Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Basically that's what marriage does now, except that all those things you would have to write up separately are codified in a vast multitude of laws and are granted automatically at signing.

Right.

But the vast multitude of laws inherent in the marriage laws are not necessarily applicable to every marriage/every relationship. Therein lies the rub.

Honestly the biggest problem with the institution of marriage is that people are unwilling to mentally and emotionally disassociate the religious and personal aspects of marriage from the government benefits.

If it is a legal contract there should be no gender restrictions on it.

Correct on both accounts.

I'm not opposed to your ideal EW but I think it's far beyond what's plausible in the forseeable future.

What's plausible is not always moral. For me, the intervention of government into marriage is a moral issue (and not in the weird Christian assumptions). Presumably, one may always be pragmatic but I don't feel thats always a simple assertion.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Right.

But the vast multitude of laws inherent in the marriage laws are not necessarily applicable to every marriage/every relationship. Therein lies the rub.

No, though it provides a baseline. If couples wish to modify those standards they can through additional paperwork. Honestly it makes sense to have a standard contract that can be modified as the couples see fit. But because it's so intertwined into law - for example requiring insurance companies to cover spouses, requiring hospitals allow spouses to visit, allowing spouses to obtain citizenship) spouses lose a lot of protection as well as responsibility without it.

What's plausible is not always moral. For me, the intervention of government into marriage is a moral issue (and not in the weird Christian assumptions). Presumably, one may always be pragmatic but I don't feel thats always a simple assertion.

But plausiblity and morality have nothing to do with each other. I don't think I understand your use of morality there. I don't think government should interfere with marriage - any couple should be allowed to get married. However, I don't think that the government truly can get out of the marriage business either. Unless it were to adopt the idea of the state offering civil unions and marriages being the personal or religious ceremony. However it is perfectly possible for people who do not want the government involved in their relationship now to have a marriage ceremony without signing the certificate and being legally married.

As for being pragmatic, it's not the ideal solution ever, true. But personally I'd rather see equality in marriage law now than hold out for an ideal.*

*At least when it comes to the kind of first world problems we're talking about here.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

But plausiblity and morality have nothing to do with each other. I don't think I understand your use of morality there. I don't think government should interfere with marriage - any couple should be allowed to get married. However, I don't think that the government truly can get out of the marriage business either. Unless it were to adopt the idea of the state offering civil unions and marriages being the personal or religious ceremony. However it is perfectly possible for people who do not want the government involved in their relationship now to have a marriage ceremony without signing the certificate and being legally married.

.

And thus my reason for legal entity civil unions. Marriage should be defined by whatever legal or moral persuassion you choose to ally yourself with. You should be able to have the choice of having a religious marriage without having government recognition of that marriage.

By government standards if you choose to have your marriage recognized by the government, it should be looked at in same equivalent of if you own a business and choose to add a partner (minus the ability to have an LLC or S-Corp marriage. LOL). Therefore it comes with all the benefits of entering said partnerships as well as all the consequences of entering said partnership. And since we are entering this as a partnership the penalties will be stricter if said partnership is entered not in good faith (the equivalent of setting up a dummy corporation in order to get tax breaks/hide money, etc pretty much fraud) or if you choose to dissolve said partnership (thus pre-nups will no longer be considered this piece of paper you present to your spouse because you think you ain't gonna make it, but as a legitimate business document to protect not just yourself, but any other outside financial penalties that occur from dissolution.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

And thus my reason for legal entity civil unions. Marriage should be defined by whatever legal or moral persuassion you choose to ally yourself with. You should be able to have the choice of having a religious marriage without having government recognition of that marriage.

You can do that now though. I could go through with a wedding of pretty much any denomination and not sign a certificate.

By government standards if you choose to have your marriage recognized by the government, it should be looked at in same equivalent of if you own a business and choose to add a partner (minus the ability to have an LLC or S-Corp marriage. LOL). Therefore it comes with all the benefits of entering said partnerships as well as all the consequences of entering said partnership. And since we are entering this as a partnership the penalties will be stricter if said partnership is entered not in good faith (the equivalent of setting up a dummy corporation in order to get tax breaks/hide money, etc pretty much fraud) or if you choose to dissolve said partnership (thus pre-nups will no longer be considered this piece of paper you present to your spouse because you think you ain't gonna make it, but as a legitimate business document to protect not just yourself, but any other outside financial penalties that occur from dissolution.)

But here I think you just evidence the difficulty with this proposition. The average American does not understand contract law. Contract law is vast and convoluted and requires legal counsel. Most people don't need lawyers involved to get married (the very rich and famous being exceptions. And pre-nups are considered the way you wrote about them amongst that crowd - necessary protections.) because marriage law is, on the whole, much more simplified.

Also being in a "false" contract marriage wouldn't be comparable to tax fraud really. There's nothing about a legal marriage that requires you to have any better faith than "i want the legal benefits of marriage." There's nothing requiring "I love this person" in the law afaik.

I think if we enacted "civil unions" for all it would essentially be a marriage contract with the word "Marriage" scribbled out and "Civil Union" written in. It wouldn't be akin to forming a legal partnership as that is beyond the capabilities and interests of the average person.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You can do that now though. I could go through with a wedding of pretty much any denomination and not sign a certificate.



But here I think you just evidence the difficulty with this proposition. The average American does not understand contract law. Contract law is vast and convoluted and requires legal counsel. Most people don't need lawyers involved to get married (the very rich and famous being exceptions. And pre-nups are considered the way you wrote about them amongst that crowd - necessary protections.) because marriage law is, on the whole, much more simplified.

Also being in a "false" contract marriage wouldn't be comparable to tax fraud really. There's nothing about a legal marriage that requires you to have any better faith than "i want the legal benefits of marriage." There's nothing requiring "I love this person" in the law afaik.

I think if we enacted "civil unions" for all it would essentially be a marriage contract with the word "Marriage" scribbled out and "Civil Union" written in. It wouldn't be akin to forming a legal partnership as that is beyond the capabilities and interests of the average person.

In the bold is why I would. To cut down any type of fraud that would come along. Hey I know I'm probably going further than most people would...but hey I'm sure between my idea and others we can find a better way than what is current.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

And thus my reason for legal entity civil unions. Marriage should be defined by whatever legal or moral persuassion you choose to ally yourself with. You should be able to have the choice of having a religious marriage without having government recognition of that marriage.

By government standards if you choose to have your marriage recognized by the government, it should be looked at in same equivalent of if you own a business and choose to add a partner (minus the ability to have an LLC or S-Corp marriage. LOL). Therefore it comes with all the benefits of entering said partnerships as well as all the consequences of entering said partnership. And since we are entering this as a partnership the penalties will be stricter if said partnership is entered not in good faith (the equivalent of setting up a dummy corporation in order to get tax breaks/hide money, etc pretty much fraud) or if you choose to dissolve said partnership (thus pre-nups will no longer be considered this piece of paper you present to your spouse because you think you ain't gonna make it, but as a legitimate business document to protect not just yourself, but any other outside financial penalties that occur from dissolution.)

Isn't that what it is now? It feels to me that you are just arguing semantics. You're saying "lets stop calling it marriage and call it a civil union instead" because everything you're saying that it should be IS what is right now.

So, a man will get down on one knee, present an engagement ring and say "Will you enter a civil union with me?" And, what is the verb then? "We are civil unioned?" "We invite you to celebrate the civil union of ... "

Sounds like the difference between rush and recruitment and pledge or new member to me. They are one and the same. It's just terminology that nobody is going to adopt. "I will never get unioned again" LOL

ETA: I was writing while Drole was, apparently. We are on the same page, Drole!

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Isn't that what it is now? It feels to me that you are just arguing semantics. You're saying "lets stop calling it marriage and call it a civil union instead" because everything you're saying that it should be IS what is right now.

So, a man will get down on one knee, present an engagement ring and say "Will you enter a civil union with me?" And, what is the verb then? "We are civil unioned?" "We invite you to celebrate the civil union of ... "

Sounds like the difference between rush and recruitment and pledge or new member to me. They are one and the same. It's just terminology that nobody is going to adopt. "I will never get unioned again" LOL

ETA: I was writing while Drole was, apparently. We are on the same page, Drole!

Actually I'm not arguing semantics because to do that would mean I disagree with you. I am agreeing which is why I am injecting semantics.

Go back to my first post on the subject and why I said the government needs to recognize it for what it is instead of trying to say marriage here and civil union there.



And yes you can say isn't that what it is already. If it was this would not be an issue in the first place.

And if a man wants to get down on one knee and say let's Do a Civil Union, that's his perogative if he wants to use those choice words. Whatever he says, if he wants it recognized by the government he needs to realize it is a civil union only, and as long as the government is trying to play favorites by injecting some moral authority to it, then marriage will always be treated different than what it really is per the government of the United States.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think if we enacted "civil unions" for all it would essentially be a marriage contract with the word "Marriage" scribbled out and "Civil Union" written in.

Yes

Originally Posted by AGDee

So, a man will get down on one knee, present an engagement ring and say "Will you enter a civil union with me?" And, what is the verb then? "We are civil unioned?" "We invite you to celebrate the civil union of ... "

A current example of why you need not worry is Broken Down Irretrievably and Irreconcilable Differences as grounds for divorce. Broken Down Irretrievably is a legal term for one of two possible no fault divorces. Lawyers, help me please, because I'm not 100% sure! Colloquially, we say "irreconcilable differences." They mean the same thing, but one is legal and one is not. Civil union (legal) vs Marriage (colloquial) doesn't seem that off the wall to me.

Originally Posted by Kevin

From a policy standpoint, I will say that I'm in favor of marriage between any two consenting adults.

Right now, I'm representing a woman who after more than a decade with her partner, decided to call it quits. Both ladies are professionals, pay their taxes, have good jobs, are highly educated, and most of all, have lots of stuff. They did do a reasonably good job of estate planning, placed their home into joint tenancy, but my client, the one who left, is at an extreme disadvantage because there is no legal remedy designed for this situation. Therefore, if we do not get what we want in settlement, we have to go pounding a square peg into a round hole by filing a dissolution of partnership action. I very much do not want to have to appear before the District Judge in the relevant county (which is a small, extremely conservative county) with an action designed for unwinding businesses, which will essentially be a divorce proceeding.

I shudder to think at what would happen, if, for example, one of them (as both of them couldn't) adopted a child or gave birth and raised a child. The child would at this point be nearly a decade old and the non-adoptive parent/non biological mother would have zero parental rights.

And God forbid one of them predeceased the other during the relationship without leaving a will.

This is exactly what happened to my aunt. Ultimately, a lot of the bigger items (e.g. real estate) simply went to the person who technically owned it, meaning her name was on the deed. So, my aunt got booted from her home and ended up with their mountain "vacation" home even though both women had paid into both properties for many, many years.

The legal system often lags behind the times. In this particular instance, the legal system REALLY lags behind the times. You may not morally agree with what these folks are doing, but you can at least acknowledge that they should be afforded the opportunity to have the same legal rights and standing and protections as everyone else.

Hear, hear. Unfortunately, as you know, it doesn't work like that. I went from a devout evangelical protestant background to an Orthodox Christian church. In both cases, the parishioners are VERY rigid when it comes to homosexuality to the point that I have literally been told, "I don't want to live in a country where gays can destroy the sanctity of marriage."

Worse, talking to my father, he can intellectually separate legal marriage and religious marriage and understand why it is completely contrary to American ideals to deny marriage to consenting adults, BUT he can still say he would never vote for it.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, though it provides a baseline. If couples wish to modify those standards they can through additional paperwork. Honestly it makes sense to have a standard contract that can be modified as the couples see fit. But because it's so intertwined into law - for example requiring insurance companies to cover spouses, requiring hospitals allow spouses to visit, allowing spouses to obtain citizenship) spouses lose a lot of protection as well as responsibility without it.

Agreed.

But plausiblity and morality have nothing to do with each other. I don't think I understand your use of morality there.

That's why I said not with the weird "Christian assumptions." Government intervention is immoral as it slow the dynamism of cultural interaction. Depending on where you set your moral compass, government intervention is definitely immoral. (And by government intervention I'm defining as any time the government does more than its two obligations of protecting citizens within the state from each other and protecting the citizens of its own state from citizens of another state)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Agreed.



That's why I said not with the weird "Christian assumptions." Government intervention is immoral as it slow the dynamism of cultural interaction. Depending on where you set your moral compass, government intervention is definitely immoral. (And by government intervention I'm defining as any time the government does more than its two obligations of protecting citizens within the state from each other and protecting the citizens of its own state from citizens of another state)

Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point
But otherwise, thanks for the discussion

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Loving vs. Virginia was a correct decision and a relatively easy one to make in hindsight. This was more about race and not a definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman. It did not address gay marriage nor was it considered to have done such.

No. of course it didn't. What it did do was was determine that laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races violate the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I agree that an argument can be made that this case is different because it can be seen as redefining marriage. But I can also see how the current case is the direct descendant of Loving.

The 14th Amendment was primarily concerned with apportioning 1 man/woman 1 vote. It overturned the Dred Scott decision. Again it does not address the claim for gay marriage unless one wants to cite the equal protection clause which I believe is more of an equal protection of a persons voting rights. Using due process is a huge stretch in my opinion.

I don't know of any court anywhere that would agree that the equal protection clause has to do only, or mainly, with voting rights. Aside from Loving, see Brown vs. Board of Education. Even Plessy v Furgeson (1896) held that the equal protection clause was designed to guarantee equality in civil rights. The idea that it has to only, or mainly, with voting rights is a dog that just won't hunt.

So yes, I believe that states rights were infringed by the Federal judge in this decision as the state simply defined their definition of marriage.

And I can see that point of view.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

^^ While that would be ideal, it will never happen because of all the legal aspects of marriage.

There is the model followed in some other countres where the legal union and religious aspects are separated. Legally, you appear before a government official (registrar, justice of the peace, etc.) to basically sign, seal and register the civil union contract. Then, if you want to, you head off to church (or temple, or wherever) for the religious ceremony.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

There is the model followed in some other countres where the legal union and religious aspects are separated. Legally, you appear before a government official (registrar, justice of the peace, etc.) to basically sign, seal and register the civil union contract. Then, if you want to, you head off to church (or temple, or wherever) for the religious ceremony.

We have that as well. There is nothing saying you need to have a religious ceremony.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

We have that as well. There is nothing saying you need to have a religious ceremony.

*But*, in the USA a religious official can do it all. In certain other countries (France and I think Brazil), there *must* be a civil official performing the wedding. What else you have done is irrelevant to the Civil Government.

I'd love to see that in the USA.

Randy