LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

[Smoove_B]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

[hepcat]

It sure doesn't to the widow who is left trying to raise her children after her husband's death and the insurance company won't pay out because they have no legal obligation to do so.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

This is Rip who's talking. The guy who thinks speed limits, taxes and health insurance are for suckers. You may as well explain to a chimpanzee why flinging his dung is wrong.

[GreenGoo]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Lol. Have you not been reading same sex marriage arguments for the last decade plus?

Right. Enjoy your in-laws deciding that you don't belong at her bedside when she's too sick to vocalize her own wishes.

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.

And that's only at the Federal level. But sure, hey, get rid of it. Long overdue.

[Fireball]

The state refusing to issue licenses for anyone is something we've been ruminating on for days -- mainly since Texas and Alabama (Roll Tide!) have apparently decided to randomly issue / not issue them. None of that gets around the fact that even if a state were to somehow refuse to issue a license, they'd still need to recognize it from another state.

I'm not talking about piece meal probate judges refusing to enforce the law. I'm talking about a State withdrawing from the marriage business and punting to the churches.

The problem is that unless the state is going to remove all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage, they're going to have to decide whether or not a given couple is legitimately married.

If they did remove all such benefits, then I don't see any issue with them getting out of the marriage business ("you're all individuals, we don't care who is married to whom"). As Fireball says you'd need to expand it beyond churches in order to not have a church-state issue. But they wouldn't need to pass an amendment, just a straight statute removing marriage benefits and removing the state's ability to issue licenses. It would be somewhat ironic to see Alabama (say) effectively giving its marriage licensing power to the federal government, though. But I do imagine that removing all marriage benefits would have a variety of consequences that would make the change rather unpopular rather quickly.

Now, a state that really didn't want to recognize gay marriage could replace marriage licensing with a qualitative system when marriage benefits come up - like, you get X benefit if you are married, and we will assess whether you are married in determining whether you are eligible by looking at whether you live together, have children, etc. Then they could apply those qualitative measures such that straight couples almost always pass while gay couples almost always fail, which would be a de facto gay marriage ban. That could only hold up so long, however.

That would stand up to a court challenge for about 10 minutes.

Assuming you are referring to a de facto ban, yes I agree. That said, I would not be surprised if a state tried it.

No, setting up a series of criteria that are clearly designed to be harder for gay couples to meet than straight couples. Disparate impact with a clear intent to enforce bias.

[Rip]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

People who aren't married manage to navigate those issues, should be no different for those that are married.

Contracts and wills, FTW!

[Fireball]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

Child custody rights. Protection from self-incrimination. Hospital visitation. The list goes on and on and on.

For a nominal fee, marriage provides a clean and efficient way to tie two people together into a single legal unit which would be effectively impossible even with a small army of lawyers and thousands open thousands of dollars legal fees for contracts of variable verbiage and effectiveness.

[GreenGoo]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

People who aren't married manage to navigate those issues, should be no different for those that are married.

If by navigate you mean bent over and reamed repeatedly with a wire brush, then...yeah.

It's fun to play this game, but I've gotten tired early. See if others will play with you.

edit: For the record I put a URL up earlier for anyone who is actually interested in what marriage impacts.

edit2: Actually, here's the wiki page, it's more useful for this discussion.

wiki

[Rip]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

Child custody rights. Protection from self-incrimination. Hospital visitation. The list goes on and on and on.

For a nominal fee, marriage provides a clean and efficient way to tie two people together into a single legal unit which would be effectively impossible even with a small army of lawyers and thousands open thousands of dollars legal fees for contracts of variable verbiage and effectiveness.

Sounds like an economic stimulus for the legal industry.

[El Guapo]

The state refusing to issue licenses for anyone is something we've been ruminating on for days -- mainly since Texas and Alabama (Roll Tide!) have apparently decided to randomly issue / not issue them. None of that gets around the fact that even if a state were to somehow refuse to issue a license, they'd still need to recognize it from another state.

I'm not talking about piece meal probate judges refusing to enforce the law. I'm talking about a State withdrawing from the marriage business and punting to the churches.

The problem is that unless the state is going to remove all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage, they're going to have to decide whether or not a given couple is legitimately married.

If they did remove all such benefits, then I don't see any issue with them getting out of the marriage business ("you're all individuals, we don't care who is married to whom"). As Fireball says you'd need to expand it beyond churches in order to not have a church-state issue. But they wouldn't need to pass an amendment, just a straight statute removing marriage benefits and removing the state's ability to issue licenses. It would be somewhat ironic to see Alabama (say) effectively giving its marriage licensing power to the federal government, though. But I do imagine that removing all marriage benefits would have a variety of consequences that would make the change rather unpopular rather quickly.

Now, a state that really didn't want to recognize gay marriage could replace marriage licensing with a qualitative system when marriage benefits come up - like, you get X benefit if you are married, and we will assess whether you are married in determining whether you are eligible by looking at whether you live together, have children, etc. Then they could apply those qualitative measures such that straight couples almost always pass while gay couples almost always fail, which would be a de facto gay marriage ban. That could only hold up so long, however.

That would stand up to a court challenge for about 10 minutes.

Assuming you are referring to a de facto ban, yes I agree. That said, I would not be surprised if a state tried it.

No, setting up a series of criteria that are clearly designed to be harder for gay couples to meet than straight couples. Disparate impact with a clear intent to enforce bias.

Right - that is specifically what I described as a de facto gay marriage ban.

[Fireball]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

People who aren't married manage to navigate those issues, should be no different for those that are married.

No, they really don't. If everyone in a group — the couple, the couples' children, the couples' parents, all their friends — likes each other and works together well, you can fashion a set of legal documents and agreements (at great expense) that provide a weak simulation of marriage in those areas that don't interact with the state. However, if there is *any* tension, this system can fall apart dramatically.

Perhaps you can't see beyond your own privilege, but are you really unaware of the how disastrous hospital visits, unexpected deaths, and tax rate disparities between married and unmarried couples often had disastrous results for gay couples, even those who spent great sums on contracts and written agreements?

[Fireball]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

Child custody rights. Protection from self-incrimination. Hospital visitation. The list goes on and on and on.

For a nominal fee, marriage provides a clean and efficient way to tie two people together into a single legal unit which would be effectively impossible even with a small army of lawyers and thousands open thousands of dollars legal fees for contracts of variable verbiage and effectiveness.

Sounds like an economic stimulus for the legal industry.

I am so tired of your glibness when advocating for policies that you know will harm people. But hey, those people are almost always women, minorities, poor people and homos, so you can't be bothered to give a shit.

[Rip]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

People who aren't married manage to navigate those issues, should be no different for those that are married.

No, they really don't. If everyone in a group — the couple, the couples' children, the couples' parents, all their friends — likes each other and works together well, you can fashion a set of legal documents and agreements (at great expense) that provide a weak simulation of marriage in those areas that don't interact with the state. However, if there is *any* tension, this system can fall apart dramatically.

Perhaps you can't see beyond your own privilege, but are you really unaware of the how disastrous hospital visits, unexpected deaths, and tax rate disparities between married and unmarried couples often had disastrous results for gay couples, even those who spent great sums on contracts and written agreements?

First tax rates shouldn't be different. The government has long overtaxed single people for nothing other than failing to get married. Hospital visits and death can be easily handled with powers of attorney and wills. None of those are any harder than getting married.

[Rip]

Removing all legal benefits and consequences associated with a marriage sounds like a good idea to me.

It never did make much sense, long overdue.

Hitting the bong early today? Medical decisions. Survivor benefits. Property transfers.

Child custody rights. Protection from self-incrimination. Hospital visitation. The list goes on and on and on.

For a nominal fee, marriage provides a clean and efficient way to tie two people together into a single legal unit which would be effectively impossible even with a small army of lawyers and thousands open thousands of dollars legal fees for contracts of variable verbiage and effectiveness.

Sounds like an economic stimulus for the legal industry.

I am so tired of your glibness when advocating for policies that you know will harm people. But hey, those people are almost always women, minorities, poor people and homos, so you can't be bothered to give a shit.

If everyone is treated the same then I fail to see the harm. The system as it is harms anyone who isn't married.

Part of the reason I got married the first time is because the military discriminates against single people.

Want to live off base. Get married.

Want to make more money. Get married.

[Fireball]

Hospital visits and death can be easily handled with powers of attorney and wills. None of those are any harder than getting married.

No, they cannot. Unlike you, I know gay people who've gone through this when unmarried. Prior to marriage equality, hospitals have routinely ignored powers of attorney and the like between gay couples, and courts have been more than happy to throw out the contract between two men or two women when the parents of one of the members of the couple have challenged it. Those agreements, despite being less effective than marriages, also cost orders of magnitude more to set up.

I get it. Your attitude is that faggots should just suck it up and suffer like we deserve. Fortunately people like you don't really get a say anymore.

[LawBeefaroni]

Hospital visits and death can be easily handled with powers of attorney and wills. None of those are any harder than getting married.

Singly? No, maybe not a single one of them is harder than getting married, though many are not nearly as ironclad. So get married or pick one benefit.


But setting up the whole suite of protections and benefits of conferred by marriage would be far more difficult, time consuming, and costly than getting married. And each would also require foresight and planning that we all know the average person doesn't have. So we give them the universal bundle and that's that.

[Rip]

Hospital visits and death can be easily handled with powers of attorney and wills. None of those are any harder than getting married.

No, they cannot. Unlike you, I know gay people who've gone through this when unmarried. Prior to marriage equality, hospitals have routinely ignored powers of attorney and the like between gay couples, and courts have been more than happy to throw out the contract between two men or two women when the parents of one of the members of the couple have challenged it. Those agreements, despite being less effective than marriages, also cost orders of magnitude more to set up.

I get it. Your attitude is that faggots should just suck it up and suffer like we deserve. Fortunately people like you don't really get a say anymore.

With my approach they couldn't do that unless they also refused to recognize them for straight married people. Equality.

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

[LawBeefaroni]

With my approach they couldn't do that unless they also refused to recognize them for straight married people. Equality.

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

Honestly, your approach sucks.

[El Guapo]

I guess the big picture is that it may, as a theoretical matter, be possible to devise a system where the state has zero involvement in marriage - doesn't license it, doesn't care whether you are married in any significant way. It would necessarily require, at a minimum, changing a lot of very important benefits in important (and probably unpredictable) ways, but it may be possible.

Does it make any sense at all to try to do that instead of just adding gay marriage into the existing marriage benefit infrastructure? Not at all. Would even trying to craft such a system constitute an enormous middle finger to gay citizens? Absolutely.

[GreenGoo]

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

If there wasn't any benefit to getting married no one would get married. I'm not talking about government conveyed benefits either.

[Fireball]

Hospital visits and death can be easily handled with powers of attorney and wills. None of those are any harder than getting married.

No, they cannot. Unlike you, I know gay people who've gone through this when unmarried. Prior to marriage equality, hospitals have routinely ignored powers of attorney and the like between gay couples, and courts have been more than happy to throw out the contract between two men or two women when the parents of one of the members of the couple have challenged it. Those agreements, despite being less effective than marriages, also cost orders of magnitude more to set up.

I get it. Your attitude is that faggots should just suck it up and suffer like we deserve. Fortunately people like you don't really get a say anymore.

With my approach they couldn't do that unless they also refused to recognize them for straight married people. Equality.

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

Getting married "just for the benefits" costs less than $100. There is no way to sign the necessary contracts for such a little amount of money to cover hundreds upon hundreds of interpersonal benefits, and no contract that you could sign for the government related benefits. And such an amazing set of documents, which would require a ton of work to managed (basically replicating the entire legal code as it applies to married couples) would not cost in the range of $30, as marriages do in most states.

[Rip]

With my approach they couldn't do that unless they also refused to recognize them for straight married people. Equality.

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

Honestly, your approach sucks.

Perhaps, but it is fair to a fault.

[GreenGoo]

With my approach they couldn't do that unless they also refused to recognize them for straight married people. Equality.

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

Honestly, your approach sucks.

Marriage is almost entirely to the benefit of the married couple. I never understand those who benefit advocating not benefiting, but whatever.

Government has a stake in a stable society, new tax payers raised to be contributors to the tax base, etc etc. Government provides benefits (I am talking about government conveyed benefits now) to encourage marriages, because marriages are a good idea for a stable society.

They are incentives to get married. It would be awkward if people didn't take advantage of them.

You're right, life is slightly harder as a single person. Nuking the legal, financial and social benefits of millions of non-single people is not the answer.

[Rip]

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

If there wasn't any benefit to getting married no one would get married. I'm not talking about government conveyed benefits either.

and many don't.

Look at all the unwed mothers and men who father children from multiple women they haven't married. Something tell me that isn't because they were denied the ability to get married....

[Rip]

With my approach they couldn't do that unless they also refused to recognize them for straight married people. Equality.

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

Honestly, your approach sucks.

Marriage is almost entirely to the benefit of the married couple. I never understand those who benefit advocating not benefiting, but whatever.

Government has a stake in a stable society, new tax payers raised to be contributors to the tax base, etc etc. Government provides benefits (I am talking about government conveyed benefits now) to encourage marriages, because marriages are a good idea for a stable society.

They are incentives to get married. It would be awkward if people didn't take advantage of them.

You're right, life is slightly harder as a single person. Nuking the legal, financial and social benefits of millions of non-single people is not the answer.

So all these guys out there fathering children from multiple women and not marrying them are just stupid?

For those in dire poverty the benefits of not being married far outweigh the benefits of marriage.

[LawBeefaroni]

With my approach they couldn't do that unless they also refused to recognize them for straight married people. Equality.

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

Honestly, your approach sucks.

Perhaps, but it is fair to a fault.

The fault is that it's a transparent, aw shucks, attempt to justify the marginalization of homosexual couples. "Hey, what are they complaining about? Marriage ain't all it's cracked up to be, we should just do away with it completely (now that they have it too)." And in defending this fault, you're digging a deeper and deeper hole of nonsense.

[GreenGoo]

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

If there wasn't any benefit to getting married no one would get married. I'm not talking about government conveyed benefits either.

and many don't.

Look at all the unwed mothers and men who father children from multiple women they haven't married. Something tell me that isn't because they were denied the ability to get married....

Are you asking me why people don't form lasting relationships? I have no idea. I assume it is a multitude of reasons.

There are responsibilities that go along with the benefits you receive when you marry. Some people don't like responsibility, I guess.

[Rip]

With my approach they couldn't do that unless they also refused to recognize them for straight married people. Equality.

If it was the defacto way of dealing with such things it wouldn't cost more. It would certainly cost less than getting married "just for the benefits", which is done far to frequently.

Honestly, your approach sucks.

Perhaps, but it is fair to a fault.

The fault is that it's a transparent, aw shucks, attempt to justify the marginalization of homosexual couples. "Hey, what are they complaining about? Marriage ain't all it's cracked up to be, we should just do away with it completely (now that they have it too)." And in defending this fault, you're digging a deeper and deeper hole of nonsense.

I have always had a distaste for the institution of marriage. It has nothing to do with gay marriage to me. I am all in support of gay marriage, and polygamy, polyamory, etc.

[msduncan]

I guess the big picture is that it may, as a theoretical matter, be possible to devise a system where the state has zero involvement in marriage - doesn't license it, doesn't care whether you are married in any significant way. It would necessarily require, at a minimum, changing a lot of very important benefits in important (and probably unpredictable) ways, but it may be possible.

Does it make any sense at all to try to do that instead of just adding gay marriage into the existing marriage benefit infrastructure? Not at all. Would even trying to craft such a system constitute an enormous middle finger to gay citizens? Absolutely.

We could take care of the tax part of the equation with the Fair Tax.

The hospital access, custody arrangements, and all the legalese surrounding death of a spouse could be a giant can of worms.

[El Guapo]

I guess the big picture is that it may, as a theoretical matter, be possible to devise a system where the state has zero involvement in marriage - doesn't license it, doesn't care whether you are married in any significant way. It would necessarily require, at a minimum, changing a lot of very important benefits in important (and probably unpredictable) ways, but it may be possible.

Does it make any sense at all to try to do that instead of just adding gay marriage into the existing marriage benefit infrastructure? Not at all. Would even trying to craft such a system constitute an enormous middle finger to gay citizens? Absolutely.

We could take care of the Tax part of the equation with the Fair Tax.

The hospital access, custody arrangements, and all the legalese surrounding death of a spouse could be a giant can of worms.

The question is - why try to do it unless the reason is to deny marriage to the gay community?

[Smoove_B]

Arkansas county clerk resigns rather than issue a license:

Cleburne County Clerk Dana Guffey told the AP she met with Judge Jerry Holmes today and informed him she would resign because she had a moral objection to granting licenses for same-sex marriages.

“It is definitely a moral conviction for me,” she said. “I didn’t announce anything publicly or on social media or anything because I didn’t want my decision to be seen as hateful. I know some people will look at it like that, but this wasn’t easy. It wasn’t a decision I made lightly. And I do not hate anybody.”

I'm expecting a GoFundMe campaign to be announced for her in the next 24 hours.

[El Guapo]

Oh man, however will we get by without her public service?

I will give her that that's a better response than that of the Texas AG, who is telling clerks (essentially) that they don't have to comply with the law. Any clerks who don't like having to comply with the law can (as she has demonstrated) resign, but it's not a valid option to stay and refuse to comply with the law.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I mean that's what you do. I'm guessing the county office will be flooded with job applications though. I do wonder if the legal analysis associated with enacting this policy nationwide considered the potential for a massive wave of job openings?

[Isgrimnur]

Protection from self-incrimination.

That's the 5th Amendment. You're thinking of spousal privilege.

[Blackhawk]

Hey, I can respect that. Her job changed so that she had to do something she found wrong. She stepped down from the job rather than expecting the nation to treat her like a special snowflake. Pharmacists - are you listening to this?

[Fireball]

Protection from self-incrimination.

That's the 5th Amendment. You're thinking of spousal privilege.

Sure, what I meant is spousal privilege, which extends from the fact that a married couple is tested by the law as a single entity.

[hepcat]

Hey, I can respect that. Her job changed so that she had to do something she found wrong. She stepped down from the job rather than expecting the nation to treat her like a special snowflake. Pharmacists - are you listening to this?

Wait...pharmacists are allowed to marry people?

[El Guapo]

Protection from self-incrimination.

That's the 5th Amendment. You're thinking of spousal privilege.

Sure, what I meant is spousal privilege, which extends from the fact that a married couple is tested by the law as a single entity.

I don't do criminal law professionally, but I'm pretty sure that's outdated. It used to be that spouses *couldn't* testify against each other (even if they wanted to) specifically because the law regarded them (as you say) as effectively one entity. That's not true anymore, which is why generally spouses can testify against each other if they want.

Spouses are generally (not sure if this is true in every state) permitted the privilege of not testifying against each other if they choose not to, but I am fairly sure that that's a policy choice (extended in the interest of marital harmony), not something constitutionally mandated.

[RunningMn9]

I can only assume that msd has me on his foe list.

Can someone else ask him what the purpose of his "government out of marriage altogether" strategy actually is? What is he trying to avoid? Granting marriage licenses to undesirables? Having his church get compelled to marry same-sex couples?

My newsfeed is starting to fill with people telling leftists that they are being naive, and that step two of this fight is to revoke the tax exempt status of any church that refuses to perform same sex marriages. Is that the slippery slope fear?

[msduncan]

I can only assume that msd has me on his foe list.

Can someone else ask him what the purpose of his "government out of marriage altogether" strategy actually is? What is he trying to avoid? Granting marriage licenses to undesirables? Having his church get compelled to marry same-sex couples?

My newsfeed is starting to fill with people telling leftists that they are being naive, and that step two of this fight is to revoke the tax exempt status of any church that refuses to perform same sex marriages. Is that the slippery slope fear?

Nah you weren't on my foe list. Been with my dad in outpatient surgery (for cataract removal) most of the day. Sometimes reading from my phone I miss stuff.

I wasn't advocating the strategy (like Rip did since he dislikes marriage ). I was pondering what the next move will be for the counter movement. I thought it might be to try to move religious freedom (1st Amendment) into position as a shield by punting the whole business to the churches.

[msduncan]

My newsfeed is starting to fill with people telling leftists that they are being naive, and that step two of this fight is to revoke the tax exempt status of any church that refuses to perform same sex marriages. Is that the slippery slope fear?

Considering there was an article written on that very subject, I think it's a valid fear.

Link to Time article