[cherdano]

blackshoe, on Nov 6 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 6 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Disagree completely

If a "marriage" is a religious ceremony / sacrament then the government has no interest in the event.

However, once marriage enters into the realm of contract then the governmnet has a very strong interest.  The government is responsible for the legal infrastructure that enforces said contract.  Therefore, the government has a strong interested in understand

who entered into a contract
when they entered into a contract
what was promised by said contract
yada, yada, yada

Of course you do.

The government has no interest in the details of contracts unless and until there is a dispute between the people involved - and then its interest is limited to ensuring a fair resolution of the dispute.

Or would you suggest the government should keep a database of the details you mentioned of all contracts? If so, why?

The government does keep a database of many important contracts. They keep records of who is a car dealer, who owns which houses, of registered corporations, what-the-heck they even keep track of who owns which car... I guess in short they keep track of all contracts that directly affect your taxes.

I would wager that a marriage is a more important contract than buying a car. I guess you are libertarian and against all the databases I mentioned above, but then you should say so and not single out marriages.

[mike777]

I think we have discussed this before. It does seem the only reason/main for the government to be involved at all in marriage is too give out tax breaks to some people and not to others.

I guess if taxpayers give checks to banks, insurance companies, car companies, and rich corp. farmers, why not send checks to the people too.

[Lobowolf]

I think you have a means confused with an end. The reason government involves itself in marriage at all is that the institution is perceived to be beneficial to societal, by promoting stability.

[mike777]

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

I think you have a means confused with an end.  The reason government involves itself in marriage at all is that the institution is perceived to be beneficial to societal, by promoting stability.

Ahh marriage promotes stability, now I understand. I guess nonmarriage contracts or being single is less stable....

IF we made marriage and divorce much much harder I could buy this.....but we do not.....

Again I am all for getting govt. out of the marrying business, let the religious inst or private contractors do it.

If government wants to fund basic research in marriage such as they do energy, education and other areas I can understand that.

[Lobowolf]

mike777, on Nov 6 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

I think you have a means confused with an end.  The reason government involves itself in marriage at all is that the institution is perceived to be beneficial to societal, by promoting stability.

Ahh marriage promotes stability, now I understand. I guess nonmarriage contracts or being single is less stable....

IF we made marriage and divorce much much harder I could buy this.....but we do not.....

Again I am all for getting govt. out of the marrying business, let the religious inst or private contractors do it.

If government wants to fund basic research in marriage such as they do energy, education and other areas I can understand that.

Married relationships are more stable than non-married relationships, generally. Yes, around half of them end in divorce, but how many non-married relationships end in break-ups? 99%+? It's not a perfect proxy for stability, but it's an indicator, and stability probably has beneficial side-effects for society in general. Which is one reason (though nowhere near as important a reason as constitutional Equal Protection) that the government should provide for the opportunity for gay couples who choose to to similarly formalize their relationships.

[matmat]

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

I think you have a means confused with an end. The reason government involves itself in marriage at all is that the institution is perceived to be beneficial to societal, by promoting stability.

hehe... especially the marriages with lots of fighting, drinking and child abuse... those marriages?

[mike777]

AGain if we made marriage and divorce much harder I could buy this but if we are going to give married couples billions and billions in tax breaks and then pay billions and billions more to take care of the poorer spouse and children after the marriage fails I just think we should get government out of this business.

Again I have nothing against churches or private contractors doing marriages.
I have nothing against people who view marriage as a Holy Sacrament and not a way to get a tax break/giveaway.

But as I said if Banks, Insurance, farmers, car companies get money from those super rich top 5% of taxpayers...why not married people. IT's all in the name of STABILITY!

[Lobowolf]

matmat, on Nov 6 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

I think you have a means confused with an end.  The reason government involves itself in marriage at all is that the institution is perceived to be beneficial to societal, by promoting stability.

hehe... especially the marriages with lots of fighting, drinking and child abuse... those marriages?

Whether the government is right, or to what extent, isn't the issue; I was responding to the contention that "REASON for the government to be involved...is to give tax breaks to some people..." (emphasis added). "Marriage penalty" aside, tax policy is used (in addition to being used to raise money) to encourage or discourage particular behaviors. Tax breaks are a means, not an end.

[mike777]

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

matmat, on Nov 6 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

I think you have a means confused with an end.  The reason government involves itself in marriage at all is that the institution is perceived to be beneficial to societal, by promoting stability.

hehe... especially the marriages with lots of fighting, drinking and child abuse... those marriages?

Whether the government is right, or to what extent, isn't the issue; I was responding to the contention that "REASON for the government to be involved...is to give tax breaks to some people..." (emphasis added). "Marriage penalty" aside, tax policy is used (in addition to being used to raise money) to encourage or discourage particular behaviors. Tax breaks are a means, not an end.

OK OK so I said this is all about tax breaks............tax breaks for stability I got it.



If we must do this can we at least have the Central government do a better job of making sure the goal is reached.....more accountants, auditors, counselors whatever from the central government...again this is only for more stability in the "marriage program". Let us make sure we are getting our money's worth and not getting ripped off.

[Lobowolf]

mike777, on Nov 6 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

AGain if we made marriage and divorce much harder I could buy this but if we are going to give married couples billions and billions in tax breaks and then pay billions and billions more to take care of the poorer spouse and children after the marriage fails I just think we should get government out of this business.

Again I have nothing against churches or private contractors doing marriages.
I have nothing against people who view marriage as a Holy Sacrament and not a way to get a tax break/giveaway.

But as I said if Banks, Insurance, farmers, car companies get money from those super rich top 5% of taxpayers...why not married people. IT's all in the name of STABILITY!

I'm fine with the government getting out of the marriage business altogether, but I don't think it's pointless.

If I were a tax lawyer, I'd strongly advise you to spend more energy lobbying for tax breaks based on the use of the smiley.

[jonottawa]

As someone who's never been married and who wishes more people were gay (that just leaves more chicks for me) I'm pretty turned off by the whole 'woe is me' wail from the gay rights crowd. At the end of the day, who cares if the government recognizes that your sexual/emotional/co-dependent bond is as valid as one between two folks whose gonads aren't the same?

100 years from now people will wonder at America's war crimes, embracing old wives tales from before the 'Dark Ages' about a cosmic jewish zombie and the American people's willingness to believe whatever the corporate-shilling idiot-box told them was true. I doubt that their unwillingness to wholly embrace the sanctity of the unions between people with an affinity for anal sex will be near the top of the list. Only time will tell if I'm right.

[Lobowolf]

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

As someone who's never been married and who wishes more people were gay (that just leaves more chicks for me) I'm pretty turned off by the whole 'woe is me' wail from the gay rights crowd.  At the end of the day, who cares if the government recognizes that your sexual/emotional/co-dependent bond is as valid as one between two folks whose gonads aren't the same?

I see no substantive difference between this and a "Who cares if the government recognizes that your sexual/emotional/co-dependent bond isn't as valid as one between people of the same race?" argument that could just have readily been made when the Supreme Court was invalidating laws against interracial marriage.

[cherdano]

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

As someone who's never been married and who wishes more people were gay (that just leaves more chicks for me) I'm pretty turned off by the whole 'woe is me' wail from the gay rights crowd. At the end of the day, who cares if the government recognizes that your sexual/emotional/co-dependent bond is as valid as one between two folks whose gonads aren't the same?

100 years from now people will wonder at America's war crimes, embracing old wives tales from before the 'Dark Ages' about a cosmic jewish zombie and the American people's willingness to believe whatever the corporate-shilling idiot-box told them was true. I doubt that their unwillingness to wholly embrace the sanctity of the unions between people with an affinity for anal sex will be near the top of the list. Only time will tell if I'm right.

History also will hardly mention that women got the right to vote, who cares with a world war just finished and with another one yet to come a few years later? And, wait, blacks are allowed to vote now?? And since when were those biracial marriages legal, anyway? Who cares about those things?

[han]

Nobody who is 37 years old should be that adolescent.

[jonottawa]

Wedge issues like this take up all the oxygen in the room when we should be talking about vastly more important stuff like the financial crisis, war crimes, politicization of the justice department, election reform (the US conducts its elections like a banana republic,) health care reform, tax reform (starting with the inheritance tax, which drops to 0% in 2010,) entitlement reform, habeas corpus/Guantanamo, torture of prisoners held abroad, warrantless domestic spying, energy policy, immigration policy, overseeing the latest massive corporate welfare/bailouts, caging people for victimless crimes, massive waste and fraud in the defense budget, etc.

America will get this issue right eventually. We almost always tend to lurch in the right direction over time. If they want to call them 'civil unions' for a couple of decades, it hardly matters. There are WAY bigger fish to fry and this is a pathetic distraction from those important issues.

(And it's not like many of us don't have our own 'pet issues.' I, for one, see the discrimination against atheists and the promotion of superstitious supernatural fiction by the state as an immoral outrage. But I recognize that that's not the be-all and end-all issue of our time and that by raising the issue I'm merely playing into the hands of its opponents (by firing up the Wasillabillies, whose ignorance is exceeded only by their passion.))

[helene_t]

Jon: With all those issues being non-important, I wonder what is left. Allowing cell-phones at ACBL events?

[Lobowolf]

helene_t, on Nov 7 2008, 10:09 AM, said:

Jon: With all those issues being non-important, I wonder what is left. Allowing cell-phones at ACBL events?

Sanctions for the next Bermuda Bowl team accepting its medals wearing T-shirts that say "We didn't vote for Obama."

[cherdano]

jonottawa, on Nov 7 2008, 08:59 AM, said:

Wedge issues like this take up all the oxygen in the room when we should be talking about vastly more important stuff like the financial crisis, war crimes, politicization of the justice department, election reform (the US conducts its elections like a banana republic,) health care reform, tax reform (starting with the inheritance tax, which drops to 0% in 2010,) entitlement reform, habeas corpus/Guantanamo, torture of prisoners held abroad, warrantless domestic spying, energy policy, immigration policy, overseeing the latest massive corporate welfare/bailouts, caging people for victimless crimes, massive waste and fraud in the defense budget, etc.

America will get this issue right eventually. We almost always tend to lurch in the right direction over time. If they want to call them 'civil unions' for a couple of decades, it hardly matters. There are WAY bigger fish to fry and this is a pathetic distraction from those important issues.

If you wanted to make the point that there are more important issues than gay rights, and that proposition 8 should take up less oxygen, then there would have been better ways to make it than
- calling out gays as whiners, and
- mixing in homophobic cliches on the go ("Gays are those that prefer anal sex").

[Lobowolf]

cherdano, on Nov 7 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 7 2008, 08:59 AM, said:

Wedge issues like this take up all the oxygen in the room when we should be talking about vastly more important stuff like the financial crisis, war crimes, politicization of the justice department, election reform (the US conducts its elections like a banana republic,) health care reform, tax reform (starting with the inheritance tax, which drops to 0% in 2010,) entitlement reform, habeas corpus/Guantanamo, torture of prisoners held abroad, warrantless domestic spying, energy policy, immigration policy, overseeing the latest massive corporate welfare/bailouts, caging people for victimless crimes, massive waste and fraud in the defense budget, etc.

America will get this issue right eventually.  We almost always tend to lurch in the right direction over time.  If they want to call them 'civil unions' for a couple of decades, it hardly matters.  There are WAY bigger fish to fry and this is a pathetic distraction from those important issues.

If you wanted to make the point that there are more important issues than gay rights, and that proposition 8 should take up less oxygen, then there would have been better ways to make it than
- calling out gays as whiners, and
- mixing in homophobic cliches on the go ("Gays are those that prefer anal sex").

It's also a false multichotomy(?) that there's some specified amount of energy and that it should (must?) be devoted to only the X most important issues.

As an analogy, hopefully, despite the fact that murder is more serious, things like burglary and fraud will still be investigated and prosecuted.

I guess you could also try it out on your girlfriend/wife/significant other, too... "Well, yes honey, I slept with your sister, but isn't that relatively insignificant compared to the economy and Iraq? I can't believe you'd bother spending energy as if this were a serious problem."

[cherdano]

Juts in case it wasn't clear, I agree with Lobowolf.