SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!

[bae]

Rob - Alan is referring to the highly-preferable-to-me situation in which "marriage" would simply be a collection of contractual rights/responsibilities between consenting parties.

The government would only get involved in the event of a dispute, and anarcho-libertarians even postulate systems in which a government need not be involved in such things either.

Again though, I think it is unreasonable to expect real people in the real world to wait for this paradise, and to hold off on recognizing their situation until we reach that anarcho-syndicalist holy land.

[bae]

Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.

"We both have the right to marry a member of our same race, and we both share the ability not to marry".

"We both have the right to marry a member of our same religion, and we both share the ability not to marry".

[gimmethesimplelife]

Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.

The problem comes into play when the narrow definitions of marriage, as defined by governments, are the basis of recognition and entitlement.

OK I think I am following you here. But what throws me off is that you say we are equal in the regard to marry a member of the opposite sex, but the problem in my case becomes the narrow definition of marriage as defined by goverments.

Is legally recognizing same sex marriage expanding to some degree the narrow definition of marriage as you say? Rob

[Alan]

I'm making an honest faith effort to follow you Alan, I really am. So let's say the government does not intrude as you say into the institution of marriage - what makes your marriage to Lucy legal? Were it not for this intrusion, how would you have the right to inherit Lucy's property upon her death? (or be responsible for her debts.) What would make my marriage to Sven any bit legal at all were it not for government intrusion as you put it? Rob

I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?

[gimmethesimplelife]

Rob - Alan is referring to the highly-preferable-to-me situation in which "marriage" would simply be a collection of contractual rights/responsibilities between consenting parties.

The government would only get involved in the event of a dispute, and anarcho-libertarians even postulate systems in which a government need not be involved in such things either.

Again though, I think it is unreasonable to expect real people in the real world to wait for this paradise, and to hold off on recognizing their situation until we reach that anarcho-syndicalist holy land.

So would this be the libertarian take on marriage, a collection of contractional rights/responsibilities between consenting parties? Isn't this what marriage is in the first place? Basically? Rob

[bae]

I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?

I lived with my wife for 15 years before we got formally married. We had "declared unity" to all of our friends and family. We owned a home together. We had powers of attorney for all sorts of things (thank goodness she is a lawyer).

It was still an unbelievable pain. I was admitted to a hospital once after a car crash, they wouldn't let my sweetie in to see me, or to direct my care. Even though she a) was my attorney! b) had wads of paperwork. They wanted to sort it out after the fact.

In today's system, couples need protection. Protection that even the best-crafted piles of powers-of-attorney, contracts, and domestic partnership arrangements don't afford in real time.

And even today, we get friction still because our last names are different....

[gimmethesimplelife]

I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?

Ummm how about reasons of child support in the event of divorce? How about battles regarding assets upon death? How about in the case of marriage of citizens of different countries, so the two persons can live together in one country? I can think of situations in which a legal framework would make situations less messy. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I lived with my wife for 15 years before we got formally married. We had "declared unity" to all of our friends and family. We owned a home together. We had powers of attorney for all sorts of things (thank goodness she is a lawyer).

It was still an unbelievable pain. I was admitted to a hospital once after a car crash, they wouldn't let my sweetie in to see me, or to direct my care. Even though she a) was my attorney! b) had wads of paperwork. They wanted to sort it out after the fact.

In today's system, couples need protection. Protection that even the best-crafted piles of powers-of-attorney, contracts, and domestic partnership arrangements don't afford in real time.

And even today, we get friction still because our last names are different....

So being legally married solved some of these woes, correct? I think that two committed same sex partners should have the right to minimize these issues, too. Currently the best way to accomplish this seems to be legal marriage, no? (as the case of you and your wife illustrates) Rob

[bae]

So being legally married solved some of these woes, correct?

Correct. We surrendered when we had our child.

I think that two committed same sex partners should have the right to minimize these issues, too. Currently the best way to accomplish this seems to be legal marriage, no? (as the case of you and your wife illustrates) Rob

Indeed so. My father and his partner of 30+ years have not the same option :-(

[Alan]

Is legally recognizing same sex marriage expanding to some degree the narrow definition of marriage as you say? Rob

Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.

I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)