# Stupid Republican idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897 "2009-03-26T18:48:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 653
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13041 "2014-02-24T14:21:46Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > We nearly always have “consenting adults” in the fine print. We don’t necessarily put the fine print at the bottom of every single SDMB post. Maybe we should, so idiots don’t go around assuming we believe dumb stuff. Yes, maybe you should - not here, but in Kentucky. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13042 "2014-02-24T15:49:19Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > She’ll be a grandmother before she finds a phone booth that still takes dimes. > Or a phone booth, for that matter. 😛 I know, but don’t tell Sister that. She thinks Paul VI is still Pope. ---
**Author:** ![eulalia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eulalia/32/457_2.png) [@eulalia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eulalia)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13043 "2014-02-24T15:49:24Z")
> [@j666](#): > > But the argument doesn’t make any sense in the context. The issue of SSM is not the right to have sex, it’s all the related family-based rights, such as inheriting property and making medical decisions - next of kin have those rights, in the absence of a written direction otherwise; unmarried partners do not have those rights unless there is written direction. > > Things can get complicated when an n.c.m. parent has several children with opposing wishes, and, now that you mention it, an all encompassing legal agreement like a marriage, rather than several different documents, might be a good idea. > > Legal marriage is not about sex; it’s about family. My partially disabled adult son is my dependent. There is no way in hell I’d want to be married to him, but financially it would be nice if I could get him covered on my work health insurance, and claim married filing staus, and hope that social security would keep paying him after I die, all of which would be true if he were my husband. ---
**Author:** ![eulalia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eulalia/32/457_2.png) [@eulalia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eulalia)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13044 "2014-02-24T15:58:21Z")
Marrriage is a contract, as far as the government is concerned, and the government should have no say in who the parties involved are. If it’s against some person’s religion to marry some other person, they don’t have to. The issues of who gets to make decisions about medical situations, and who inherits and such should all be part of the contract, and the tax advantages or disadvantages of marriage should not exist at all, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13045 "2014-02-24T16:03:53Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > Marrriage is a contract, as far as the government is concerned, and the government should have no say in who the parties involved are. In Anglo-American common law, marriage is a contract with **three** parties: The bride, the groom, and the state, which is presumed to have a legitimate public-policy interest in the marriage bond. It has always been so. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13046 "2014-02-24T16:10:39Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > My partially disabled adult son is my dependent. There is no way in hell I’d want to be married to him, but financially it would be nice if I could get him covered on my work health insurance, and claim married filing staus, and hope that social security would keep paying him after I die, all of which would be true if he were my husband. But that would be convenient - and nobody ever gets married out of convenience. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![eulalia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eulalia/32/457_2.png) [@eulalia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eulalia)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13047 "2014-02-24T16:12:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In Anglo-American common law, marriage is a contract with **three** parties: The bride, the groom, and the state, which is presumed to have a legitimate public-policy interest in the marriage bond. It has always been so. This thread is probably not the best place for this discussion, but I want to know why this should still be so. The government has an interest in all contracts, as far as civil law is concerned, why should marriage have any special status above that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13048 "2014-02-24T16:19:40Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > This thread is probably not the best place for this discussion, but I want to know why this should still be so. The government has an interest in all contracts, as far as civil law is concerned, why should marriage have any special status above that? Marriage is not an ordinary commercial contract. Bear in mind that under Anglo-American common law, both adultery and fornication once were **crimes,** things government is supposed to discourage and prevent or, failing that, punish; which it cannot do unless it is very, very clear who is and is not married to whom. Marriage also brings with it unique obligations of spousal support and child support. Remember why marriage exists. Not to celebrate two people’s love, but to provide a solid foundation for transmitting family property and raising up children – and to provide a distinction between a man’s lawful children who are entitled to inherit and his bastards who are not. The latter is probably why marriage was invented in the first place; it was a concession to wives and their families, who wanted some assurance that their special claims on the man’s property would be protected. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13049 "2014-02-24T16:24:37Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > The government has an interest in all contracts, as far as civil law is concerned, why should marriage have any special status above that? The government _doesn’t_ have an interest in other contracts unless the parties to the contracts are in litigation. The government has an interest in marriage from the beginning, given the breadth of the laws on domestic relations and the special tax treatment of marriages, to name but two issues. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13050 "2014-02-24T16:34:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Remember why marriage exists. Not to celebrate two people’s love, but to provide a solid foundation for transmitting family property and raising up children – and to provide a distinction between a man’s lawful children who are entitled to inherit and his bastards who are not. The latter is probably why marriage was invented in the first place; it was a concession to wives and their families, who wanted some assurance that their special claims on the man’s property would be protected. Yes, this is why it was invented. But that’s not its sole purpose any more. ---
**Author:** ![eulalia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eulalia/32/457_2.png) [@eulalia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eulalia)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13051 "2014-02-24T16:34:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The government _doesn’t_ have an interest in other contracts unless the parties to the contracts are in litigation. The government has an interest in marriage from the beginning, given the breadth of the laws on domestic relations and the special tax treatment of marriages, to name but two issues. I guess my issue is with what is, versus what should be. With me, saying 'It has always been so." is like waving a red flag in front of a bull and I understand that this is not true for everyone, but I do believe I have asked a valid question. The very idea that some children are “legitimate” while others aren’t, based on this contract, seems outdated to me. I don’t think that marriage should actually have special tax treatment. I don’t see a reason for all of those laws on domestic relations either; that shouldn’t be any business of the government. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13052 "2014-02-24T17:03:45Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > This thread is probably not the best place for this discussion, but I want to know why this should still be so. The government has an interest in all contracts, as far as civil law is concerned, why should marriage have any special status above that? Because we as a society want a set of default rules so that we do not have to rewrite them every time someone wants to get married. Because all of the associated rights and privileges of marriage are an accretion of centuries of legal wrangling and decision-making. If you took them away, they would re-accrue. They might not be identical at that point, but they would exist. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13053 "2014-02-24T17:09:42Z")
Jesus, people, isn’t this thread long enough without side discussions about Roman numerals and marriage law? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13054 "2014-02-24T17:11:27Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes, this is why it was invented. But that’s not its sole purpose any more. It pretty much is, actually. Official recognition of gay – or straight – marriage would be completely unnecessary if the relationship did not involve legal rights and duties and property interests. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13055 "2014-02-24T17:12:34Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Jesus, people, isn’t this thread long enough without side discussions about Roman numerals and marriage law? We’re just trying to keep busy. Some days – not many, but some – the Pubs get lazy with the stupid. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13056 "2014-02-24T17:34:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It pretty much is, actually. Official recognition of gay – or straight – marriage would be completely unnecessary if the relationship did not involve legal rights and duties and property interests. I mean it’s not about children any more. It’s certainly still about property. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13057 "2014-02-24T17:43:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > We’re just trying to keep busy. Some days – not many, but some – the Pubs get lazy with the stupid. They seem to be picking up the slack – the headline of this one pretty much says it all: [Arizona Lawmaker Thinks the Anti-Gay Bill He Voted For Is Making the State Look Bad](http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/arizona-lawmaker-thinks-anti-gay-bill-he-voted-making-state-look-bad/358436/) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13058 "2014-02-24T18:05:08Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > I guess my issue is with what is, versus what should be. With me, saying 'It has always been so." is like waving a red flag in front of a bull and I understand that this is not true for everyone, but I do believe I have asked a valid question. The very idea that some children are “legitimate” while others aren’t, based on this contract, seems outdated to me. I don’t think that marriage should actually have special tax treatment. I don’t see a reason for all of those laws on domestic relations either; that shouldn’t be any business of the government. The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children is essentially nonexistent now. Generally, the only legal significance is that an illegitimate child must prove paternity to inherit from the father’s estate. Other than that, the equal protection clause basically prevents states from distinguishing between the two classes. The tax treatment _hasn’t_ “always been so”. It’s a relatively recent idea - and the tax code really only benefits single-income households. It’s also true that its an idea whose time has probably passed, now that a majority of women are in the labor force. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13059 "2014-02-24T18:09:47Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > They seem to be picking up the slack – the headline of this one pretty much says it all: > > [Arizona Lawmaker Thinks the Anti-Gay Bill He Voted For Is Making the State Look Bad](http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/arizona-lawmaker-thinks-anti-gay-bill-he-voted-making-state-look-bad/358436/) Oh, and check [this](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/kansas-fluoride-bill) out! > [@](#): > > Some Kansas lawmakers are worried about those precious bodily fluids. > The Kansas House’s Health and Human Services Committee has on its agenda Monday a bill that would require cities to warn citizens if fluoride is added to drinking water. The measure, which declares fluoride dangerous, has been criticized by public health officials and the Kansas Dental Association, according to The Associated Press. > > The bill, known as “HB 2372,” mandates that all Kansas cities and other local government entities “providing water service that artificially fluoridate their community drinking water must notify the consumers of that treated water, that the latest science confirms that ingested fluoride lowers the I.Q. in children.” > > The Kansas Dental Association has called the bill “simply a scare tactic designed to put unnecessary fear in the citizens of Kansas.” ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/13060 "2014-02-24T18:13:09Z")
“providing water service that artificially fluoridate their community drinking water must notify the consumers of that treated water, that the latest science confirms that ingested fluoride lowers the I.Q. in children.” Whoever wrote that had a low IQ. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897.md?page=652) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897.md?page=654)