News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Obama - 'I think same sex couples should be able to get married.'

Started by Amicale, May 09, 2012, 09:26:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ThinkAnarchy

Quote from: Amicale on May 11, 2012, 03:47:06 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?

I'm curious though. If it were out of the government's hands, ThinkAnarchy, who if anyone do you think ought to be responsible for it?

The two (or more) individuals who want to enter into a matrimonial contract should be responsible for it. The church should be allowed to continue to marry who it likes, and who wants to be married through them. But we should not need government or church approval to enter into this voluntary contract.

I'm not even arguing this from an anarchist perspective. Even if the government got out of marriage, they could easily ensure these voluntary contracts are respected by hospitals and the like.

Why do my wife and I need the government to "validate" our contract? Our marriage is not "legal." We have legal contracts, but not ones many states find acceptable, because we refuse to pay the tithe. She has a ring, I have a ring, and we have promised to fuck nobody but each other. Why is that and our contracts not enough? Why should that not be enough for homosexual couples?

And what is to protect the federal government, in the future, from banning gay marriage across the board if they are able to sieze that power?
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

ThinkAnarchy

Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:41:35 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?

I thought you'd know this well from reading my posts in the Ron Paul topic: It's a government matter, marriage is a legal contract. Taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into church's and other private institution's hands will just allow for more discrimination and nothing will ever be able to be done about it then.

Than you should know by my posts that I'm not calling for it to be in anybodies hands. It is a voluntary contract between consenting adults.
The church can regulate it for those who want to be married by the church, but those who don't, shouldn't be forced to follow state or federal rules regarding this issue. 
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 04:02:28 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:41:35 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?

I thought you'd know this well from reading my posts in the Ron Paul topic: It's a government matter, marriage is a legal contract. Taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into church's and other private institution's hands will just allow for more discrimination and nothing will ever be able to be done about it then.

Than you should know by my posts that I'm not calling for it to be in anybodies hands. It is a voluntary contract between consenting adults.
The church can regulate it for those who want to be married by the church, but those who don't, shouldn't be forced to follow state or federal rules regarding this issue. 

I think the trouble is that being married comes with some legal privileges. In order for those privileges to be acknowledged, there has to be some kind of way of granting "legitimacy". This is why the state has gotten involved. Otherwise, people could declare that they've married their house plant in order to get a tax break.

I do agree with you in principle, though. I didn't get married out of any kind of loyalty or investment in the idea of the "Institution of Marriage." One of my sisters has a long term partner and she often refers to her beau as "her husband." It's not like I'd ever go and correct her because she didn't get the right paperwork signed. If she considers him her husband, that's good enough for me.
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

ThinkAnarchy

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 11, 2012, 04:07:39 AM
I think the trouble is that being married comes with some legal privileges. In order for those privileges to be acknowledged, there has to be some kind of way of granting "legitimacy". This is why the state has gotten involved. Otherwise, people could declare that they've married their house plant in order to get a tax break.

I do agree with you in principle, though. I didn't get married out of any kind of loyalty or investment in the idea of the "Institution of Marriage." One of my sisters has a long term partner and she often refers to her beau as "her husband." It's not like I'd ever go and correct her because she didn't get the right paperwork signed. If she considers him her husband, that's good enough for me.

I don't think married couples should get tax breaks, but than again, I don't think anyone should be forced to pay taxes. A plant can't enter into a contract, so I don't see that being a problem.  

But to quote "the rents to damn high party" candidate, "you wanna marry a shoe, marry a shoe, the rents to damn high."
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

Ali

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:58:24 AM
Why do my wife and I need the government to "validate" our contract? Our marriage is not "legal." We have legal contracts, but not ones many states find acceptable, because we refuse to pay the tithe. She has a ring, I have a ring, and we have promised to fuck nobody but each other. Why is that and our contracts not enough? Why should that not be enough for homosexual couples?

Depends on what you're talking about.  If you're purely talking about couples making a committment to each other, then any path that a couple decides for themselves is "enough."  It's your relationship, if it's enough for you, then it's enough.  Anyone who doesn't agree, doesn't matter. 

But that's not what is granted through a civil marriage.  There are a lot of legal issues that are tied in with a civil marriage, and that is the part that people are fighting for, and being denied.  I like it that if I'm in the hospital and can't make my own decisions, legally, my hubby has my back.  Asmo knows if it was left up to my parents they would keep me hooked up to machines forever and a day, which I would not want.  I like that I am able to offer my health insurance to my husband.  I like it that if I die, he gets our stuff.  I could care less what the government or society feels about my relationship (if we are to imagine that big faceless institutions like "society" and "government" feels anything) but I do want the rights that come with a civil marriage, and I want my fellow Americans to have access to the same rights.  I don't even get what people mean when they say that they want the government out of marriage.  I think they are confusing marriage the relationship with marriage the legal contract.  I don't know how you can ask the law to get out of a legal contract and then still expect that they enforce it. 

ThinkAnarchy

Quote from: Ali on May 11, 2012, 08:57:16 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:58:24 AM
Why do my wife and I need the government to "validate" our contract? Our marriage is not "legal." We have legal contracts, but not ones many states find acceptable, because we refuse to pay the tithe. She has a ring, I have a ring, and we have promised to fuck nobody but each other. Why is that and our contracts not enough? Why should that not be enough for homosexual couples?

Depends on what you're talking about.  If you're purely talking about couples making a committment to each other, then any path that a couple decides for themselves is "enough."  It's your relationship, if it's enough for you, then it's enough.  Anyone who doesn't agree, doesn't matter. 

But that's not what is granted through a civil marriage.  There are a lot of legal issues that are tied in with a civil marriage, and that is the part that people are fighting for, and being denied.  I like it that if I'm in the hospital and can't make my own decisions, legally, my hubby has my back.  Asmo knows if it was left up to my parents they would keep me hooked up to machines forever and a day, which I would not want.  I like that I am able to offer my health insurance to my husband.  I like it that if I die, he gets our stuff.  I could care less what the government or society feels about my relationship (if we are to imagine that big faceless institutions like "society" and "government" feels anything) but I do want the rights that come with a civil marriage, and I want my fellow Americans to have access to the same rights.  I don't even get what people mean when they say that they want the government out of marriage.  I think they are confusing marriage the relationship with marriage the legal contract.  I don't know how you can ask the law to get out of a legal contract and then still expect that they enforce it. 

Asking the government to get out of it is not the same as asking the law to get out of it. All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone. The signing of the marital contract should be enough. The government shouldn't have the right to say how many people I can marry, nor should it be able to say what sex I'm allowed to marry.

I do not need the government to approve of my lending money to a friend. If they sign a promissory note the law will enforce that note, but the government has nothing to do with the actual contract.

Governments simply should not recognize marriage. Law and government are separate entities. If government stayed out of marriage this entire gay marriage problem would go away. If a hospital then didn't recognize your contract, you could sue them. The reason we currently have these problems is due to the government regulating marriage.
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

ThinkAnarchy

Well, it looks like his flip-flop on this issue may have backfired after all.

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-romney-marriage-president-017/

QuoteThe results of Rasmussen Reports' most recent presidential tracking poll reveal that US President Barack Obama is behind Republican Party frontrunner Mitt Romney by as much as seven percentage points. The research group's latest results, published early Friday, suggests that only 43 percent of the American public would be willing to right now cast a ballot to re-elect President Obama; Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, received 50 percent of the vote.
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

Ecurb Noselrub

But the Electoral College projections show Obama with a clear advantage, needing only 17 votes to reach the magic 270. He can lose the popular vote and still win the Presidency by a large margin in the Electoral College.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

McQ

Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 11, 2012, 03:40:20 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

I think  that his comment is pathetic and useless if he doesnt care what other states do.

This is why i hate the U.S
SO MANY states, each with different laws.

Love , marriage, sex, whatever-- as long as both adults are 18+, let them do as they please, damn it.

??? ??? ???

You hate the U.S. because of States' Rights?

You're kidding, right? This is a joke and you're just putting us on. Please say it's so.

Oh my Darwin, we've lost the battle for the U.S. if people don't understand States Rights.

Sad day.

Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

McQ

Obama did this ONLY for the votes, let's be clear. Just because so many people here love him "no matter what" (you know how we love the politicians on "our side"), doesn't mean it was a good move. It was a cowardly holding back of a strong card that he knew he could play now, rather than him doing the right thing three years ago. If it had been a Republican president doing it, people would be screaming to the sky in anger right now.

So much for intellectual honesty.

Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Amicale



"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb we are bound to others. By every crime and act of kindness we birth our future." - Cloud Atlas

"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind is to never die." -Carl Sagan

Sandra Craft

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone.

Well, off the top of my head, I don't think contract law alone would help with tax benefits legally married people get.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

ThinkAnarchy

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone.

Well, off the top of my head, I don't think contract law alone would help with tax benefits legally married people get.


Married couples shouldn't get tax breaks. If you want the tax breaks, than you will have do deal with the government discriminating against certain groups of people. If you don't want the government to have the ability to discriminate against homosexuals and polygamists, stop clinging to your tax breaks.
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 12, 2012, 03:25:13 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone.

Well, off the top of my head, I don't think contract law alone would help with tax benefits legally married people get.


Married couples shouldn't get tax breaks. If you want the tax breaks, than you will have do deal with the government discriminating against certain groups of people. If you don't want the government to have the ability to discriminate against homosexuals and polygamists, stop clinging to your tax breaks.

Not getting the connection, explain.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

ThinkAnarchy

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 03:27:17 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 12, 2012, 03:25:13 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone.

Well, off the top of my head, I don't think contract law alone would help with tax benefits legally married people get.


Married couples shouldn't get tax breaks. If you want the tax breaks, than you will have do deal with the government discriminating against certain groups of people. If you don't want the government to have the ability to discriminate against homosexuals and polygamists, stop clinging to your tax breaks.

Not getting the connection, explain.


So far, the main valid argument for the government regulating marriage are the tax breaks. Contract law is capable of upholding a spouses right to visitation at a hospital, successions without a will, parental rights over children, distribution and sharing of property, etc. Even with the tax breaks, I'm not sure those couldn't be kept if the government stopped regulating marriage. The courts would simply need to recognize the voluntary contract between two or more consenting adults.

We already have ages of majority, so there would be no worry of children entering into these contracts. My point is, we shouldn't need the government to "allow" homosexuals to marry. Perhaps if a couple wanted the tax breaks they would need to file with the courts records, as is currently done with property. But why should the government have any say in who consenting adults marry?

So, actually, the more I think about it, tax breaks shouldn't even matter in this regard.
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.