Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[MichaeltheGreat]

Sans witness - the specific rights associated with a civil marriage do not accrue. Again, for the same exact reason as previous - the state has a public interest to maintain accurate records as to whom is or is not married.

Accuracy of records does not pertain to a right to own (property) or act (get married).

[Ben Kenobi]

Accuracy of records does not pertain to a right to own (property) or act (get married).

Provision and recognition of this status requires a witness. No witness no bennies. You're free to 'get married', but it won't be recognized by the state. It would be relevant if this is what you were arguing gay people should do - but that's not what you are arguing. You're arguing for public recognition of gay marriage.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Fair enough. However, the argument isn't sufficient. "there is no reason why they should be prohibited", cannot establish a positive right to state benefits and recognition.

Sure it can. Ever here of the concept of liberty? I take a reductionist view of state power. That the state has no right to proscribe private conduct absent a compelling public interest, or a compelling guardianship interest over someone who can't adeaquately protect their own interests (hence a state right for child, disabled and elder abuse laws)

Is there a rationale for marriage to be recognized as one man and one woman? Yes - for the purposes of child rearing and procreation this is the most stable environment to get and beget children. All the other arrangements are less likely to be stable and less likely to produce the outcome the state desires. Does gay marriage satisfy this bar? No. Ergo - whereas on can state that gay relationships should not be prohibited (which is already protected by the constitution which provides for freedom of association), on cannot get from here to gay marriage and recognition by the state. It is insufficient to state that the recognition would make some people happy, because obviously - distribution of benefits to anyone would accomplish this. It doesn't establish how the specific distribution to only gay couples in marriage would accomplish anything more than distribution to everyone, married or no. The same is not true for marriage between a man and a women - because of the specific benefits which society in general accrues.

Your argument is both specious and spurious, unless you submit that attempts to procreate should be mandated as a requirement for marriage. Would you claim the state has a right to prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying? Should a prospective bride and groom have to submit medical records to prove they're not sterilized? Etc. Stability of child-rearing households is a valid argument for specific benefits to those households, but not for denial of the right to marriage to icky sodomites because you don't like them. If Ben the Bear marries Fred the ***, how exactly does that damage the child-rearing environment of any other couple? Ooops.

There is already a framework for these things. It's called marriage. If you want the framework - then do what is required for it. If you do not want it enough - then continue charting the current course.

There's a two-party framework. There is no multi-party framework. Marriage isn't the framework in either case. The framework consists of all the separate (and separately changeable) laws and regulations which pertain to married couples and surviving rights and interests in divorced couples, survivors, etc. Two separate things, as you'd know if you were ever married and moved between community property and non-community property states a few times then got divorced and tried to get a QDRO.

Dismissing my argument as 'insincere' accomplishes precisely zero in advancing your own case or in rebutting the points I have raised.

I have nothing to "argue" with someone who doesn't even understand the legal underpinnigs and spouts random terminology and grasps at straws. Your points don't need to be rebutted. They don't exist - you have no more foundation other than the right of any tool to think whatever they want, right or wrong, than some random "militia" clown who decides there is no legal government above the County level or that the income tax is unconstitutional. You're welcome to lifetime attendance at the Travis Bickle School of Law.

And I have established this is in fact the case because gay marriage proponents here have failed to demonstrate why these restrictions regarding polygamy should be retained. They have actually supported the slippery slope by arguing that they sincerely believe it will the consequence. So rather than rebutting this argument, they have in fact confirmed that it is the natural consequence of their previous argument.

You have established nothing except your own disingenuousness by insinuating that gay marriage proponents should address red herrings such as polygamy lawsa.

No, it's not. The argument is that by attacking certain restrictions you open the door to removing other restrictions - which has been confirmed.

An open door, especially in law, is not one that will necessarily be passed through.

Who's going to enforce 'civil' marriage if one believes that the state should have no involvement in it?

What motivation is there to enforce these rules?

It's up to the parties, or their successors-in-interest, creditors, etc. to enforce through the judicial system, just as with any other private rights or claims. The state has no motivation (with the exception of its welfare interest in minor children, incompetents, etc.) You create this absurd dichotomy that either the state bars sodomites from the gates, or else anarchy reigns.

[Aeson]

The issue with that is that the tax burden, the hospital visitation rights, etc., are all created by the state in the first place. Minus the state, you would have whatever rights the hospital chose to give you - and that would be effectively anarchy, as nobody would know what rights they had until the hospitalization occurred. That's particularly problematic when you realize people can be hospitalized at whatever the nearest hospital is if they are in a serious accident or similar. The state exists for the purpose of simplifying these sorts of interactions. That's why you have birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, property deeds, etc.; so that there is a reliable, consistent method of determining some simple facts without going through legal proceedings. Taking that away would be truly disasterous.

I don't disagree though that you could remove the words; change "marriage" to "civil union" for _everyone_, and perhaps it would simplify things. I don't think so, though; this is at its heart not a legal issue, but rather a social issue. Change the names and most of the same people would be for and against it.

I think you are misreading onodera. He's saying the legal rights should be preserved. There just is no need for the specific basket of legal rights that make up "marriage" to be preserved as a monolithic structure.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Provision and recognition of this status requires a witness. No witness no bennies. You're free to 'get married', but it won't be recognized by the state. It would be relevant if this is what you were arguing gay people should do - but that's not what you are arguing. You're arguing for public recognition of gay marriage.

Recognition of private acts or rights does not render them public acts or rights. You're grasping at a mighty thin straw, that a witness to an event as a requirement for recordation renders a private transaction subject to proscription and regulation as a public transaction. You simply don't even understand the legal concepts, and you don't care to. All you have is some deep butt-tingling emotional need to bend facts and legal concepts over to fit your world view.

I'm also not arguing "public recognition." I'm arguing the state has no compelling justification for proscription. I don't give a **** if you or Fred Phelps "recognize" gay marriage.

[self biased]

Support Rochester, buy Kodak

didn't they go under?

also, i was writing SMAC fanfic on some nerdy site in '98.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think you are misreading onodera. He's saying the legal rights should be preserved. There just is no need for the specific basket of legal rights that make up "marriage" to be preserved as a monolithic structure.

They're not, though. Each of those specific rights exists as a separate statutory or regulatory construction, that can be changed legislatively at any time. Eliminate married filing statuses in federal income taxes? Congress can do it any time. Underlying marriages are irrelevant. Same with any other legal benefit of marriage. They don't exist as part of domestic law governing marriages, they exist in hundreds of separate, distinct laws at both state and federal level. In some cases, municipal and county level.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure it can. Ever here of the concept of liberty? I take a reductionist view of state power. That the state has no right to proscribe private conduct absent a compelling public interest, or a compelling guardianship interest over someone who can't adeaquately protect their own interests (hence a state right for child, disabled and elder abuse laws)

I have nothing against private contracts between gay men and women. What I object to is the recognition of said contracts by the state as 'marriage', and the provision and recognition by the state of such contracts as marriage.

If you're willing to drop public recognition of said contracts then fire away. Otherwise what you've said here doesn't apply.

Your argument is both specious and spurious, unless you submit that attempts to procreate should be mandated as a requirement for marriage.

Arguing that because some lack the capability to perform fails to address the point that this is still the most likely way for the state to accomplish certain ends. One can encourage appropriate state interests by promoting beneficial behaviour such as marriage between men and women - even if it isn't possible in all cases for the state to succeed in their goals.

Stability of child-rearing households is a valid argument for specific benefits to those households

Yes, it is. Again- the stability is relative stability. If the state has the desire to promote relative stability of relationships for the provision of childrearing then yes, the state has a compelling interest for recognition of marriage between men and women in exclusion to inferior alternatives.

how exactly does that damage the child-rearing environment of any other couple?

Doesn't matter - we aren't looking at what damage it does to others - we are looking at the relative stability. Is the relative stability less? Then the state has a compelling interest to discriminate.

Two separate things, as you'd know if you were ever married and moved between community property and non-community property states a few times then got divorced and tried to get a QDRO.

Which comes back to my point about enforcement. You've stated that civil marriage has certain rights associated to it, and I've been arguing that if you're pulling out some things, some of these things are going to go as well. This confirms what I was stating earlier - that it is advantageous to the state to strip away some of these privileges to civil marriage while granting these same privileges to non-civil marriage relationships.

An open door, especially in law, is not one that will necessarily be passed through.

That you've opened the door is confirmation, once again that the slippery slope does in fact exist.

The state has no motivation (with the exception of its welfare interest in minor children, incompetents, etc.) You create this absurd dichotomy that either the state bars sodomites from the gates, or else anarchy reigns.

And again, your rebuttal? Is that this is absurd, unbelievable, impossible, and yet you still haven't shown what's wrong with this argument! That's my point. We are seeing this slowly happen. You've confirmed this and this is inevitable. If the state has the power to define what is marriage -then it also has the power to define what isn't marriage. The state giveth and the state taketh away.

[Ben Kenobi]

Recognition of private acts or rights does not render them public acts or rights.

Yes, it does. That's why you are fighting so hard for this. You want public recognition and the enforcement power of the state in these matters.

that a witness to an event as a requirement for recordation renders a private transaction subject to proscription and regulation as a public transaction.

It might seem thin - but it's decisive. If the so-called private transaction is in fact private - then a witness would be intrusive. That the transaction requires the presence of a witness makes the transaction public. That the transaction is invalid sans witness confirms that marriage is in actuality a public transaction.

I'm also not arguing "public recognition." I'm arguing the state has no compelling justification for proscription. I don't give a **** if you or Fred Phelps "recognize" gay marriage.

Then the state has no compelling interest for public recognition either. As I said - I have no issue with private transactions between gay men and women. What I object to is the recognition of the state of these private transacations as marriage.

[Aeson]

They're not, though.

Yes they are. By definition everything within the marriage basket of legal rights (whatever that is at any given time/jurisdiction) is part of the marriage basket of legal rights.

There is no need for this basket to even exist.

[Tupac Shakur]

I have him on ignore, so thankfully I have been spared from those. Except for the couple of times when Drake quoted him.

You're welcome.

[DinoDoc]

You're welcome.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes they are. By definition everything within the marriage basket of legal rights (whatever that is at any given time/jurisdiction) is part of the marriage basket of legal rights.

There is no need for this basket to even exist.

There is no "need" for any law to exist. There is no "need" for the human species to exist. There is a social convention that it is useful to bundle some benefits together, but the combo has varied over time and differs from state to state. There is also a legal recognition that it is much easier to legislate these benefits rather than require each and every married couple to go through a bunch of legal hoops (and make some lawyers rich). These conventions arose when women, by and large, were no longer governed under the common law of the master-servant relationship and the law of chattels.

[MichaeltheGreat]

**** jonmiller. forumfart is more accurate.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, it does. That's why you are fighting so hard for this. You want public recognition and the enforcement power of the state in these matters.

I'm not fighting hard for this at all. Civil law invokes state procedure, but not state enforcement power unless and until there is a judicial order which is defied by a party subject to the order. The difference isn't semantic - the judicial system expects that parties will comply with its orders, and defiance of those orders, regardless of contemt, will trigger sanctions.

It might seem thin - but it's decisive. If the so-called private transaction is in fact private - then a witness would be intrusive.

Kiddo, in your limited educational state you may not know this, but words used in professions have technical uses and definitions distinct from their common conversational uses. You don't get to make up the definitions to suit your purposes. The concept of public. quasi-public and private transactions, interests, associations, etc. have been well developed in many separate fields of law for decades to centuries. Like I said, go to law school, get your bar ticket, then waste my time. Problem is, you'd never get in, let alone get out.

Then the state has no compelling interest for public recognition either. As I said - I have no issue with private transactions between gay men and women. What I object to is the recognition of the state of these private transacations as marriage.

The state doesn't need a compelling interest to permit a practice - it needs a compelling interest to proscribe. And nobody gives a **** what you think about it, unless you, or any other opponent, can show a particularized harm which directly affects you.

At least you're semi-honest in your statement about your motivations.

You think "ick ick ick sodomite evil sin ooh ick" therefore "must find any rationale possible, no matter how thin or stripped of context to ban evil sodomite mockery of m-m-m-marriage." So you'll redefine terms and legal concepts, regurgitate the arguments of others (the "stable parental unit" crap is from FRC, who didn't originate it either), anything you can desperately grasp on to, to stop the evil sodomites.

If you were being forced to marry one, or if the law was going to force your parish church to perform evil sodomite marriages along with other pagan ceremonies, you'd have a point. The law isn't heading anywhere near that direction, so all you have is personal hysteria. End of story.