Say Anything Blog

Maybe this highlights a good reason why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.

And that reason would be what?

In America, have male and females gotten married just for the tax benefits?

Maybe this highlights a good reason why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

“There are significant tax implications that we don’t think the government has thought through,” Pinn said.

Duh!  Gay marriage activists have only been shouting it from the rooftops . . .

No, not a ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: SINGLE marriage in Ameica ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: has been done for finacial ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: gain…

Sorry, you must excuse my summer cold…

Anyway, I don’t think this is the best arguement against Same sex marriage because of the obvious abuses taken place already.

Maybe this highlights a good reason why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.

If we moved to a tax system that got rid of deductions and other incentived, I would tend to agree with you.  As long as we have a tax system that is set up to promote certain social behavior, no way.

Follow the money. It will lead you to the one true revelation( government should not be involved in your personal OR business life). Now, was that not painless???

This does a good job of showing how the SSM debate never was about “equality”.  Remember when Dan Savage (the gay sex columnist) married a lesbian, in a simiar act of protest?  Thereby proving that marriage was equal—even for “gay people”—before SSM became law, just as these guys are showing that marriage is STILL equal, even after SSM.

It’s not about equality, it never was—it’s just a simple lowering of standards.

If you need to actually think up an objection to gay marriage, maybe you should question whether your initial objection to it is rational.

If you’re referring to my comments, that’s not at all what i said.  I was referring to which strategy is best at attacking the issue.  In other words, which political strategy is best to win hearts and minds on my side.

And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government.

Everyone here knows that I agree with this statement, but I quote you to ask you if you agree with my sentiment that as long as we have this type of tax system (hopefully not TOO much longer), marriage should most certainly be “promoted” via deductions and the like?

If you need to actually think up an objection to gay marriage, maybe you should question whether your initial objection to it is rational.

The whole “people will abuse it” argument doesn’t fly.  What is to prevent people of the opposite gender from “abusing” it?  I actually know two opposite gender homosexuals who got married.

And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government.  “Deductions” and, well, the entire idea of a progressive income tax that rewards low-earners by reducing their rates and punishes high-earners by raising their rate are both ways of giving the government control over people’s behavior.  If you oppose this, it’s time to consider the FairTax.

And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government.

May i assume that you guys also oppose the G.I. Bill, Pell Grants, and time-off for good behavior, among many other government incentives designed to reward/encourage proper social behaviors?

mi recognizes that that standard for marriage are pitifully low already. One might think we should be raising them, not lowering them…

I got an idea for raising the standards of marriage: promote monogomy by enabling gay couples to share in the same benefits afforded to straights.

Please to explain why government should do anything about marriage in the first place??? Oh, yeah, right. Money that is not theirs.

If gay marriage is wrong then what should we do with straight marriages that don’t produce kids?

BTW...I don’t think that those Ottawa tipplers will tie the knot when push comes to shove.

If gay marriage is wrong then what should we do with straight marriages that don’t produce kids?

Tell ‘em to keep at it.  Nature is funny sometimes… (but never that funny)

BTW…I don’t think that those Ottawa tipplers will tie the knot when push comes to shove.

Prolly right.  Unlike gay activist Dan Savage who ended up shooting himself in the foot while trying to make a mockery of an institution he claims to revere…

Of course, Marty is right that the sole purpose of marriage as a social structure is reproduction of children.  While some people abuse this system of marriage and deny nature it’s course, I don’t see why this lends credence to opeing marriage up to couples who are physically incapable of reproducing.

mi recognizes that that standard for marriage are pitifully low already.  One might think we should be raising them, not lowering them…

If you only behave in a socially proper manner because you get something out of it, you are already a lost cause. Fear is a piss poor foundation to build any society upon. Much less a free one.

Tax deductions for gifts to charity…
Tax breaks for hiring the handicapped…
etc etc etc…

All “inappropriate functions of government”?

What if they don’t produce kids by choice?

Well at least they met the pitifully low standard of “well they could have, if they chose to”.  Like i said, nature is funny about things… many couples who choose not to have kids wind up doing so anyway… of course, this will never happen in a same-sex couple…

If gay marriage is wrong then what should we do with straight marriages that don’t produce kids?

Tell ‘em to keep at it. Nature is funny sometimes… (but never that funny)

What if they don’t produce kids by choice?

It’s not about equality, it never was — it’s just a simple lowering of standards.

What standards are those, exactly?  The Newt Gingrich “divorce my sick wife” standard?  The Strom Thurmond “knock up the help” standard?  The Bill Clinton “blue dress” standard?

mi: I got an idea for raising the standards of marriage: promote monogomy by enabling gay couples to share in the same benefits afforded to straights.

If you want to promote monogamy, perhaps we should probably start with the heterosexuals who are causing most of the problems.  Lets say, criminalize adultery again, and get rid of no-fault divorce, for starters.  Add a few more negative consequences to promiscuity, instead of working so hard to eliminate them…

(PS: gay couples CAN share in the same benefits as straights, provided they meet the same pitifully low standards.  Somehow, even these seem to be too high however...)

It’s not “fear”, it’s incentive. This is why, for example, capitalism works and communism fails.

Yes!  It’s why you’ll put your money into an IRA instead of stuffing it under a mattress.  Much less robbing a bank!

2Hotel9 said, If you only behave in a socially proper manner because you get something out of it, you are already a lost cause. Fear is a piss poor foundation to build any society upon. Much less a free one.

It’s not “fear”, it’s incentive.  This is why, for example, capitalism works and communism fails.

Actually, if you want to promote stable marriages and families, forget about making divorce harder. Make it harder to get married. It’s easy and cheap to get maried, harder and more expensive to end one.

What you achieve too cheaply, you esteem too lightly.

Well, let’s think this through, MI.  As a social structure, what is the point of marriage if not for reproducing?

For a very long time, the purpose of marriage as a social structure had much more to do with financial interests then anything else.

And the purpose of those financial interests were… ... ...protecting one’s wealth so that it could be passed onto one’s heirs, perhaps?  Or maybe it was so we could take it with us when we die… or donate it to the tax base maybe...lol

That doesn’t mean that our marriage license is printed on different paper stock.

Nope, you are still free and equal to procreate - or not - anytime you choose.  Just like any other marriage.  Subject to the fair winds of mother nature, of course.

Regardless of our decision on children, it’s not anyone else’s business anyway, especially the government.

It really is no one’s personal business, but it most certainly IS our collective business (as represented by the State around here), because We The People do have a very strong interest in the growth, maintenance, and well-being of our upcoming generations of citizens, soldiers, and taxpayers.

It’s none of my business, but it is all of our business.

Seth said:

Actually, if you want to promote stable marriages and families, forget about making divorce harder. Make it harder to get married. It’s easy and cheap to get maried, harder and more expensive to end one.

What you achieve too cheaply, you esteem too lightly.

You are so right.  “Til Death Do Us Part” is a vow taken far too lightly, these days, and i’m sure Rob will agree.  Breaking such a vow should accompany strong social sanction (if not actual bloodletting), thereby making the foolish think twice before making them.

And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government.

Not in my eyes… The Government is an extension of the will of the people.  We the people have, by and large, said that we want a strong family structure to promote the healthy development of the next generation.  This reflects our desire to promote a certain kind of culture.  I think we should promote a certain level of values, ethics, morals, and boundaries.  Note: I’m not talking about enforcing these… I just like promoting them.

“Deductions" and, well, the entire idea of a progressive income tax that rewards low-earners by reducing their rates and punishes high-earners by raising their rate are both ways of giving the government control over people’s behavior. If you oppose this, it’s time to consider the FairTax.

I oppose rewards for the unmotivated and completely agree with the fair tax!

Of course, Marty is right that the sole purpose of marriage as a social structure is reproduction of children.

For a very long time, the purpose of marriage as a social structure had much more to do with financial interests then anything else. 

While some people abuse this system of marriage and deny nature it’s course, I don’t see why this lends credence to opeing marriage up to couples who are physically incapable of reproducing.

Why is not having children an abuse of marriage?  My wife and I don’t want to have kids, but we are committed to each other for the rest of our lives.  That doesn’t mean that our marriage license is printed on different paper stock.  Regardless of our decision on children, it’s not anyone else’s business anyway, especially the government.

modern instances said, My wife and I don’t want to have kids, but we are committed to each other for the rest of our lives. That doesn’t mean that our marriage license is printed on different paper stock. Regardless of our decision on children, it’s not anyone else’s business anyway, especially the government.

You have a wife and a boyfriend? I bet Thanksgiving dinners are wild at your house, egh?

Lik: HAHAHAHA!!!!

Admit it, we all have a tough time keeping track of our various identities over the internet!

Btw, how do you hyperlink a specific word in your posts? And is there an “FAQ” section on this site?

Thanks lik, that was the funniest thing I read all day (the second funniest being right here).

You have a wife and a boyfriend? I bet Thanksgiving dinners are wild at your house, egh?

I wish!  No, the boyfriend thing was just a joke to fit in with the whole liberal Canadian thing.

Dave, after you type your post, highlight the words or word you want hyperlinked and click the “Link” box above where you type in your comment.  A box will open where you enter the URL and it’s as easy as that.

As a social structure, what is the point of marriage if not for reproducing?

To enable two people to bind themselves together in a formalized manner.

what, nested blockquotes are not allowed?  DOH!

As a social structure, what is the point of marriage if not for reproducing?

To enable two people to bind themselves together in a formalized manner.

The State has no particularly compelling interest in the binding together of any two given people.  Unless of course there is the strong possibility that children will result from such a union, in which case the State has a very compelling interest in maintaining that bond for the well-being of the child.

It used to be a ball and chain in the old days.

It seems that the point forgotten throughout the SSM argument is the glaring fact that marriage is rooted in the tenants of Christianity. Our ancestors used the sanctity of marriage as the ultimate symbol of unity before God and man, and was entered into by two people for the ultimate purpose of procreation. Whether you embrace religion or deny it, this social and spiritual unity of two people was obviously intended to further the generations of two people. That is why tax breaks and considerations are made for married couples; It is the socially accepted way to produce children.
I think M.I. brought up the point that he and his wife (I guess he and his boyfriend are taking some time off) have no intention of having children. If this is indeed true, the very fact that procreation is a possibility in their relationship, not to mention that they are practicing the concept the way in the way it was intended (i.e. one man, one woman), goes to show that, while they may not want kids, they are within the socially accepted parameters of marriage.
I personally have no problem with homosexuality. What you do on your own time in your bedroom is your business. However, I find it disrespectful that a group of people who claim to have no want or desire to fit into socially accepted roles suddenly find it hard to believe that conservative Christians do not just abolish the longstanding concept of marriage because the gay community feels slighted. Why should the majority have to cater to the desire of those who, by their own admission, lead an alternative lifestyle?
And let’s not forget, gays do have the right to marry. No one is saying that they cannot be married. They just will not have the tax breaks that come with a traditional marriage. In short, I am not saying you do not have the God given right to live your life as you see fit. I just don’t think you have the right to tell me that, because you choose an alternative lifestyle, I am obligated to honor your choice with the same benefits as the socially accepted one. With every choice comes consequences. Sorry ‘bout your luck.

I disagree. If two people are going to merge their property, share their financial burdens, and act as guardian for one another in the case of incapacity of one of the parties, a formal structure needs to be in place.

As an adult you are entitled to enact whatever such agreements you wish, with any other person you wish.  The state doesn’t need to ensure you with any formal structure, so long as things are fair & legal.  Feel free to create such legal arrangements for yourself, as fits you most comfortably.

But when children are involved—or likely to be—the state has an interest in making sure the formal structure of his parent’s relationship meets some basic (pitifully low) standards.  Because the child is NOT an adult, and is not free to make his own arrangements, as you are.

So I get a pass because procreation is a possibility?

Not a “pass”—a Marriage!  It is what it is.

What if one or both of us were sterile?  What if I get a vasectomy?  Are we still allowed to be married?

Of course, the right to marry does not descriminate based on your handicap, much less your gender, race, religion, or even sexual orientation.  Certainly it would be discriminatory to exclude infertile couples from marriage, don’t you agree?

Apeman:

The State has no particularly compelling interest in the binding together of any two given people.

I disagree.  If two people are going to merge their property, share their financial burdens, and act as guardian for one another in the case of incapacity of one of the parties, a formal structure needs to be in place. 

SOA:

It seems that the point forgotten throughout the SSM argument is the glaring fact that marriage is rooted in the tenants of Christianity.

Marriage existed before Christianity came along.  The purpose of the Christian sacrament of marriage may be for procreation, but there is no such requirement for the civil arrangement.

I think M.I. brought up the point that he and his wife (I guess he and his boyfriend are taking some time off) have no intention of having children. If this is indeed true, the very fact that procreation is a possibility in their relationship,

So I get a pass because procreation is a possibility?  What if one or both of us were sterile?  What if I get a vasectomy?  Are we still allowed to be married? 

I could buy the “promotion of procreation” argument if this were 14th century Europe.  But as we approach 6 billion people on the planet, the human race faces more danger from pollution, global warming, over-crowding, and the depletion of natural resources as a means of extinction than a lack of people having babies.  There are plenty of people having babies, even without being married. 

It seems to me that, ultimately, the issue rests on the two different aspects of marriage, the sacred and civil.  That’s why I think they should be separated, and the state should simply issue civil unions to any two people who decide that they want to spend their lives together, leaving the sacred aspect where it belongs, in the church.

Just for the record, I am in fact married to a woman; the boyfriend line in the Canada post was just a joke.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

Certainly it would be discriminatory to exclude infertile couples from marriage, don’t you agree?

Exactly!  A couple’s inability or unwillingness to procreate is not part of the equation.  That’s what makes the argument that gay people can’t get married because they can’t reproduce so specious.

A couple’s inability or unwillingness to procreate is not part of the equation. That’s what makes the argument that gay people can’t get married because they can’t reproduce so specious.

Still missing the forest for all the trees, i see…

You say “A couple’s inability or unwillingness to procreate is not part of the equation” and you’re right, what IS part of the equation is the likelyhood that they can and will procreate anyway.  When men and women get together, this likelyhood becomes VERY likely indeed—hence we get the state interest.  Now, all things being equal, handicap or infertility is not a barrier to equal treatment under the law.  (Neither is sexual orienation, for that matter)

But a same-sex couple is NOT handicapped, nor infertile.  Each partner may be fully potent and very capable of reproduction—but that will never happen so long as they only “mate” within the same gender.  Therefore the likelyhood of procreation that is at the center of the State’s interest in marriage is 100% nonexistent.  And not because something is reproductively broken either—but because everything works correctly!

Coo coo ca choo:

Therefore the likelyhood of procreation that is at the center of the State’s interest in marriage is 100% nonexistent. And not because something is reproductively broken either — but because everything works correctly!

As I’ve argued above, property, not procreation, is at the center of the state’s interest in marriage.  But even taking your thesis, there are still circumstances like mine where the likelihood of procreation is 100% nonexistent, yet we’re one man and one woman, with 100% working parts.  If procreation, which you define as the core of marriage, is willingly removed from the equation as it is in mine, and as it is for gay couples, then why am I still afforded the same privileges?  Am I “abusing” marriage because my spouse and I have decided not to procreate?  If not, how is this really different than a gay couple?

Obviously contraception fails on occasion, and either of you could decide to stop using it.  My wife and i were both agreed that we would never want children when we married.  8 years later, mother nature changed our minds about that.  She’s got a funny way of doing that.

Anyway, cutting to the chase:

For the sake of expedience, what is the harm in creating a single instrument for accessing these benefits? In fact, cutting so much red tape would be beneficial, as it would lighten the load on the system.

1. We The People (aka the State) generally do not agree that this would be beneficial. Shall we say “the jury is still out”? Or let the judge intercede?

2. I’m personally concerned that SSM will encourage same-sex couples to create more children from the lab, using sperm donors and surrogates, creating yet more children who do not know their own mother and father.

3. There’s a wealth of information on the radical changes to society and our shared language, buried in Maggie Gallagher’s “(How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a Social Institution: A Reply to Andrew Koppelman”. It’s quite long, so read the last half first, as it addresses the “what harm” question very well.

Care to explain? Do you just not have sex either, or am i missing something?

Just as simple as contraception.  Conception is unlikely because we choose to make it that way.

The state has little vested interest in whether or not you marry or divorce your wife… until you have kids of your own.

Ok, we’re obviously at an impasse where it comes to the societal purpose of marriage: to you, it’s procreation, to me, it’s property.  So let me try this tack:

Let’s take as read that there are people in this world, gay and straight, who are not interested in procreating, but are merging their lives and fortunes because they love one another.  Let’s also assume that there are other ways to get all the same benefits that married people get, but that gaining access to these benefits requires a long list of separate and costly processes.  For the sake of expedience, what is the harm in creating a single instrument for accessing these benefits?  In fact, cutting so much red tape would be beneficial, as it would lighten the load on the system.

Hey M.I., since you’re always good for a chat, let me bounce this one off of you:

(entirely hypothetical scenario ahead, that i’ve never seen debated and don’t know the answers to)

If SSM becomes legal, and because prisoners already have a right to marry, will this mean that prisoners will be allowed to marry each other, and live together in the same cell?  Seems plausible to me, but am listening for other opinions.

Marty~

You are correct in that they would be allowed to marry, but I don’t see where that would give them the right to live in the same cell.  You don’t have a say, as far as I know, in which cell you are assigned regardless of marriage....

there are still circumstances like mine where the likelihood of procreation is 100% nonexistent, yet we’re one man and one woman, with 100% working parts.

Care to explain?  Do you just not have sex either, or am i missing something?

If procreation, which you define as the core of marriage, is willingly removed from the equation as it is in mine, and as it is for gay couples, then why am I still afforded the same privileges?

Because you are a man.  A man among equal men.  So are gay men men among equals.  As such, we all have the same equal right to marriage.  Infertile?  Gay?  It doesn’t matter—you are a man, and Fatherhood is what men do.

Am I “abusing” marriage because my spouse and I have decided not to procreate?

Of course not.  But honestly, the state has little vested interest in whether or not you marry or divorce your wife… until you have kids of your own.

Spaghetti?  There’s a spin I hadn’t thought of…

I don’t even like Spaghetti…

If SSM becomes legal, and because prisoners already have a right to marry, will this mean that prisoners will be allowed to marry each other, and live together in the same cell? Seems plausible to me, but am listening for other opinions.

See Spaghetti’s answer, I agree with him.

Obviously contraception fails on occasion, and either of you could decide to stop using it. My wife and i were both agreed that we would never want children when we married. 8 years later, mother nature changed our minds about that.

Yes, but it’s likelihood that you were speaking of.  It’s not impossible to get pregnant while using contraception, but unlikely.

1. We The People (aka the State) generally do not agree that this would be beneficial. Shall we say “the jury is still out”? Or let the judge intercede?

Well, then how about just convenient?  If procreation were a requirement of marriage, and I was barred from marrying my wife for that reason, then I would have to go through all of those hoops.

2. I’m personally concerned that SSM will encourage same-sex couples to create more children from the lab, using sperm donors and surrogates, creating yet more children who do not know their own mother and father.

Well, the first part is happening and will happen regardless of whether or not SSM is legal.  On the second part: there’s nothing to say that a child born of donation or surrogates cannot know who their biological parents are.  Besides, again, this is already happening with gay and straight couples alike.

3. There’s a wealth of information on the radical changes to society and our shared language, buried in Maggie Gallagher’s “(How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a Social Institution: A Reply to Andrew Koppelman”. It’s quite long, so read the last half first, as it addresses the “what harm” question very well.

I don’t have time now, but I will read this and also come back with something for you to read as well.

hypothetically of course:

1. why wouldn’t/shouldn’t they be allowed to live together?  Assuming no special security risks…

2. what if they already share a cell, on wedding day? would it be allowed? 

why or why not.

Searching hih and low for your “property argument on 8/10” MI, and about the only thing interesting i find is this:

That’s why I think they should be separated, and the state should simply issue civil unions to any two people who decide that they want to spend their lives together, leaving the sacred aspect where it belongs, in the church.

What you neglect to answer, is WHY the state should bother to “simply issue civil unions to any two people who decide that they want to spend their lives together”, when we all know that, as i said:

As an adult you are entitled to enact whatever such agreements you wish, with any other person you wish. The state doesn’t need to ensure you with any formal structure, so long as things are fair & legal. Feel free to create such legal arrangements for yourself, as fits you most comfortably.

When you remove procreation from the equation, you remove the State’s most signifigant interest of all—children.  So by your logic, why would we need any formalized legal union at all, if any sort of legal union can be created and customized to fit any combination of adults?  Why does the State need to recognize anything at all?

You already know the answer.  It’s because of the children involved…

I’m suprised no one wanted to tackle my prison marriage scenario…

I guess either no one arrived at the troubling questions that i have, or you all saw through them quickly, and won’t touch them with a ten foot pole…

To help focus the matter, i’ll quote Aaron, who said ”You don’t have a say, as far as I know, in which cell you are assigned regardless of marriage….”

As far as I know… no one has ever asked the question, as it relates to being married.  With prisons segregated sexually and marriage integrated sexually, the whole idea was a moot point.  But implicit in a right to marriage is a right to live together.  If SSM becomes legal, doesn’t this open new possibilities for same-sex prison marriage?  Which rights have the trump card—and which have a “rational basis”?

... or if that doesn’t interest you…

MI: As I’ve argued above, property, not procreation, is at the center of the state’s interest in marriage.

Actually you didn’t argue that point at all, merely stating the above based on an oblique reference earlier.  I’ll be happy to help you argue it, if you’re interested…

I didn’t realize it was an ongoing discussion.  The hypothetical doesn’t really make any sense to me because when you’re in prison, you’ve given up most of your rights.  the “right to live together” is in no way any higher a “right” than free speech and that is given up when you enter the prison walls.  I mean, if a particular prison wanted that to be their new policy (if two men “marry” they get to share a cell) whatever, I wouldn’t care at that point.  But what exactly is the point of the scenario you bring up?  It kinda seems off topic.

Yeah, but explicit in going to prison is that you forfeit certain rights.

True enough, but the SCOTUS has decided that the “right to marry” is not one of those that you forfeit.  And i understand that no one cares to argue the case, but surely we agree that it’s just a matter of time before a couple of inmates do just that.

I’m curious about how the court would rule, in such a case, and on what basis the decision would be made.  It doesn’t seem open+shut at all to me, because SSM would pit certain “human rights” against each other in a way that was never before possible.

So the hypothetical remains, for anyone not spending the weekend in the islands:  Assuming the partners already share a cell, what would their right to marry each other have to say about their right to remain in the same cell together… assuming no obvious security risk, of course…

But what exactly is the point of the scenario you bring up? It kinda seems off topic.

Yes very off topic, but i wont give away the punchline either, until i find someone willing to argue the case. It might not be as funny as i think it is…

But implicit in a right to marriage is a right to live together.

Yeah, but explicit in going to prison is that you forfeit certain rights.  I just really don’t think this is a debate where you’re going to find someone to argue the other side.

Actually you didn’t argue that point at all, merely stating the above based on an oblique reference earlier. I’ll be happy to help you argue it, if you’re interested…

Hm, check again, I mentioned property on 8/10, and it’s a theme that runs through my posts, but you’re right that I didn’t say “The state’s interest in marriage is based on property, and here’s why.” I am interested, but it may have to wait a while, as I’m off to Mackinac Island for a week, with nothing but sun, trees, and water.

I get it now, this is one big setup for a huge joke? ha!  You’re funny, Marty…

If two dudes were in the same cell and decided to get “married”, I don’t see why they would need to be split.

If I were a warden at a prison, I would make no special arrangements for “married” men, they get treated as if the marriage didn’t exsist.

If I were a warden at a prison, I would make no special arrangements for “married” men, they get treated as if the marriage didn’t exsist.

An acceptable, if unimaginative answer.  And totally unhelpful to my little dilemma.  We’ll see what the court has to say eventually…

Ha, sorry Marty.  I’m just not in the mood tonight, it’s waaaaay too hot to play that role.  Bring it up again sometime and I might play devil’s advocate…

There are at least two references above:

For a very long time, the purpose of marriage as a social structure had much more to do with financial interests then anything else. . . . If two people are going to merge their property, share their financial burdens, and act as guardian for one another in the case of incapacity of one of the parties, a formal structure needs to be in place. 

Regardless of whether it was clear or not, that is the basis of my argument.

When you remove procreation from the equation, you remove the State’s most signifigant interest of all — children. . . .You already know the answer. It’s because of the children involved…

You still want me to accept your thesis that the state’s primary interest in marriage is children, when I’ve already rejected the idea. Plenty of people have children without being married; if the state’s interest in children is so great, then why is birth out of wedlock legal?  Stating the answer for me as you do is simply a transparent attempt to keep the debate within the boundaries of your thesis.

So by your logic, why would we need any formalized legal union at all, if any sort of legal union can be created and customized to fit any combination of adults? Why does the State need to recognize anything at all?

The state’s interest is in property, and when two individuals decide to merge their property and debts, they need to define this relationship in a contract.  That’s why you still need a formalized union.  Boyfriends and girlfriends live together all the time now, but when they break up, there’s no instrument to guide the division of property.  This is why a civil union would be beneficial to gays and straights alike.

Softball practice:

The state’s interest [wrt marriage] is in property, and when two individuals decide to merge their property and debts, they need to define this relationship in a contract. That’s why you still need a formalized union.

They need a contract with respect to shared property holdings.  Not a “union"…

Boyfriends and girlfriends live together all the time now, but when they break up, there’s no instrument to guide the division of property.

Are property contracts so foreign to you?  Do not two people put their names on a lease or a mortgage every single day?  Why does the “division” of that property require anything approaching a marriage (aren’t you really talking about divorce anyway?), when contracts are already freely available in all sorts of made-to-fit arrangements that satisfy practically every imaginable situation, and enforceable in every court in the land? 

What “interest” is there for the State to formalize such things when the free market is working just fine? 

I could buy a house with my brother, but nobody would ever call that incest because such a contract has nothing to do with marriage. 

If you want to hold onto “property” as the basis for the State’s interest in Marriage, you’re going to have to do a little bit better than that.  Crap—i wish you would, but understand you have a plane to catch.  Thanks anyway, and catch lots of fish for us.

I’ll skip over the imperious affectation and stick with the actual debate, though it looks like there’s less of that now.

Why does the “division” of that property require anything approaching a marriage (aren’t you really talking about divorce anyway?), when contracts are already freely available in all sorts of made-to-fit arrangements that satisfy practically every imaginable situation, and enforceable in every court in the land?

All of these things are taken care of with one simple form: a civil union license. If any two adults can already arrange a contract for “practically every imaginable situation,” then why oppose a single contract that serves as a master agreement?

If any two adults can already arrange a contract for “practically every imaginable situation,” then why oppose a single contract that serves as a master agreement?

Oh there are many reasons to oppose SSM/CU.  But the above only serves to disprove your premise.  If any two adults can already arrange a contract for “practically every imaginable situation,” then what is the States interest in having a single contract that serves as a master agreement?
Whatever it is, it is very minor…

Actually i don’t.  I do not think the state’s interest in marriage is primarily related to property ownership.  And if property ownership is related at all to the state’s interest in marriage, i think it is a minor consideration at best.

You have yet to prove otherwise.

Oh there are many reasons to oppose SSM/CU.

That may be, but it’s not the question I asked.  If all of the benefits are already available to any two people with the will and resources to assemble the requisite series of contracts, then what reason is there to oppose the accumulation of those contract within one document?

If any two adults can already arrange a contract for “practically every imaginable situation,” then what is the States interest in having a single contract that serves as a master agreement?

The reduction of the paperwork and bureaucracy would yield cost savings.  The mere ease that it affords the citizenry.  There are always efforts to reduce work and waste in government, here’s one more.

Whatever it is, it is very minor…

You obviously have something in mind; what is the minor state interest that you think exists?

I do not think the state’s interest in marriage is primarily related to property ownership.

How about secondary?  Or even tertiary?  You’re conceding that it’s in the ballpark?

And if property ownership is related at all to the state’s interest in marriage, i think it is a minor consideration at best.

So now it has to be a major consideration?  The disposition of property, in general, is important to the state; one of the pillars of the US constitution, in fact, is interstate commerce.  Marriage is undoubtedly the most common form of property merger.

You have yet to prove otherwise.

And you have yet to answer this question:  If all of the benefits of marriage are already available to any two people with the will and resources to assemble the requisite series of contracts, then what interest is there in opposing the conglomeration of those contracts within one document?

MI: So now it has to be a major consideration?

Sigh, like trying to nail jello to the wall… considering what we were talking about was this earlier claim:

As I’ve argued above, property, not procreation, is at the center of the state’s interest in marriage. [em added]

Center/Major, whatever.  I’m still waiting for you to make the case that Property—and not Procreation—is at the “center” of the state’s interest in marriage.

My cards are on the table, why are you still shuffling the deck?

And you have yet to answer this question: If all of the benefits of marriage are already available to any two people with the will and resources to assemble the requisite series of contracts, then what interest is there in opposing the conglomeration of those contracts within one document?

But you’ve just changed the question.  Before it was “all the benefits of property rights” and now it has become “all the benefits of marriage”.  And what interest is there in opposing such conglermation?  That’s easy—because your standard of “any two people” is simply too low for something to be a Marriage.  If property was at the center of the state’s interest, you just might be right, and there would be no opposition.  But it’s not, and so neither are you.

The reduction of the paperwork and bureaucracy would yield cost savings. The mere ease that it affords the citizenry. There are always efforts to reduce work and waste in government, here’s one more.

There should NOT be anything EASY about getting married nor in dissolving that marriage.  People should have to WORK to get into it so they realize the choice they are making.  It SHOULD be HELL to get out of too.

But you’ve just changed the question.  Before it was “all the benefits of property rights” and now it has become “all the benefits of marriage”.

I did not use the phrase “all the benefits of property rights,” as you will see below.

Instance 1:
If any two adults can already arrange a contract for “practically every imaginable situation,” then why oppose a single contract that serves as a master agreement?

Instance 2:
If all of the benefits are already available to any two people with the will and resources to assemble the requisite series of contracts, then what reason is there to oppose the accumulation of those contract within one document?

Instance 3:
If all of the benefits of marriage are already available to any two people with the will and resources to assemble the requisite series of contracts, then what interest is there in opposing the conglomeration of those contracts within one document?

Obviously, I should have just copied and pasted the first one again rather than write it again off the top of my head, as it opened up the opportunity for you to take the obtuse route of claiming that these three questions are different.  You can certainly be niggling and claim that because the question is not worded exactly the same way, it’s a different question. 

Finally, your answer:

because your standard of “any two people” is simply too low for something to be a Marriage.

First, I’m not calling it a marriage; recall that, several posts ago, I said that the state should simply issue civil union licenses.  Second, it doesn’t answer the simple question of expedience.  If two people are going to go through the trouble of creating the entire series of contracts you say are available, then what is the harm in creating a single instument to achieve the same goals?

Nice, i just lost a very long and detailed response (not to mention 30 minutes of my friday night) because:

a.  Rob forgot to mark the required fields on his comment form

b. Rob doesn’t use client-side validation for simple forms

c.  Robs server-side error page doesn’t display the posted content, which it should, just in case:

d.  The page didn’t cache, and my [back] button refreshed it.

e.  all of the above.

PS:  Rob, your formatting buttons above should manually fire the onchange event for the message box.  The preview lag is annoying.

Have a good weekend everyone, and m.i., lets call it a draw.  You’d never have recovered from the devastating response i lost, so i guess it’s just as well anyway.

Hey, don’t blame me because you’re all thumbs.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Hey, don’t blame me because you’re all thumbs.

But it’s the easiest way to avoid answering the question . . .