Solution to the Gay Marriage Election Issue

[Nederland]

The simple solution to the gay marriage problem that keeps our principles intact is this:

Remove the word marriage from all federal law.

Make federal law completely blind to the martial status of an individual. I would in fact argue that this solution is even more in line with the principles of the Democratic Party. I hear a large number of people here grumbling about how its not fair to discriminate against gay people by preventing them from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual married people. Well folks, where does that leave single people? Aren't you a bit concerned about the fact that federal law discriminates against single people? Where is the fucking outcry over that? If a single person gets sick, shouldn't they have a have a right to have a list of people they believe can come visit? If a single person wants to provide health care for a friend of theirs, shouldn't they have that option (without paying more than a married person with a spouse would)? If discrimination against gay people bothers us so much, shouldn't discimination against single people--who exist in much greater numbers--bother us even more?

Disclosure: I am married with one child.

[lastknowngood]

1. Yea the repugs are in charge of all federal law and they

will sure help us on this one.

[Terwilliger]

2. I agree that the hypocrisy shouldn't continue

If marriage allows two people to get tax breaks or other special considerations, then denying it to homosexuals is government discrimination.

[truhavoc]

3. I don't think the distinction is equal

I don't think that single people are being discriminated against to the same extent. First off, it's a conscience choice to stay single in most instances. I agree with the hospital visitation thing, but there isn't any sense to extending health care or anything of the like to single people. If two people are living together and one wants the benefits of the other there are two solutions, allow domestic partnership benefits, or have the other person to get a job. I think that those that aren't willing to commit to each other shouldn't be getting the same benefits as those that are willing. This is the whole distinction, those that love each other and want to commit to each other should all have the same benefits as others that love each other and commit to each other. The idea should not be so difficult that you have to completely eliminate the benefits of marriage.

[HFishbine]

6. Question

I understand your point and I don't disagree with you, but you build your argument on a premise I don't quite get. Why should people who love each other get benefits that those who have had the misfortune of a life without love or perhaps love lost by divorce or death don't get? Why should two people in love get special privileges?

Oh yeah, welcome to DU!

[DemBones DemBones]

4. It sounds reasonable to me, and would also cover

heterosexual couples who are living together in a committed relationship but choose not to marry.

I don't think there are many people who care what a person does with his/her own money, who a person puts "on" his/her insurance policy, who visits a person in the hospital. Not many really care what you do in your bedroom, either. Most people basically agree with the statement "I don't care what people do, as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."

There are a lot of people who oppose redefining marriage, and the Democratic Party will be hurt if it supports same-sex marriage. (It would also be hurt if it supported legal polygamy or polygyny -- legal marriage of multiple partners.)

The smartest thing for Democrats to do is to support equal rights and leave the wrangling over civil unions and marriage to the courts. Support equal rights but don't get into the codification of nontraditional relationships.

[tinanator]

5. What issue?

This isnt an issue. Its not an issue. Its a red herring for those idiots who have their issues chosen by the LYING THIEVING MURDERERS in the White House. IGNORE IT.
Iraq is more than enough of an issue for this election. In fact, it is the only issue that needs to be addressed. Anything else is self fornication, an interesting trick, but a trick nonetheless.

[tishaLA]

10. Civil rights is indeed an issue

and gay marriage is about basic civil rights for LGBT people.

[tinanator]

16. play into their hands then

The question isnt about civil rights, it is about framing the debate so you can lose all while others lose their lives.

[Nederland]

11. Gay Marriage isn't an Issue?

I believe you mean to say that you wish it weren't an issue. The simple fact is there are far far too many people in this country that care very much about this subject and they will insure that it becomes an issue in the upcoming election. Most importantly, this is not a Republican only issue--I personally know several gay people that would greatly object to your insistence that they should consider the war more important than gay rights simply because those are your priorities. People will decide what they think is important for themselves, regardless of what you think.

[tinanator]

19. If you think this election year distraction

is going to benefit GLBT's, I would respectfully suggest that you are an optomist. By allowing the power that is in control of both parties to change the subject to suit their needs, you cant get anything done. It may as well be flag burning or abortion. They are playing you like a fiddle.

[arewethereyet]

7. a little late in the game for that

but nice try

[AP]

8. Two people should be able to pair up just like lawyers in a law firm, or

any other business. It helps you be more efficient, competitive individuals in a society in which everyone is out to get your money.

The key isn't to get rid of "marriage." It's to get religion out of the business of influencing whom governments allow to pair up.

You should be able to have a designated person in your life with whom you have rights and burdens. It's just that the government shouldn't make it so hard for you to designate that person.

[HFishbine]

12. But (a hypothetical)

I'm excpetionally incompetent. To have the same advantages, I really think I'd need to team up with about four other people. Would that be okay?

[Nederland]

14. Why not?

I've heard of a sect in Utah that might accommodate you. Then again, their other beliefs probably don't jive with yours.

Perhaps Wiccans would work for you though... :)

[AP]

18. Good point. Utah might pass a law that you can have a CU with more than

one person at one time. It's their perogrative. States rights and all.

[AP]

17. That's what a family is.

Honestly, I don't see why we give corporations an easier time than individuals.

However, many states limit partnership sizes for tax purposes, so there is a logic to limitiing civil unions to two people.

Also, if they're formed around the logic that you need to address the legal relationship between two people who tend to raise children/reproduce themselves, through adoption or procreation, or whatever, there is legal logic to the idea that to make things simple only two people can share the partnership status at one time.

You're free to break off the legal relationship and reform it with any ONE other person you chose. However, how are you going to control the conduct of your life when you're sharing these basic rights and responsibilities, duties and obligations with more than one other adult?

Let's limit it to a union of two people at any one time.

[HFishbine]

24. Ha!

I can't control the conduct of my life just sharing it with one person.

Just trying to see where our justifications butt up against the Sentorum-like fear mongering and how we counter. I'd say we have some more thought to give to this one.

[AP]

25. It's not like 2 is an arbitrary number.

A lot of family law is simply dealing with the fact that two people have to come up with a way to make decisions on things when there's a one-to-one vote.

If you need to work with more people, start a partnership and carry out your business.

[tishaLA]

13. Well, lots of religions are quite fine with gay marriage

Lots of churches and synagogues I know perform the ceremonies, which they would happily call "marriages" if they were recognized by law (as it stands, they tend to call them committment ceremonies). The problem is with the gov't, not with the religions. Besides, if people of X faith or church/synagogue/mosue don't like that their place of worship does or does not perform the ceremony, they can change their place of worship. It is rather harder to change one's government.

[AP]

20. It's harder to change ones government? Chaning gov't is what democracy

is all about.

[tishaLA]

23. Right.

But since many churches/synagogues have already accepted gay marriage and the gov't has not, it appears (especially with enablers in the Democratic Party) that God is less intractable than our federal government.

[Carl Spackler]

9. Libertarians would be happy with that!

And though they usually skew conservative they are mighty displeased with bushco. My ear is filled with daily with the cognitive dissonance of a very confused and upset libertarian co-worker who actually hung out here for a while until he got banned. He's ABB but to date has not been able to support any main candidate - he's now planning on voting for kucinich as a protest. What days we live in - libertarians supporting the most progressive candidate of the bunch!

[Darranar]

15. Excellent idea.

[TexasMexican]

21. Republicans will say...

Democrats are trying to abolish marriage and then they will keep whacking us over the head with it.

[Carl Spackler]

22. They will say that no matter what.

[many a good man]

26. Rationalist perspective

Government has the right to encourage behavior that benefits society as a whole. It can be reasonably shown that a stable home with two parents is beneficial not only to the child, but to society as a whole. Therefore marriage should be promoted by granting additional legal rights to the married couple.

Rationalism seeks to find the common good without relying on religious edicts. Ethical behavior, similar to "morality" in religion, can also be promoted by the state. The Constitution is celebrated as a rationalist document that frees society from the irrational constraints imposed by religion and tradition.

By these standards, I don't think it can be proven that sexuality is harmful to society. Likewise, it can be argued that marriage between homosexuals would contribute to the stability of society. I believe this is quite properly a civil rights matter for the Court to decide and not for the masses, through their representatives in the Legislatures.

There is no practical difference legally between the terms "civl union" and "marriage." Yet the court decided by syntactically dividing the two you are effectually discriminating against one.

Note: I saw a Roman Catholic priest on TV once say that contrary to conventional wisdom, "marriage" is actually the civil act, and churches are merely giving their blessing to this civil act. After all, one usually must get a marriage license from a civil authority before the church ceremony. Priests (et.al.) are merely acting as agents of the state when they perform the marriage in the context of a religious ceremony. It is only for "political" reasons that we find it convenient to choose a different term. For political reasons, it is unfortunate that the Massachusetts court happened to make this decision in an election year.

[Carl Spackler]

28. Here's the response argument you can anticipate

"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."

From National Review Online: http://24.104.35.12/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

I don't think what you call the "rationalist approach" is correct. People either have rights or they don't. Saying that you will base the decision to recognize marriage rights of an individual based on the anticipated effect of granting them is fraught with peril.

I would go with the concept that "these rights are self-evident" - whatever you would call that.

[many a good man]

29. Rights and Rationalism and Religion

Rationalism merely justifies scientifically the granting of privileges (i.e., marriage) that many hold to be based on religious reasons. My point is that these special privileges are justifiable on non-religious grounds.

After all, if there were no special right granted to heterosexual marriage, then homosexuals would not be denied any rights. You can't be denied a right that doesn't exist (except natural rights).

I would also bet that the argument put forward the National Review article would not withstand scientific scrutiny (smacks of correlation rather than causation).

[tobius]

27. Separate but equal...

Many issues can already be worked out civilly- wills, etc. The main issue is equality, and without "marriage" your proposing an inferior status.