Is "Get Government Out Of Marriage" homophobic?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Miller

Really? It used to come up on the boards all the time from strong gay rights advocates, as a way around what appeared, at the time, to be intractable opposition to SSM from mainstream America. The actual homophobes at the time didn’t back the idea at all, because they didn’t need to: it was a compromise position on an issue they appeared to be winning handily.

This was all of maybe five years ago. Crazy how quickly things have reversed themselves. Anyway, it was a stupid idea regardless of why the person was promoting it, so I’m just as happy to see it getting tarred by association with the genuine bigots.

As I’ve said many times, I’m thrilled that SSM is gaining ground so quickly. Tomorrow morning I face a challenge in my classroom. I generally begin the day by talking with my third graders about the news, and so far I’ve managed to translate news about ISIS, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and ebola into specific terms that were appropriate for third graders.

But now the news is that North Carolina may have legal SSM within a few days, and that’s a different challenge from before. Not only do I need to explain the judicial implications to a roomful of kids that don’t know what the judicial branch is, but I need to figure out how to do it objectively, without shouting, “IN YOUR FACE, BIGOTS!” but also without downplaying the important constitutional issues of equality upon which the ruling is based.

And if I had my druthers, all government “marriage” would be replaced by the word “civil union.” Not because I want to deny marriage to gay folks, but because I think doing so (in my perfect world) would extend the legal aspects of marriage in a salubrious fashion (say, to elderly cohabiting siblings) while retracting some of the less salubrious aspects (including implied societal approval of my uncle’s sixth marriage, which nobody should approve of).

I know lots of folks think my beliefs are stupid; we’ve been back and forth for yonks on the issue. I still think that a novel transition to government issuance only of civil unions, allowing people to use the word “marriage” however damn way they want without being considered more or less official in their use, would be very slightly superior to our current system.

But hip fuckin hooray for the movement forward of SSM. Some dear friends might be able to get married in my state in less than two weeks, and I genuinely thought that day might not come.

I think the issue only comes up in connection with SSM because that’s the only time we really think about whether the institution of marriage should be modified. I know for me I didn’t start thinking about the issue until I started thinking about SSM, and my first thought was, “Well, of course,” and then my second thought was, “Waitaminute, why do we even have to have government-issued marriage in the first place, why not make everything a civil union?”

[John_Mace]

@Miller

Really? It used to come up on the boards all the time from strong gay rights advocates, as a way around what appeared, at the time, to be intractable opposition to SSM from mainstream America. The actual homophobes at the time didn’t back the idea at all, because they didn’t need to: it was a compromise position on an issue they appeared to be winning handily.

This was all of maybe five years ago. Crazy how quickly things have reversed themselves. Anyway, it was a stupid idea regardless of why the person was promoting it, so I’m just as happy to see it getting tarred by association with the genuine bigots.

Here’s one.

Seems like we had a pro-SSM thread on “get government out of marriage” every few months for awhile. Someone would start a thread announcing that he had THE ANSWER to the SSM issue (as if no one had ever thought of it before).

And as we always noted, there’s no better way to prove that SSM is affecting straight people’s marriages than by getting of rid of marriage altogether in order to allow SSM.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@YogSosoth

You hit the nail on the head. These are bitter, angry people who are mad that their choice of discrimination didn’t get validated by smarter people than them, so they try around and try to argue a non-sequitur that’s so obviously targeted against a specific bigotry. They’ll use that argument whenever they lose though, occasionally you’ll see it pop up with religion

Wow. I am not a bitter angry person nor am I homophobic and I have used this argument many times and I believe it. Neither am I a hardcore libertarian; in fact I think many libertarian ideas are retarded and am on record on this board saying so.

I am, however, a strong civil libertarian in that I do not think government or society should have any say in what someone wants to do with their lives as long as it does not hurt another person. This goes for marriage, watching or creating porn, smoking pot, selling sexual services, worshiping satan, being a nudist, burning a flag, terminating a pregnancy, or even ending their own life with dignity. Why should I, or the government which represents me, have a say in any of these activities? If someone wants to marry their dog or ten of their neighbors, why should I (or the government) care as long as it is consenting, non-exploitative, and is not going to result in harm (or government support/increased taxes)? For those who want to flame me, note that I am against exploitation, whether it be with prostitution, porn, polygamy, ect… But if mature, sane adults want to join in whatever kind of union, it is not for me to gainsay it.l

Marriage should be between the the people getting married and their pastor, if they have one. For my wife and I, marriage was a contract between each other and witnessed by ~100 friends and family using vows that we wrote and officiated by her sister. We sent in a application for a license several months later. I think it is ridiculous that government should have a say on who you marry. Almost as riduculous a church having a say. If you want to marry your sister, you should be able to (marrying a parent would most likely be exploitative - so don’t flame me on that).

So, my take is that government should stay out of marriage and the word, benefits, and penalties, should be erased from all legal documents. The government should treat all citizens equally, no matter what their personal relationships are.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Bryan_Ekers

Either way, it’s a stupid argument, so does it matter?

Why is it stupid?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Miller

Really? It used to come up on the boards all the time from strong gay rights advocates, as a way around what appeared, at the time, to be intractable opposition to SSM from mainstream America. The actual homophobes at the time didn’t back the idea at all, because they didn’t need to: it was a compromise position on an issue they appeared to be winning handily.

This was all of maybe five years ago. Crazy how quickly things have reversed themselves. Anyway, it was a stupid idea regardless of why the person was promoting it, so I’m just as happy to see it getting tarred by association with the genuine bigots.

Why is it stupid? Really? Why the fuck should the government have any say over the personal relationships I have? You really think that being against the government regulating marriage is a stupid idea?

[Grumman]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

If someone wants to marry their dog or ten of their neighbors, why should I (or the government) care as long as it is consenting, non-exploitative, and is not going to result in harm (or government support/increased taxes)? For those who want to flame me, note that I am against exploitation, whether it be with prostitution, porn, polygamy, ect… But if mature, sane adults want to join in whatever kind of union, it is not for me to gainsay it.

Your argument is nonsensical. It is inherently impossible for someone to marry their dog with the consent of both members because their dog is a dog, and is incapable of the level of understanding necessary to give consent. As for marrying ten of your neighbours, to what end? There is no law against polyamourous relationships. If you don’t want the legal benefits of the legal arrangement we call “marriage”, you’ve already got what you want.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Grumman

It’s not an inherently homophobic argument, but it is inherently stupid. It’s not even a Libertarian argument - if you’ve got an extremely common form of contract between two people, writing it up from scratch every time is far more work and far more prone to error or fraud than just letting them pick Standard Contract A and fill in the names.

Why should the government have a say on the contract I make with my neighbor on the back of napkin? Why should the government try to standardize the marriage contract? Really?

I don’t know what your marriage is like, but I know that I don’t want to be held to the same standards you have regardless of what those standards are. I will manage my own personal relationships, thank you very much!

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Grumman

Your argument is nonsensical. It is inherently impossible for someone to marry their dog with the consent of both members because their dog is a dog, and is incapable of the level of understanding necessary to give consent. As for marrying ten of your neighbours, to what end? There is no law against polyamourous relationships. If you don’t want the legal benefits of the legal arrangement we call “marriage”, you’ve already got what you want.

Bullshit. If I want to say I am married to my dog and want to will all my money to it, why do you care what I say? Note, that I am not arguing that the dog should be granted any legal rights, I am just saying that the government should not be able to tell me I can’t do something UNLESS I am harming another individual. A dog is not an individual, it is property. Livestock. At least from a legal perspective. How does me saying I am married to my dog effect you and why should you (or the government) have a say in this?

Regarding polyamoury (is this how you spell it?), if I enter into a contract with 10 of my neighbors where they all have equal rights (or democratic rights) for medical decisions and are entitled to equal shares of my estate, why the hell should the government be able to nullify this contract? It is none of your, or the governments, business in my humble opinion what I do with my personal relationships.

[wonky]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Bullshit. If I want to say I am married to my dog and want to will all my money to it, why do you care what I say? Note, that I am not arguing that the dog should be granted any legal rights…

The right to own property is a legal right.

[Grumman]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Why should the government have a say on the contract I make with my neighbor on the back of napkin? Why should the government try to standardize the marriage contract?

Because you cannot meaningfully consent to a contract you do not understand, and it’s a lot easier to get people up to speed on a standardised contract that has been designed by an impartial third party to be fair than it is for each individual to run over a unique contract with a fine-toothed comb to make sure the small print isn’t going to screw them over.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@jsgoddess

The right to own property is a legal right.

There have already been cases where people have set up trusts to care for their pet after they died in whatever manner they have been accustomed to. They are periodically mocked by the mainstream media, deservedly I say, because it is ridiculous. But if I set up a trust for my dog or cat to be taken care with the totality of my estate, it is none of your or the governments business. When the dog dies, and my wishes have been fulfilled (it has nothing to do with the stupid pet), then people an lawyers can fight over my estate to their hearts content. A dog cannot own or bequeath property.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Grumman

Because you cannot meaningfully consent to a contract you do not understand, and it’s a lot easier to get people up to speed on a standardised contract that has been designed by an impartial third party to be fair than it is for each individual to run over a unique contract with a fine-toothed comb to make sure the small print isn’t going to screw them over.

Look, I already said I think their should be laws that cover exploitation, and what is more exploitative than being legally bound by a contract you cannot understand. That said, I really don’t believe the government, or you for that matter, should be able to regulate what contracts I, a mature, educated, intelligent, sane, person decide to enter into. Now you may believe that the government should be able to regulate what kind of personal or business relationships you enter into and also who you enter into these relationships with, but this idea is anathema to me.

Is this really what you believe? I have read your opinions over many years and it is hard for me to believe you think the government should be able to regulate the type of agreements you decide to make an who you make them with, It really surprises me…

[wonky]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

There have already been cases where people have set up trusts to care for their pet after they died in whatever manner they have been accustomed to. They are periodically mocked by the mainstream media, deservedly I say, because it is ridiculous. But if I set up a trust for my dog or cat to be taken care with the totality of my estate, it is none of your or the governments business. When the dog dies, and my wishes have been fulfilled (it has nothing to do with the stupid pet), then people an lawyers can fight over my estate to their hearts content. A dog cannot own or bequeath property.

I have no idea what your point is. You say you think you should be able to will all your assets to your dog but without creating rights for the dog. Now you say that you already can do this. So, what is your issue?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

I am responding to the OP. I believe that government should not be able to regulate marriage. It should have no say on the relationships I enter into. My personal relationships are my own, and if they are not harming anybody it is none of the governments business.

[wonky]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

That said, I really don’t believe the government, or you for that matter, should be able to regulate what contracts I, a mature, educated, intelligent, sane, person decide to enter into. Now you may believe that the government should be able to regulate what kind of personal or business relationships you enter into and also who you enter into these relationships with, but this idea is anathema to me.

Is this really what you believe? I have read your opinions over many years and it is hard for me to believe you think the government should be able to regulate the type of agreements you decide to make an who you make them with, It really surprises me…

The government regulates what kinds of contracts it will enforce, not what kind of agreements you can enter into.

You can enter into an unenforceable contract and you will have the agreement and can abide by it.

If one side decides not to abide by it, you can’t get the government to enforce it. Because the government does not enforce unenforceable contracts. It’s why they’re unenforceable.

So, if you agree with Ted that you will pay him to kill Bob and he decides not to kill Bob, you can’t go to the government to get them to force Ted to kill Bob. Or if you decide to sell yourself into slavery to Ted, Ted cannot go to the government to make you become a slave.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

Isn’t that what this thread is about? I believe that government should be taken out of marriage, and I am not homophobic.

[wonky]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

I am responding to the OP. I believe that government should not be able to regulate marriage. It should have no say on the relationships I enter into. My personal relationships are my own, and if they are not harming anybody it is none of the governments business.

And to demonstrate how oppressed you are, you use an example of something you can already do?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

I am responding to the OP. I believe that government should not be able to regulate marriage. It should have no say on the relationships I enter into. My personal relationships are my own, and if they are not harming anybody it is none of the governments business.

You can declare yourself married to your beagle, for all the government cares. You just won’t get any of the privileges and benefits (and responsibilities) of legal marriage.

Also, the beagle can be compelled to testify against you in court, so be careful.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

Murder and slavery are illegal. I can’t use the judicial branch of government to help me enforce a contract where Joe promises to supply me with blow either. What is your point?

Entering into a contract where I agree to take care of 3 other people and their children, provide for them, and will my property to them in the case that they die should be enforceable. Why is it not? Is this not what a will is?

Where does it become unenforceable? Are you saying that if I entered into a business contract with a group of people to provide some services and monetary support to them until I die and also agree to give them a certain amount of my estate upon my death, it would not be enforceable?

[wonky]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Murder and slavery are illegal. I can’t use the judicial branch of government to help me enforce a contract where Joe promises to supply me with blow either. What is your point?

My point is that you don’t seem to have a solid grasp on exactly what your complaint is. You’re all over the place with marrying your dog, leaving wills, etc. All of which you can do. You can do any of the things you want to do, going by your own examples, but you appear to be furious about it.