On gay marriage
This isn’t about their freedom to contract. This isn’t about their freedom to marry. These were already freely available, no one was getting jailed for performing a ceremony, and no one was having their legal contracts overridden. This is purely about the taxpayer subsidy for married couples being extended to same-sex couples
Not really. For example, there is no contract that recognizes that a gay spouse can make medical decisions for his/her incapacitated gay spouse such as exists under normal marriage. No matter what contracts you sign, that decision will be left to who is legally the closest family member. It’s about a bit more than a tax subsidy.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:52 am
That’s an odd statement to make, not because I agree or disagree about your stand, but because I know that a medical power of attorney overrides any family member’s claim to anything. They’re also available free at most county hospitals.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:54 am
If you have one. I suspect most do not. Without one, your spouse is probably the first in line with that power.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Hey unc, thanks for the linky.
I may be wrong here, but a medical power of attorney is (on its face) supposed to be as legally enforceable as the assumption of said power of attorney defined in current marriage law. Now, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be challenged in court, but so can a spousal decision. The medical power of attorney costs a hundred bucks or so, and is fully binding.
Currently, all the powers and benefits conferred by modern marriage customs can be replicated within the legal system (Powers of attorney, will, living will, etc) but you have to pay for it yourself instead of having it for free. Now, I don’t advise anyone who currently gets it for free to rely on it, because without the stated declaration of intent any relative can interfere with the spouse’s decisions. Remember the Schiavo case?
To the best of my knowledge, the items not able to be granted by legal contract are all monetary: Social Security, Medicare, state pensions, government employee health care coverage. These are a thorny area to everyone, and I don’t mean to minimize the effects that having or not having access to these items will mean to people.
Respectfully,
Pol
June 12th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Well, that’s sort of the problem.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:05 am
If you are married. I suspect many are not. 🙂 I further suspect that at least a few of them don’t really want their closest family member to have that power. Mom and Dad, maybe not so much. But for the 70 year old whose closest relative is their money grubbing nephew…
I haven’t seen that a marriage license grants you anything (except the tax implications) that you couldn’t get some other way (maybe they exist, but I’ve not seen it). The Marriage license just provides a short-cut.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I understand that you think that it’s a problem. My contention is that it’s not a civil rights issue. It’s about whether the people of a state have the right to decide what behaviors or decisions that want to subsidize, and which ones thay want to not.
Respectfully,
Pol
June 12th, 2009 at 10:13 am
It’s about a bit more than a tax subsidy.
Which is not to say it’s not about a tax subsidy. Because it is.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:13 am
It’s about quite a bit more than a tax subsidy indeed. I’m not marriage-minded. In fact, I find the idea of begging the gov to sanction my union fairly distasteful. So I long ago decided I want no part of it. But I still want the bundle of rights that comes along with that marriage license.
My girlfriend and I tried to approximate it with paperwork. We’re both lawyers. We got part way there and realized there’s a bunch of things you can’t get, hospital privileges just being one of many. Now that we have kids on the way, we might just suck it up and do it in City Hall.
But practical considerations aside, this is really about dignity and basic human fairness. The couple my gf and I spend the most time with happens to be two guys who can’t get married in NY. Nothing says “second-class citizen” like the clerk at City Hall saying “We don’t accept your kind here.”
Legal structures shouldn’t discriminate on this basis. The government that represents me should not discriminate on this basis. Let the churches overflow with bigotry, but not my government.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Brutal Hugger;
I guess I have a different view on dignity, basic human fairness, and the role of government. In my opinion, That all boils down to we should all be left alone equally, not we should all be subsidized equally. If the people of NY want to encourage het marriage by subsidizing it, and ignore gay marriage by not subsidizing it, i’m fine with that. As long as they don’t criminalize it, that meets my basic level of being left alone.
Respectfully,
Pol
June 12th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Congrats!
June 12th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Uncle: Thanks. We’re having twins. One of them is an accident. Not sure which one yet!
Pol: I agree we should all be left alone equally, and I would like to see government leave the marriage business altogether. But if the gov is going to toss around subsidies, I don’t want them to do it in a way that discriminates on what I consider to be a reprehensible basis. Just as I’m bothered by certain race-based qualifications for gov subsidies, sexuality tests bother my notions of fairness.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:44 am
workinwifdakids, medical power of attorney is a creature of state law. Every state has different requirements. And the patient has to be conscious to sign it. I suppose we *could* sign 50 of them and keep them in a file cabinet at home in case we ever need them, but that seems somewhat burdensome to me. It also doesn’t address the problem of jurisdictions outside the 50 states.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Brutal Hugger:
I can respect that position. I don’t see it as a fairness issue personally, but I can see where you do. That is why I have no problem with voters and their elected officials expanding (or contracting) the subsidy in their state, and I have a problem with courts doing the same. I also (as I stated in the linked post) want the gov out of recognizing or criminalizing marriages between consenting adults (of any number or gender). I don’t see that as ever happening, as we are moving as a society to more gov not less.
Respectfully,
Pol
June 12th, 2009 at 10:48 am
BH, as an aside, we have a durable medical power of attorney. Even though I am married my wife and I both still have them as they provide a stronger legal designation than the marriage default position.
Respectfully,
Pol
June 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Well, that’s sort of the problem.
Because marriage licenses are free…oh…wait…
The problem here is that whole “rights” thing.
Marriage is not a right. It requires the approval of a governing body. Anything that requires approval is not a right. That’s the whole argument against requiring permits for keeping or bearing arms. If you have to ask permission, it isn’t a right any more, it is a privilege that may be denied.
Since marriage is not a right, but a privilege, this is not an issue of civil rights, it is an issue of to whom the privilege of marriage is to be granted.
One could claim that “equal treatment under the law” requires marriage to be granted to any consenting adults…but one would be wrong to argue it.
That is because the very definition of marriage is now and has always been understood to be the joining of men and women.
Some cultures have defined marriage as the joining of one man to any number of women…but no society of which I’m aware has ever defined marriage as the joining of same sex couples. In other words, polygamists have a stronger claim to an “equal protection under the law” argument than gays do.
They are not trying to lay claim to a right or privilege that is being denied them. They are trying the change the very definition of what that right or privilege IS.
Gays have the same opportunity to get married as anyone else…the problem is that the very definition of marriage in our society is the joining of one man and one woman.
What they don’t get to do is decide for the rest of society what marriage really means. That’s not their call to make.
Personally, I really don’t care one way or another about the familial arrangements of gays or government recognition of same. What I oppose is the attempted redefinition of a traditionally religious rite that societies, through their governments, have chosen to institutionalize. I don’t oppose “civil unions” or some other legal arrangement that would emulate marriage in the government’s eyes; but what I don’t buy into, is the presumption that the traditionally understood definition of marriage can be simply dismissed out of hand as if nonexistent.
There is a reason that gay activists insist upon hijacking the traditional term “marriage”, with all its religious connotations, by oxymoronically hanging the descriptor “gay” on the front…rather than accepting “civil unions” or the like as a newly recognized class of familial contract. They have an agenda no less than any other political activists do. Their agenda includes forcing the rest of society to accept their lifestyle choices as a normal, acceptable, religiously moral alternative to the traditional family structure.
I can’t say that they’re wrong in wanting acceptance, everyone wants to be accepted, but I do oppose their attempts to use government force to achieve it.
“If you have a right to someone else’s approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what ‘consenting adults’ do in private is nobody else’s business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.”
–Thomas Sowell
June 12th, 2009 at 11:16 am
You don’t need 50 executions of the document. You need one. That’s the point of the full faith and credit clause.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:33 am
This is bunk..the CBO did a study that suggests that the federal government would see more revenue due to the “marriage penalty”. Marriage only results in lower taxes if one partner works and other stays at home/works part time/makes less than the other partner..which isn’t common among gay couples. Other studies have suggested that gay marriage would lead to fewer social service claims like food stamps, welfare, Medicare, etc.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:39 am
One could claim that “equal treatment under the law” requires marriage to be granted to any consenting adults…but one would be wrong to argue it.
That is because the very definition of marriage is now and has always been understood to be the joining of men and women.
Some cultures have defined marriage as the joining of one man to any number of women…but no society of which I’m aware has ever defined marriage as the joining of same sex couples.
Are people really still peddling this? The obvious problem is that your wrong. Canada, many European countries and 6 states all define marriage as being inclusive of same-sex couples.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Phelps, it’s not quite adequate to have one document. I found a couple instances where the different state requirements resulted in the form not working everywhere. More to the point, there’s no time to litigate when medical decisions need to be made *right now*.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Are people really still peddling this? The obvious problem is that your wrong. Canada, many European countries and 6 states all define marriage as being inclusive of same-sex couples.
I admit that I misspoke a bit when I implied that no society does now. The point about the historical definition is no less true, however.
Basically, what your saying is that, a small minority of societies can dictate to ALL societies what the meaning of a term should be?
So you agree with the Europeans, Canadians, New Jersey, California et al about gun rights as well do you?
My point remains. Simply wishing a redefinition of a well established term, whether that term be “marriage” or “keep and bear arms” does not make it so. At least not without the general consent of the society.
That’s what gays are hoping for but they aren’t patient. They are hoping for a general societal acceptance of the redefinition of marriage…and, frankly, I think they will one day be successful.
The problem is that they aren’t patient enough to wait until the rest of society is PERSUADED to accept their redefinition, they are determined to FORCE it upon us through force of government arms…and therein lies my problem with it.
For the record: I have no problem with this issue being decided at the state level and, on principle, wouldn’t support a constitutional amendment. The problem is that I believe that the gay activists won’t be satisfied with that and will continue to try to force states that don’t agree with them to acquiesce to their demands. Because I believe this…based upon their rhetoric and past actions…I do support a constitutional amendment to keep it from happening.
In other words, in my case at least, the gays activism is working against them. I’d be perfectly willing to leave them alone as long as I’m confident that they will show me the same courtesy. I’m not…so I won’t.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
In other news…why can’t people who are bigots simply admit they are? I’d respect anti gay marriage folks more if they could just man up and admit they just plain don’t fancy gay people.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Sailorcurt pretty much echos my feelings here. This isn’t some big scientific discovery that redifines the way we look at our world, and requires the reworking of our language and culture to accomodate. Men have been buggering each other for thousands of years, and societies have historically rejected that as a model for the family unit. If homosexuals want to live together and fight for equal subsidies, then they can do that. They just can’t ever be “married” in the real sense of the word.
I don’t give a shit if gays get to file taxes jointly, get benefits for their significant others through their employers, or make medical decisions for each other. What I do care about is those fuckers hijacking “marriage;” they already stole rainbows.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Also they stole a nice word “gay”, nect is “marriage”.
I have seen the constant attempts to indoctrinate children to be homosexual in elementary schools.
The demonized the BSA and all the BSA did was prevent the forced inclusion of gay leaders to prevent sexual abuse of minors. Since ach troop is independant a tropp could approve a gay leader just they had the ability to refuse alos.
The choice of a private group to refuse membership in leadership roles was the issue.
So I do not beleive the guarantees of NH that churches will not be forced to officiate in gay marriages
June 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Sorry on the typos I was typing in the dark.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“I don’t give a shit if gays get to file taxes jointly, get benefits for their significant others through their employers, or make medical decisions for each other. ”
I have to agree, actually. But I think those situations (not sure what to call them, since they are not rights) have to extend beyond ‘romantic’ relationships.
In essence, why not allow platonic and non-spousal family relationships get all of the above also? I could care less if two gays get taxes filed jointly and reap the benefits, but I should be able to do the same with both my wife, my friend, and two brothers also.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
When hospitals stop blatantly ignoring medical PoA or allowing the family to override them out of predjudice, you might have a point.
Me, I’m all for .gov getting out of marriage. But there needs to be a simple way to get the sheaf of rights that you get as a joined couple. Marriage can be left to the churches and civil unions can be left to the .gov. For everyone.
Until then, I have yet to see a good argument that againt civil gay marriage while allowing divorced, sterile, straights to get civilly married.
For the record, straight male married to my wife 9 years as of this week.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
The demonized the BSA and all the BSA did was prevent the forced inclusion of gay leaders to prevent sexual abuse of minors
So what you are saying is that somehow gay people are predisposed to abusing minors? How the f*** do you or the BSA come to that conclusion? No prejudice there.
Sailorcurt..you are creating a straw man so that you can tear it down. One of the arguments I’ve seen is that somehow because no other society (which is no longer true) accepts gay marriage that this is in and of itself a reason to deny gay marriage. Well, guess what? At one time no society allowed women to vote and then someone had to be the first and now almost all democracies allow women to vote.
I’m sure in that day, someone said that no woman has ever participated in the political process and that we shouldn’t upset tradition. But, we got passed that and one-by-one jurisdictions all over the world allowed women to vote.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Part of the problem is that non-marriage-based contracts are routinely ignored by the courts when they intersect with family issues. Try leaving a large part of your estate to someone who’s not considered part of your family and see what happens when all of your relatives contest the will.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Well gay priests certainly abused minor boys. That was a big scandal in the Catholic Church. Not all gay men like young men and boyd but certainly some gay men do and they hunt for opportunities. There is a group that pushes for gay adult and boy sex.
Sexual predators of either inclination hunt for prey where they are most at. So coaches and BSA has been a place they try to infiltrate to get close to their prey.
Female predation on young males is not considered such a bad issue since most young males want sex with a woman. But that certainly exists in the schools.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:48 am
RAH – that’s perilously close to judging a man by the color of his skin… (Or in this case, his sexual orientation). I was under the impression that wasn’t a good practice…
June 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
RAH..so would you consider it prudent to have a full ban on Catholic priests interacting with young boys? That seems to be the problem from what you are saying rather than openly gay men.
Why do gun bans not work? Because criminals are going to ignore them…why would banning gays from being scout leaders not work..because sexual predators wouldn’t admit to being gay.