Gay marriage universally legal in US

nicked on 28/6/2015 at 06:50

Quote Posted by Gryzemuis

Icemann, of course this is all about religion. And conservatism.

That is all legal mumbo-jumbo. I'm not an American, I don't even know all that stuff.
Legal arguments are used to try to explain and exploit "the letter of the law".
I don't care much for the letter of the law.
I'm only interested in the spirit of the law.

And the general idea of all laws is: "don't be a dick".

Don't kill others, don't rape others, don't steal from other people, don't enslave, don't hit others, don't con others, don't embezzle from others. Summary: don't be a dick.

Trying to claim marriage (and its benefits) for you, and people like you, and not allow it for others who are slightly different than you are, is a total dick-move. That's not the spirit of the laws.

You seem to be claiming the concept of marriage as property of religious people. (Or spiritual, which is the same thing to me). I've seen that before. I've seen people argue that atheist shouldn't be allowed to vote, shouldn't be allowed to teach, shouldn't be allowed to make laws, shouldn't be allowed in public discussion. Because atheists have no morals. Because they have no god. How can you trust a person who has no god ?

It's no coincidence that in the US, none of the 550-600 or so people in congress and in the administration declare themselves as atheists. They are all religious. Be it protestant, catholic, jewish or mormon. As long as you are religious. There are even muslims in congress. But there isn't a single atheist in office. Because religious organizations are claiming institutions, laws and everything else related to morals as being their property. It disgusts me.

So don't try to make marriage property of spiritual or religious people only.

Marriage is an official act that happens in City Hall.
Whatever else ritual you wanna do, is your business. It has no legal meaning. At all. So yes, some people get married in City Hall and then in Church. Or the other way around. Or only in City Hall. Never in the Church alone. That's how it works in my country, no idea how this is done in all other EU countries. I would guess that in France, it's the same as in NL. The Frech really understand their separation of Church and State. So I doubt they will give any tribal event (like marrying in a Church) any legal meaning. Poland or Ireland might be different.

This is a whole different issue. Trying to tie this to same-sex marriage is pure FUD.
In Russia, the anti-gay laws are justified because of "think of the children". Obviously the Russians don't know the difference between homosexuality and pedosexuality. Yet another example of pure FUD.

Dimarzio, in NL we have gay marriage. Since 2001 (we were the first, I just read). But there are still people trying to resist the law. E.g. in NL all marriages are done at City Hall, by specially trained/authorized civil servants. Some of those civil servants openly refuse to marry gay people. I strongly belief in religious freedom. But you better do your religious stuff at home, in your private life, or in your own clubhouse (aka church). Don't bring your religion to the workplace. (Or even politics, if it was up to me). If you refuse to do your job and marry people, because you don't like them, then you shouldn't be doing that job. Either you marry gays, or you find another job, or you get fired. Simple. However, our religious political parties have somehow been able to give those people the right (by law) to discriminate against gay people. It's an outrage.

Lucky for us, religion gets a smaller impact on Dutch society every year. (Islam hasn't learned to behave yet, but that's another story). Our Christian parties are not in the government at the moment. And they get fewer and fewer seats in our congress every election. (I now know: not less, but fewer. Thanks Stannis !:-)) I think religions grip on societies has faded a lot since the fifties to nineties. I am really suprised (and disgusted) to see religion trying to claw back into power in the US. The US is supposed to have one of the best constitutions (I like freedom of speech, we don't have that in NL). Yet they have these weird problems with "religious" issues.

I read all of this. Got to "fewer. Thanks Stannis". Was not disappointed. 10/10 would read again.

Muzman on 28/6/2015 at 06:58

Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula

No, it's not about religion. People just think it's about religion and bitch-slapping the big, bad, conservative under the bed. In reality it's an issue of government power and taxation.

From the first link:
Once the state requires a marriage license, even to get married in the Eyes of God in a church, it ceases to be a religious right and enters the realm of civil rights that require a license. The religious people who are against Gay Marriage are barking up the wrong tree. Why does the government have the right to charge a tax to get married? This comes from the King's right to sleep with the bride on the night of her wedding called Prima Noctum. There is no account that he ever exercised that right in England, but the ledgers are full of “fees” being paid to relieve the king of that right and this fee, with time, became the marriage contract.

So if you do not pay the fee today, you have NO RIGHT to be married anywhere including a church or in the Eyes of God unless the government is paid. In this context, this is what a right to marry is all about and you should not confuse this with religion to begin with. This is a right for the government to simply charge a licence fee - not religion.

That passage is hilarious. This guy is one step removed from granting legal writing and government power the same sort of magical psychobabble as the Free Men On The Land lot.
Fees come from Prima Noctum?! WTF?!?!
Fees come from the Priests charging fees and then secular authorities taking over those duties gradually over time.

Anyway, I'm not clear what his overall point is. But if people are opposed to this because they have a moral objection to same sex marriage, and they have that moral objection because (they think) god or jesus or whoever doesn't approve and the book says so, then yeah, it's a religious matter. He my fret for his teams tendencies, but conservatives of a religious bent do want government and the church and the law closely intertwined, whether they are cognisant of this or not. American populism seems to have always engaged in this sort of doublethink.

I can't really figure out what the flow on effects of this are supposed to be from that. He likes to blow a lot of dog whistles generally about "Have you any idea that the Government can make Laws and gather Taxes that can do stuff?!" like that's news which tends to make the eyes glaze over. So if anyone wants to give the forecaster's forecast in short that'd be great.

Quote:

It's too easy to react to if I just tell you any more than that. You'd just dismiss it as the ravings of a bigot coming from me but if you start researching the origins of the LGBT movement, it isn't coming from a "bigot" on the internet but instead it's from the horse's mouth.

Start by reading the book "After the Ball", which was written by two Harvard grads who were some of the original creators of the LGBT rights movements.

I studied the movement a long time ago, but I don't think I've ever read this book in its entirety. Still, it's one of the fastest moving, most successful and well structured social change movements in history. That's not in dispute. But you're going to have to tell us how it ends, I suspect. I'm going to guess I could read it twice and slide right by the eye widening implications you have found. So help us out.

Also, if it contains any post-hippie 1970s utopian reconstruction futurism and other flights of fancy, which stuff does from time to time (and the MRAs love bringing up some feminist stuff like that to blacken their name, for instance), please join the dots between any of that stuff and this decision. That'd be great.

Fafhrd on 28/6/2015 at 07:21

Quote Posted by Muzman

Not to mention that (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/09/jus-primae-noctis-fact-fiction/) Prima Noctum was never actually a thing.

242 on 28/6/2015 at 10:09

Quote:

This is a whole different issue. Trying to tie this to same-sex marriage is pure FUD.
In Russia, the anti-gay laws are justified because of "think of the children". Obviously the Russians don't know the difference between homosexuality and pedosexuality. Yet another example of pure FUD.

Moreover, I'm somehow sure most of the anti-LGBTists like to watch lesbo of gay (depending on sex) porn, also they like oral or anal sex, even though it's also "not natural". They ban LGBT meetings, but approve pro war ones. Pure idiocy.

Gryzemuis on 28/6/2015 at 11:45

Quote Posted by nicked

I read all of this. Got to "fewer. Thanks Stannis". Was not disappointed. 10/10 would read again.

Thanks. I know I have to be more brief, when I write. Sorry.

Renzatic on 28/6/2015 at 15:49

Brevity is the soul of...neh.

bjack on 28/6/2015 at 20:38

Marriage is not anything the "state" should have power over. Freedom of association. There are "sticky" situations, such as when a person is dying and someone of legal stature may make a call about life or death. There are other circumstances in a similar vane. I recognize that legal representation of a person by proxy is necessary. That is what legal unions should cover. Otherwise, government should get the fuck out of our lives and let us be free to associate with whomever we wish. I will concede to limits upon this based on age of majority. I am fine with plural marriage if all parties are happy with it. What problem would this bring to bare? Nothing in my world, since government would not give special treatment to marriage. Then again, 1 guy with a heart issue… 2 wives. One wants to let him die. The other wants to spend anything to keep him alive. Isn't being a human in the material world fun? So many choices and really no absolutes. Weeeeeeeee! :ebil:

Marriage is a very personal thing. It is steeped in tradition and religious dogma. Both my wife and I are not practicing Christians. She is basically atheist now an I am agnostic. That does not matter though. I pledged loyalty to her for life. That is what I will do. My word is my bond. To whom do I make this bond? Her and myself. And my God as I understand him/her. If I say I will do something… I will.

Gay men and women have the right to associate with whomever they please. This is a fundamental right of be a human. That the government must sanction this association is frankly demonic to me. Government should not have any say whatsoever. As said before, I get that someone must be bonafide before they can make a call for another. Civil unions address this issue. Otherwise, I see no reason to discriminate against the non-married populous. End the married advantage/penalty.

Have a nice day! I am… :joke:

Gryzemuis on 28/6/2015 at 21:37

Quote Posted by bjack

Marriage is not anything the "state" should have power over.

Marriage has impact on your income.
It has impact on the taxes you pay, tax-reductions and tax-refunds.
It has impact on child-custody.
It has impact on pensions.
It has impact on inheritance.
It has impact on your right to subsidized housing (in my country at least).
It might determine whether you get rent-protection.
And I bet there are dozens more laws and regulations that are beneficial to people who are married.

In the past, religion made sure they would get all these benefits. Because they live their lives like good Christians and good civilians. If you don't want to walk the walk that the majority has laid out for you, you'll face financial consequences.

(Example: to me, having kids is just a hobby. No different from having dogs or cats. Or riding motorcycles. Kids get subsidized (in my country). If you have a dog, on the other hand, you have to pay extra taxes. Why ? Why don't I get subsidy when I want to buy a motorcycle, in stead of having kids as hobby ?)

Religion was able to get these benefits for their (married) members. Now they are opposing that others get the benefits they had for themselves for decades. Bunch of hypocrites.

If you really think marriage is personal, please refuse your tax breaks. Exclude your significant other from your pension-plan. Remove her from your will. Give your kids your wife's last name, and deny fatherhood. At the moment you are getting all these benefits, *only* because you are married.

Quote:

Marriage is a very personal thing.

Except it is not.
It has a direct impact on your rights and duties in society.

Yakoob on 28/6/2015 at 23:15

Gryzemuis beat me to it but marriage has a lot of societal implications beyond personal preferences. There is a most governments stress the family unit and even provide various incentives (like tax exemptions for spouses).

That being said, the genders of people marrying don't (or at least theoretically shouldn't) affect itm.

demagogue on 29/6/2015 at 07:27

Interestingly, most US states already had a "civil union" status for gays that was equivalent to marriage in terms of the state rights and benefits couples got. The claim that led to all of these cases was often that a civil union wasn't equal to marriage, since marriage was culturally connected to an ancient institution, and it was that that couples wanted to be a part of. A civil union in terms of state benefits wasn't enough. So the cultural/religious aspects of marriage are more intertwined with the politics of it than people might expect.