| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, you can't remove government from marriage without removing all the various legal benefits that being married brings, which i think many people would take issue with.
Allow those same benefits to be done in other ways... like living wills. Otherwise people are forced to beg the government to recognize them as equal people.
Unfortunately, you can't remove government from marriage without removing all the various legal benefits that being married brings, which i think many people would take issue with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allow those same benefits to be done in other ways... like living wills. Otherwise people are forced to beg the government to recognize them as equal people.
Er,.... isn't that also "forcing people to beg the government to recognize them as equal people"?
The government still has an interest in regulating marriage even if if gay/poly marriage weren't an issue. Even if you just treat marriage as a contract, that still brings in all the ordinary restrictions of contract law -- it has to be entered into freely, all parties need to be competent, there can't be any issues of undue influence, and the terms can't be unconscionable (for full details, see Contracts 101 and 102 at your local law school), which means that the government will still be in the business of saying "THIS marriage is acceptable" but "THAT isn't."
If we turn marriage into a simple contract, then every couple who marries will ultimately have to "beg the government to recognize them" instead of simply having a standard form and a standard set of requirements.
But, of course, if there's a standard "civil union" contract, then of course anyone whose situation differs from that envisioned by the contract writer will still have to "beg the government" to change the standard contract.
Your idea is literally a non-starter. A lot of smoke and noise, but no actual change.
Unfortunately none of my 2 cents are perfect. There is always going to be someone screwed. I would much prefer if the government had to spend time to modify whatever laws they need. They should be the ones screwed. Again, IMO.
And no.. in what I am saying the "application" is a formality. So, really you wouldn't be applying to the government... or begging. Instead, the people are in charge.
Certainly not the greatest idea. But what we have now barely works.
Allow those same benefits to be done in other ways... like living wills. Otherwise people are forced to beg the government to recognize them as equal people.
Unfortunately, you can't remove government from marriage without removing all the various legal benefits that being married brings, which i think many people would take issue with.In other words: Make a long complicated process of duplicating all the aspects of law that currently make up a marriage, which people will still have to apply to the government to actually carry out.
And which they will be "forced to beg the government" to make sure the rules are fair and recognize everyone as equal people anyway. A process that the same groups that opposed same-sex marriage will fight every step of the way, just like they fought civil unions.
And everyone will just call it marriage anyway because marriage is the traditional way of making a family and people want that. That's the whole point of it, when you come right down to it. The community recognizing the new couple as a family.
Like I said.. just my opinion. Obviously I don't have all the answers, and neither does anyone else.. because people on all sides keep complaining. Yes.. it is difficult. I certainly get that. It is also a very touchy subject.
Either way it really isn't even anything that matters much to me, I am polyamorous and perfectly happy being in non-married situations. Just threw something out to have a bit of conversation. :)
Being tied up to 2 or more does not sound fun to me.... well.. it could be very fun..
Except financially....
Allow those same benefits to be done in other ways... like living wills. Otherwise people are forced to beg the government to recognize them as equal people.Er,.... isn't that also "forcing people to beg the government to recognize them as equal people"?
The government still has an interest in regulating marriage even if if gay/poly marriage weren't an issue. Even if you just treat marriage as a contract, that still brings in all the ordinary restrictions of contract law -- it has to be entered into freely, all parties need to be competent, there can't be any issues of undue influence, and the terms can't be unconscionable (for full details, see Contracts 101 and 102 at your local law school), which means that the government will still be in the business of saying "THIS marriage is acceptable" but "THAT isn't."
If we turn marriage into a simple contract, then every couple who marries will ultimately have to "beg the government to recognize them" instead of simply having a standard form and a standard set of requirements.
But, of course, if there's a standard "civil union" contract, then of course anyone whose situation differs from that envisioned by the contract writer will still have to "beg the government" to change the standard contract.
Your idea is literally a non-starter. A lot of smoke and noise, but no actual change.
The fact that we have such a big government is a part of the problem. Yep. It has become overcomplicated and inefficient.
If you're setting up a legal system from scratch attaching all those rights and privileges to a civil union contract or whatever and leaving 'marriage' as a ceremonial thing done by churches or other groups is fine.
It's too complicated a knot to undo that way for existing systems in the West though.
Complicated knot sounds quite a bit like that. But if I read it wrong, apologies. I focused on what a complicated knot means to me. It is usually not a good thing. That is my personal problem with marriage as well. :p
That wasn't what I was saying at all.The fact that we have such a big government is a part of the problem. Yep. It has become overcomplicated and inefficient.
If you're setting up a legal system from scratch attaching all those rights and privileges to a civil union contract or whatever and leaving 'marriage' as a ceremonial thing done by churches or other groups is fine.
It's too complicated a knot to undo that way for existing systems in the West though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have to say.. congrats on "gay" marriage (the gay is unnecessary)... I support marriage for all. Including poly... I say this being poly.. though marriage is nothing I am looking for anymore.
Personally I believe the gov should get out of marriage. The licenses should be "ceremonial". "We're married." "OK, here is your license."
Personally, I'd say the reverse is true. Marriage began as a legal arrangement, and it continues as such. Religion ought to come up with their own thing. They can call it family covenant or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that we have such a big government is a part of the problem. Yep. It has become overcomplicated and inefficient.
If you're setting up a legal system from scratch attaching all those rights and privileges to a civil union contract or whatever and leaving 'marriage' as a ceremonial thing done by churches or other groups is fine.
It's too complicated a knot to undo that way for existing systems in the West though.
It didn't become anything, it was built that way on purpose. The US government has 3.8 million square miles and 319 million people to deal with. That's not going to be an efficient process at any time, and never has been nor is it something that can be handled by a small organization.
There's more than just inheritance questions as well, tax law, adoption, housing, banking, etc. Then you have regular old individual prejudice that being married supposedly shows someone as more mature, more stable, and can help in your career. The idea of trying to undo all the laws already in place just to have create some all new system and having the same bigots trying to prevent gay people from being treated equally under those laws is a terrible idea.
It wasn't built to be big on purpose. It did become that way as more and more laws were added to dictate every single thing.
The answer to keep those bigots from trying to once again keep gays from marrying, is when you start building the laws back up, don't build it up too big.
Again, yes.. I know undoing what we have no isn't feasible. But what we have now will also always leave somebody as a second-class citizen. If I were to want to marry two girlfriends, I couldn't. Or if I was married, and wanted a unicorn that we could marry together.. we couldn't. So...
We can talk about equality. But until there is real talk about fixing the government, there will never be real equality. Many people act like there is no need for poly marriage. But why not? Aren't we considered equal too? If so.. do we just keep quiet and just let it go? "Oh, it will just complicate things for the government."
Now, I don't care about marriage itself enough to go out and become a poly-marriage activist... but that doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be on the list someday. You never know, I might find just the right 6 people...
The fact that we have such a big government is a part of the problem. Yep. It has become overcomplicated and inefficient.
If you're setting up a legal system from scratch attaching all those rights and privileges to a civil union contract or whatever and leaving 'marriage' as a ceremonial thing done by churches or other groups is fine.
It's too complicated a knot to undo that way for existing systems in the West though.
It didn't become anything, it was built that way on purpose. The US government has 3.8 million square miles and 319 million people to deal with. That's not going to be an efficient process at any time, and never has been nor is it something that can be handled by a small organization.
There's more than just inheritance questions as well, tax law, adoption, housing, banking, etc. Then you have regular old individual prejudice that being married supposedly shows someone as more mature, more stable, and can help in your career. The idea of trying to undo all the laws already in place just to have create some all new system and having the same bigots trying to prevent gay people from being treated equally under those laws is a terrible idea.
I didn't say anything about religion...
...and I am not Christian...for the record.. not that you or anyone else implied it...
I just feel that the act of "licensing" should be ceremonial. Not as in an actual ceremony.
2 (of a position or role) involving only nominal authority or power.
If Bob and Joe want to get married. They do it however they want.. then go get that license with no government meddling beyond getting that recognized. If they want to add Tim... same deal. or Clarice.. or Atchaka.. or Derfis.
Personally, I'd say the reverse is true. Marriage began as a legal arrangement, and it continues as such. Religion ought to come up with their own thing. They can call it family covenant or something.I do have to say.. congrats on "gay" marriage (the gay is unnecessary)... I support marriage for all. Including poly... I say this being poly.. though marriage is nothing I am looking for anymore.
Personally I believe the gov should get out of marriage. The licenses should be "ceremonial". "We're married." "OK, here is your license."
What you misunderstand is that I wasn't talking about LGBT rights. I actually am talking about marriage rights and equality for anyone that wants to get married. Unless I miss my guess, this thread is titled "Marriage Equality". So what am I focusing on.. "Marriage Equality"... right?
If this thread is about the struggle for LGBT rights in general, shouldn't it be renamed? Just sayin'.... my opinion on those have actually changed immensely in the past 3 years or so... more so that most would imagine... in a way most would find positive... But this is not the thread for that.
As I said in an earlier post. I am personally not for marriage.. especially for myself, so I am the least likely candidate to become a poly-marriage activist. There are those better suited for that. My activism days of any sort are pretty much over...
But my personal issues with marriage aside, I do believe that anyone should get married regardless of the.. "type" of marriage.. as long as consenting adults are involved.
The idea of marriage equality is a good thing, but for that.. how do you make it equal for everyone? There is a lot of telling people something won't work, but no one else is coming up with ideas. No one cares to truly make everyone equal.
It wasn't built to be big on purpose. It did become that way as more and more laws were added to dictate every single thing.
The answer to keep those bigots from trying to once again keep gays from marrying, is when you start building the laws back up, don't build it up too big.
Again, yes.. I know undoing what we have no isn't feasible. But what we have now will also always leave somebody as a second-class citizen. If I were to want to marry two girlfriends, I couldn't. Or if I was married, and wanted a unicorn that we could marry together.. we couldn't. So...
We can talk about equality. But until there is real talk about fixing the government, there will never be real equality. Many people act like there is no need for poly marriage. But why not? Aren't we considered equal too? If so.. do we just keep quiet and just let it go? "Oh, it will just complicate things for the government."
Now, I don't care about marriage itself enough to go out and become a poly-marriage activist... but that doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be on the list someday.
There's a misunderstanding that there is a struggle for marriage equality in which same-sex marriage was the most recent victory. That's not true. There is a struggle for LGBTQ rights in which marriage was the most recent victory.
The next step isn't more marriage rights, but against other violations of LGBTQ rights. In theory, kicking government out of marriage might have helped in the same-sex marriage case, but it wouldn't help when gays are fired for being gay or when people won't rent or sell apartments or houses to them. There's no "just shrink government" solution to most of the problems.As for poly marriage, if you want it, organize for it. Fight for it. Like LGBTQ did. You can even piggyback on their success. It'll help. But you have to make your case and convince enough of the public to support you. It's not going to just happen because you think it should.
No one's saying "keep quiet". Make your...
Rather posting a link like that, are there any actual other ideas being thrown out? Big government, small government... what is the way to fix things? Or is everything fine now? What's the verdict?
How is this thread still a thing?
I'm surprised that nobody has come along to get it locked.
I don't disagree that there is no movement for full marriage equality. I don't even know whether one would do anything positive. I don't know whether one would be a negative either.
What you misunderstand is that I wasn't talking about LGBT rights. I actually am talking about marriage rights and equality for anyone that wants to get married. Unless I miss my guess, this thread is titled "Marriage Equality". So what am I focusing on.. "Marriage Equality"... right?
If this thread is about the struggle for LGBT rights in general, shouldn't it be renamed? Just sayin'.... my opinion on those have actually changed immensely in the past 3 years or so... more so that most would imagine... in a way most would find positive... But this is not the thread for that.
As I said in an earlier post. I am personally not for marriage.. especially for myself, so I am the least likely candidate to become a poly-marriage activist. There are those better suited for that. My activism days of any sort are pretty much over...
But my personal issues with marriage aside, I do believe that anyone should get married regardless of the.. "type" of marriage.. as long as consenting adults are involved.
The idea of marriage equality is a good thing, but for that.. how do you make it equal for everyone? There is a lot of telling people something won't work, but no one else is coming up with ideas. No one cares to truly make everyone equal.
I know that's what you're talking about and I don't really care about the thread name, but I'm saying there's no movement for "marriage equality" in the sense you're using it. There is a movement for LBTG rights, which includes same-sex marriage. That means that thinking of "What's the next step in marriage equality" is pointless because that's coming from the wrong direction. There is no struggle for marriage equality. There is no movement behind that.
Rather posting a link like that, are there any actual other ideas being thrown out? Big government, small government... what is the way to fix things? Or is everything fine now? What's the verdict?
The verdict is that 4% of the population got one word crossed out for marriage laws to accomidate a desire that is fundamental to the very core of their being. Less than 1% of the population is NOT getting an entire shelf of law books written to accommodate a personal desire. Its not happening.
By all means, push for it to be decriminalized, but you're going to have to go to a lawyer and write up your own contract for how the heck that works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather posting a link like that, are there any actual other ideas being thrown out? Big government, small government... what is the way to fix things?
Reason and good faith, applied collectively. One of the major issues is that most of the things that the libertarians and similar small-government activists think need fixing are not, in fact, things that are unpopular. And many of the things that are unpopular are actually good public policy.
For example, FEMA is one of the programs that Ted Cruz loves to rant about, but FEMA is also one of the agencies that Sen. Cruz went begging to for additional help for his state when Texas suffered some recent flooding. Simiilarly. Arizona Republicans Sen. Jeff Flake, Sen. John McCain, and Rep. Paul Gosar all voted against emergency relief funding after SuperStorm Sandy ravaged much of the New Jersey and New York area, but were livid that FEMA didn't provide aid after the Yarnell, Arizona fires.
So should FEMA be cut as Messrs. Cruz et al. periodically demand? Obviously not; it's a program that is both popular and needed. On the other hand, everyone -- including grandstanding politicians -- needs to understand that FEMA has limited resources and has to prioritize. If the priorities are unclear, they need to be clarified. If the priorities are wrong, they need to be corrected. And that's where reason and good faith come in.
In particular, support for marriage laws is nearly universal. Too many people are already married, or want to be married, or are comfortable with the idea of marriage to make rewriting marriage laws ab initio practical. And it generally works well. So it's not something that needs substantial fixing.
Example?On occasion the court has said that some existing condition is unConstitutional and ordered the government to fix it without specifying how, leaving it up to the legislature and the executive to implement.
The death penalty as practiced in California. The issue was that the system itself was viewed by the court as far too arbitrary and inconsistent, and the court said to somehow make it not arbitrary and inconsistent without specifying an exact method of doing so.
Nowhere near as legally complicated as legalizing polygamy, of course.
Now, in principle I wouldn't oppose legal polygamy, but the structural questions it raises give me a massive headache.
Truth.. it would be a pain in the ass.
Now, in principle I wouldn't oppose legal polygamy, but the structural questions it raises give me a massive headache.
I'm surprised that nobody has come along to get it locked.
I don't mind tangential discussions, but I would really prefer not to have a thread locked.
If someone doesn't like a thread, they can choose not to comment in it, or even hide it. Posting angry in an attempt to lock is just a jerk move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you misunderstand is that I wasn't talking about LGBT rights. I actually am talking about marriage rights and equality for anyone that wants to get married. Unless I miss my guess, this thread is titled "Marriage Equality". So what am I focusing on.. "Marriage Equality"... right?
What I think you're missing is the meaning of "equality" as used here.
Marriage between two people was available only if one was female and the other male, not for two females or two males. That's inequality, and lacked a compelling reason to continue.
Currently, multiple partner marriage is not legal at all in the United States. Neither polygamy, nor polyandry. Poly marriage has equality right now because it is unavailable to all, not available only to some.
I don't oppose poly marriage, so long as all parties consent and retain their rights. However, the lack of legal poly marriage is not a case of marriage inequality.
Now that the SCOTUS has weighted in, can we please put the bestiality/polygamy/incest "parallels" to bed once and for all? They were both spurious and odious from the word go.
To people that are poly... it is. Well, many.. many are like me and live fine without it.
However, the lack of legal poly marriage is not a case of marriage inequality.