[mike777]

kenberg, on Oct 15 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

TimG, on Oct 15 2008, 07:29 AM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

If a guy wants parental rights he marries the girl. No marriage, no parental rights.

What if the girl doesn't want to marry the guy?

Then she doesn't, of course. Lacking some serious evidence of unfit motherhood, my view is that her rights still trump the guy's rights. He may well feel abused by this, but that's what happens when you father a child and you are not married to the mother.

This clearly discriminates on the basis of sex.

It still leaves the issue of 2 men having a child out of wedlock, example using a surrogate womb, or two women having a child out of wedlock and one will not marry the other.

Gay couples who are not wed may have children out of wedlock. I do not think it would be fair to have one set of rules for gay couples and one for nongay couples.

[mike777]

"and allow such unions to be issued to any 2 consenting adults."


I do not know any country that allows "any" 2 consenting adults to marry. I assume even the most open countries, even in Europe, still have restrictions.

I also assume in some cases children under the age of 18 can marry one another or an older adult.

In any situation there still has not been the case of why the state must be in the business of sanctioning what a legal or illegal marriage is.

[barmar]

Many have asked "why is the government in the business of regulating marriage?".

The preamble to the US Constitution states that one of the purposes of our government is "to promote the general welfare". This essentially opens the door to legislating many aspects of personal life. For example, it's commonly agreed that a stable family is generally the best environment for raising children. So society benefits by encouraging proper family structure.

And this can be taken further: if more people are moral, the general welfare is improved, so we should legislate morality. This is why we have laws against polygamy, bestiality, indecency, drug use, gambling, etc. Like it or not, there are many people who still believe that homosexuality is immoral, and that it should not be condoned by laws that extend privileges to gay couples.

If you believe totally in "live and let live" you're a libertarian. I like that attitude, too, but I don't pretend to believe that this is the basis of our government. The US is definitely NOT a libertarian country.

And marriage is not simply a personal or religious matter. We have many laws that afford special privileges to married couples. For example, they can file joint tax returns, with different tax rates, so it affects public revenues. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other in court. Probate law affords special distinction to spouses. Marriage has been a public social contract for much longer than it has been a religious union, I think.

[mike777]

I knew this was all about giving tax cuts to married people with money!

I certainly hope one can have a stable family and not be legally married or have an unstable family and be legally married. Again many kids if not yet most are born out of wedlock. Many kids if not yet most are raised by single parents.

I will let others discuss what the legal "proper family structure" should be.

[barmar]

mike777, on Oct 15 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

I certainly hope one can have a stable family and not be legally married or have an unstable family and be legally married. Again many kids if not yet most are born out of wedlock. Many kids if not yet most are raised by single parents.

But the presumption is that they would usually be better off being raised by two, loving parents in a stable relationship.

Yes, you can have a stable family when you're not married, but again the presumption is that this is more likely if you've made a powerful declaration of commitment by getting married.

These are all generalizations, but most laws are based on generalizations. For instance, we have drinking and voting ages based on generalizations of when most people are mature enough to participate in these activities, because it's too hard to judge every case individually. We recognize that this may disenfranchise some people, as well as give privileges to some who don't deserve it, but we live with these faults because the alternative would be impractical.

Thousands of years ago, when we lived in tribes of a few hundred people, the chief knew everyone and could make individual judgements about what was appropriate. We didn't need systems of laws then. But when you have societies of millions of people, you need common standards or you end up with anarchy.

Libertarianism is a nice ideal, but it doesn't really work. Society is much too interconnected. You say that you should have a right to decide whether to wear seatbelts, it's your own life. But if you also have insurance, your decision affects actuarial statistics, which affects everyone's premiums.

Let's suppose children raised by single parents are more likely to become delinquent (someone can probably find a study that says this). Juvenile delinquents often commit crimes, which affects everyone else. Thus, society has a stake in reducing single parenthood.

There are probably very few important life decisions that don't have implications on others.

[mike777]

"Yes, you can have a stable family when you're not married, but again the presumption is that this is more likely if you've made a powerful declaration of commitment by getting married."



This is a huge assumption but let us assume it is true. Why not have the private sector do this, why the government? I have no problem with having marriage, just get the government out of it.




"In 2002, the United Stated Census determined that three out of every ten children being raised in America are living in single parent homes. Unfortunately, the number of single parent homes is growing. In addition to divorce, you have to remember that many people are choosing to have children without a partner. Therefore, with our society being much more accepting of the non-traditional home, the numbers are staggering."


http://single-parenting.families.com/blog/...rents-are-there

The State of Our Unions, a 2003 report by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, reported Census Bureau projections that families with children will make up only 28 percent of U.S. households by 2010, the lowest number in at least a century.

The Census Bureau doesn't ask whether couples are childless by choice, but the bureau projects that the percentage of families with children under 18 will decline from 47.7 percent in 1995 to 41.3 percent by 2010.

http://www.freerepub...s/1312995/posts

[barmar]

mike777, on Oct 15 2008, 05:16 PM, said:

"Yes, you can have a stable family when you're not married, but again the presumption is that this is more likely if you've made a powerful declaration of commitment by getting married."



This is a huge assumption but let us assume it is true. Why not have the private sector do this, why the government? I have no problem with having marriage, just get the government out of it.

As mentioned, the government's job is to "promote the general welfare". We have public schools to ensure that children are educated, surely it's no less important to society to ensure that they're raised well.

Other than religious organizations, what part of the private sector do you expect to step up and do this, anyway?

Who is more likely to be on welfare, single parents or couples? If they're getting public money, doesn't the public have a stake in this?

[mike777]

If you are for a powerful declared commitment then see a lawyer.
It creates private economy jobs and tax revenue. If you want a marriage license go down to the corner drug store and buy one.

Also if the goal is to have marriage provide a powerful stable commitment to raise kids, fair enough, and you must have government in it ok..........but let us not make a govt marriage license easier to get than a medical license.



Right now all you have is a system that people easily opt out of or doing a very poor job in.

I guess I just do not buy that the only way for the government to promote the general welfare is that the government must be in the business of selling marriage licenses or making up the rules of what is legal or not legal. In any event it sounds like this is just discrimination....certain couples get tax breaks other people with kids do not!

[JoAnneM]

I live in a smallish city (65,000) in California and Measure 8 has become much more than just about gay marriage. Of course the vote itself is about gay marriage, but the ads, the letters to the editors, the columns are all about "anti-gay". I think these people are hypocrites when they say they have no problems with gays, just gay marriages - that is not what I am really hearing.

[barmar]

The point is that marriage is not just a private contract. It is actually a contract between the couple and society. The couple promises to stay together, and in return they get recognition of the union, and benefits that accord from it.

It's like forming a corporation, but in this case you're encouraged to sleep with the boss.

[NickRW]

pclayton, on Oct 12 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

In California, the topic of gay marriage has reached the ballot again....

What say you?

Well, for what is worth (as I am not even an American, let alone a Californian), I think:

1) If a specific church or religion does not want to "marry" a gay couple, then that is their right.

2) If the state does not want to call a gay relationship a "marriage", then they are fudging words probably for political expediency, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it if you define marriage as a something uniquely heterosexual.

3) However, if the state allows certain benefits to heterosexual married couples, such as a tax break or pension rights or whatever, then for the state to deny this to gay couples who wish to become, as they would call it, "married", then I think the state is adopting a prejudiced and arguably irrational position.

Whether you call such a state recognised relationship a "marriage" is up to you - and not really that material.

[JoAnneM]

This is the battle going on in California right now - when the judges said that gay marriages were legal counties went to great expense to change the marriage license forms from "bride" and "groom" to "party A" and "party B" The heterosexual couples raised such a stink about tha,t that with only three weeks until the election the governor has instructed the counties to change the forms back - at great expense.

So now, while the gay marriages are legal, one of the pair has to be the bride and the other has to be the groom. What happens if Measure 8 fails (hopefully), will we have another election about what to put on the marriage licenses?

Living in California is beautiful, but sometimes I think people have too much time on their hands.....

[matmat]

JoAnneM, on Oct 15 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

So now, while the gay marriages are legal, one of the pair has to be the bride and the other has to be the groom.  What happens if Measure 8 fails (hopefully), will we have another election about what to put on the marriage licenses?

geeeze
the solution to this is so difficult!

leave two blanks in the form for the couple to fill in themselves, with restricted choices of what can go there...

alternatively, you could have two very similar forms...

[blackshoe]

Quote

The US is definitely NOT a libertarian country.

No. But imo we'd all be a lot better off if it were.

[helene_t]

barmar, on Oct 15 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 15 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

I certainly hope one can have a stable family and not be legally married or have an unstable family and be legally married. Again many kids if not yet most are born out of wedlock. Many kids if not yet most are raised by single parents.

But the presumption is that they would usually be better off being raised by two, loving parents in a stable relationship.
[......]These are all generalizations, but most laws are based on generalizations. For instance, we have drinking and voting ages based on generalizations of when most people are mature enough to participate in these activities, because it's too hard to judge every case individually.

I certainly hope I am misunderstanding you since if you mean to say that discriminating against single parents is defensible because the statistics have something bad to say about them (which I doubt is true anyway but that's besides my point) then I think it's disgusting.

It's like discriminating on the basis of skin color because the statistics have something bad to say about certain skin colors. It would be a rare coincidence if child neglect was 100% independent of skin color but that isn't an argument for anything.

Age limits for alcohol drinking is very different. First, age is one of the few things the government can use as a basis for legal discrimination without necessarily being a bigot. Second, IMHO it is quite acceptable for the government to restrict access to alcohol. Even if the restrictions may be unfair in some cases it is not a huge attack on liberty.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

Age limits for alcohol drinking is very different. First, age is one of the few things the government can use as a basis for legal discrimination without necessarily being a bigot. Second, IMHO it is quite acceptable for the government to restrict access to alcohol. Even if the restrictions may be unfair in some cases it is not a huge attack on liberty.

When I was a kid growing up, the drinking age in New York State was 18. Surrounding states didn't like that - their law said 21, so their 18 year olds would drive over the border, get drunk, drive back over the board, and get in accidents. Now we have a uniform 21 across all the states. How did this happen? The same way in which the national 55 mph speed limit was imposed. The federal government passed a law that says "any state that doesn't do what we want will get less money from us than we would otherwise have given". This is blackmail. It was wrong for the speed limit, and it's wrong for the drinking age. It violates, in spirit at least, the Tenth Amendment.

Legal adulthood is a matter of judgement. We set an arbitrary age at which we expect most people will have acquired the judgement necessary to be treated as adults. In the US that age is 18 - except for drinking. We have arbitrarily decided that in that one aspect of life a person cannot have acquired the judgement expected of an adult. Maybe this is right and proper, but something doesn't feel right about it. I just can't put my finger on it.

"Not a huge attack on liberty" is a very dangerous view, IMO. Does it matter whether liberty is lost through one huge attack, or a thousand small ones? No. What matters is that liberty is lost.

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Oct 16 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

Legal adulthood is a matter of judgement. We set an arbitrary age at which we expect most people will have acquired the judgement necessary to be treated as adults. In the US that age is 18 - except for drinking. We have arbitrarily decided that in that one aspect of life a person cannot have acquired the judgement expected of an adult. Maybe this is right and proper, but something doesn't feel right about it. I just can't put my finger on it.

I don't understand how the government can ask someone to go kill and get killed in some far away land for them at 18, but not let them drink until 21.

I am sure there is a physical reason why people under a certain age shouldn't drink, I don't think I can cite any papers on this or anything, but common sense (see here) indicates that intoxicating substances have a negative effect on a brain, especially a developing one

[barmar]

helene_t, on Oct 16 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

barmar, on Oct 15 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 15 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

I certainly hope one can have a stable family and not be legally married or have an unstable family and be legally married. Again many kids if not yet most are born out of wedlock. Many kids if not yet most are raised by single parents.

But the presumption is that they would usually be better off being raised by two, loving parents in a stable relationship.
[......]These are all generalizations, but most laws are based on generalizations. For instance, we have drinking and voting ages based on generalizations of when most people are mature enough to participate in these activities, because it's too hard to judge every case individually.

I certainly hope I am misunderstanding you since if you mean to say that discriminating against single parents is defensible because the statistics have something bad to say about them (which I doubt is true anyway but that's besides my point) then I think it's disgusting.

No, I'm not condoning discrimination. I'm condoning efforts to encourage behavior that's better for society.

For example, efforts to reduce the unemployment rate doesn't equate to discrimination against unemployed people, does it?

[Lobowolf]

Proposition 8 now apparently leading in the California:

http://cbs5.com/loca...l.2.834082.html


If Proposition 8 passes in a close vote, gay marriage in California may be a curious byproduct of Hillary Clinton's loss in the primary. Gay marriage generally does poorly with the African American demographic, and a higher black vote is expected Obama on the ticket.

[pclayton]

Lobowolf, on Oct 22 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

Proposition 8 now apparently leading in the California:

Help me out here. Prop 8 is going to amend the State Constitution. Shouldn't this require a 'super majority' (usually 2/3) in order to pass?