veteran's benefits. Not all benefits need to be distributed on the basis of equality. Marriage entails specific costs, especially in the case of raising children and ought to be compensated for the benefits society receives from marriage.

The same with the Veterans. The state gains a benefit from their sacrifice of their lives, hence the state ought to compensate.

Last time I checked, there are tax breaks specifically for having kids.

So, why should a gay couple that adopts a child not get economic benefits from their union, while a straight couple that decides not to have children get economic benefits from their union?

The state does not have an obligation to recognise all partnerships as marriages. Why should they recognise gay unions?

Common human decency (i.e. not being a bigotted arse). Essentially the same reason why the state should recognize interracial unions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Economic benefits? Isn't there still the marriage tax penalty in existance? Hey, if gays want to pay higher taxes, ok with me .

[Ramo]

There are also health care, insurance, etc. concerns that outweight the tax penalty. And besides, he's making the case that straight unions should get more benefits than gay unions.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. That's like saying a bachelor ought to receive equal compensation, or the example previous of Veteran's benefits. Not all benefits need to be distributed on the basis of equality. Marriage entails specific costs, especially in the case of raising children and ought to be compensated for the benefits society receives from marriage.

Besides cases where someone is infertile, what about cases where the couple getting married make a deliberate decision not to have any kids before they get married? (Why this is unusual it does happen.) Should we quiz people about their intentions regarding kids before they get married, or should we make them sign a contract requiring a certain number if they do so.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ben -

The issue isn't benefits; it's freedom of association and equal rights to enter into contracts based on sex.

Up through the late 1960s, Virginia and other states banned interracial marriages, until SCOTUS ruled such bans unconstitutional (in Loving vs. Virginia, IIRC). The logic was that marriage is a contract as far as the State is concerned; to tell a man that he can enter into a contract with a white woman but not a black woman is discrimination based on race. So, similarly, to tell a man he can enter into a contract with women, but not men, is discrimination based on sex.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Anyway, laws that refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states are clearly unconstitutional, as they violate the full faith and credit clause.

In other words, we have another "Dred Scott."

However, in 1996, according to a report I saw on TV, Clinton signed a statute entitle "Defense of Marriage Act." The Act said this:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

The FF&Credit clause reads as follows:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

It is not at all clear that Congress does not have the power to pass the Defense of Marriage Act.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Vesayen:

There are several reasons why marriage has value.

Most children grow up with parents who are married, and the ones who don't do not do as well as the ones who do.

The state also has an interest in encouraging reproduction, something that a recognition of gay unions will not do. It's a step in the opposite direction.

So in both childrearing, and for reproduction, we see marriage, on the whole, having large benefits for the state.

My name is Lorizael.

I already said that gay couples can raise children, so your first point is null. My question was why does marriage, the union of a man and a woman, have value. The answer that it is better for children is wrong, because gay couples can still raise children.

As far as reproduction goes, a number of points have already been made that not all married couples have children. Should they be allowed to get married? There's also a practical consideration here. We don't actually need more children. There are too many people as it is...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Most children grow up with parents who are married, and the ones who don't do not do as well as the ones who do.

Why don't you stop sputtering such presumptuous, self-righteous, straight-laced, obnoxious, ignorant nonsense??


Children can grow up to be outstanding individuals regardless of the marital status of their heterosexual/homosexual parents.



Oh -- and thumbs up for Massachusetts!! I saw this on the news that same day the decision was made.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I may disagree with your position (I believe in gay marriages), but this is an excellent point. The only counter I can argue is that a man and woman marry who are infertile can also gain the same benefits without dealing with the costs of childbirth.

The same goes for elderly couples and couples who do not intend to have children. It's a BS argument, not an excellent point. And gay couples are perfectly capable of haing biological children. It's called in vitero fertization or even just hetero sex. Lots of lesbians have children, so by that BS argument, there is no good reason to kep lesbians from being married.

[MrFun]

And how about gay men who wish to adopt, or attain a biological child through a surrogate mother, or test tube fertilization??

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a BS argument, not an excellent point.

The excellent point was:

That's like saying a bachelor ought to receive equal compensation, or the example previous of Veteran's benefits. Not all benefits need to be distributed on the basis of equality.