It's off-topic, but may I poke yon motionless horse? I promise, if the horse doesn't budge, I'll let it lie. I offer the following as (dry) humor, and as a follow-up to the previous thread.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Court has decided that same-sex couples have the same right as heterosexual couples to marry.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney doesn't like that decision. In an editorial-page essay "Citizen's Guide to Protecting Marriage," Governor Romney calls on "fellow governors and all state legislators to review, and if necessary,[sic] to strengthen the laws concerning marriage."
Today, in a letter to the editor of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Gary Belis (New York) remarks:
"I am surmising that a significant part of the governor's guide was lost in transmission, since the published piece contains no measures that would affect heterosexual behavior and heterosexual unions. Allow me to make some suggestions:
"One marriage per customer. When a man and a woman promise to stay together 'till death do us part,' let's hold them to it.
"End tax breaks and other benefits for serial brides and grooms. If outlawing civil divorce is too drastic a step, why do we encourage multiple nuptials by treating a fourth marriage the same as we do a first marriage? Child tax credits should be limited to the products of the first marriage; if a divorcee chooses to have children by a new spouse, we can't stop her but the government shouldn't subsidize such behavior with additional tax benefits."
I'm glad to read of an American citizen showing some imagination, and pitching ideas to protect heterosexual marriage -- ideas that Governor Romney and President Bush have so far failed to air.
(For the record, I support gay couples who choose to form civil domestic partnerships in their state. I consider mine the equivalent of a marriage, and believe it should be treated as such by the federal government in matters of taxation and naturalization. Otherwise, I believe domestic partnership (which includes heterosexual marriage) is no business of the federal government. Whether you choose to call my domestic partnerships a "marriage" is up to you; that's a matter of free speech, and I defend it as strongly as I defend my domestic partnership.)
(And, for the record, I consider Gary Belis' suggestions to be an ironic "Modest Proposal" -- a solution so outrageous it shows us the error in the way we understand the problem.)
This message has been edited by DarrenDew on Mar 2, 2004 10:22 AM
Luthor, I'm afraid all that comes up is a questionnaire.
A comics writer who must go nameless once shocked me by proposing that the federal government should not recognize marriages of any kind, since they do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Everyone would be taxed equally, regardless of marital status.
It was the first statement I ever heard that I considered truly "anti-marriage." I have a hard time wrapping my brain around it to this day. And the dude ain't even an Objectivist!
______________________________________
"Hello, down there. This is your creator with a questionnaire."
"Hello up there. I don't have the time to fill out questionnaires."
-- from "Get In The Swing" by SPARKS
I'm not sure the "Unmarried by Choice" people oppose the institution of marriage. They say marriage must remain an option for those who find it necessary. They just don't find it necessary for themselves, and hope that other people will recognize their unmarried relationship as a legitimate form of relationship.
I frankly don't understand what they mean.
It sounds kinda like my relationship with Adam, sharing home and finances, committed but unlikely to wed, as planning to continue this way unless the relationship grows irretrievably poisonous.
Are the people at "Unmarried by Choice" hoping the federal government will recognize this kind of relationship as a civil union?
Perhaps they hope for recognition by the federal government the same as married couples in matters of taxation and naturalization. Or they want recognition by their state in matters of adoption, or employee benefits (if one of them works for the state).
Otherwise, what's the difference?
This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Feb 13, 2004 4:16 PM
I just posted it because it was tangentially interesting, it's not directly on-topic. Their focus is more on the social aspects of marriage, although they bring up the tax/benefits issues as well.
If a couple lives together for 10 years, they don't get as much approval from society as people who have been married for two years.
The language on the "Unmarried by Choice" board is a little unclear. It's puzzling that they forego marriage in order to escape obligations such wedding rings, the wife's use of the husband's name, joint finances, monogamy, sex, kids or even co-habitation; many married couples already treat these practices as optional, not obligatory.
Maybe the people at "Unmarried by Choice" feel those practices (and others) SHOULD be respected as obligatory parts of a marriage per se, and choose not to get married out of respect for the tradition, or simply to keep the definition of the word "marriage" as clear as possible.
I don't think that's there intention, but you never know.
Adam and I avoid the term "marriage" simply because we don't need it, and have established our relationship as a legal equivalent (within the realm of possibility). I would like the federal government and all state governments to recognize same-sex civil unions as the legal equivalent of marriages. I'm frustrated by those who insist same-sex unions be CALLED "marriages" -- because since when is the government in charge of what people CALL things? Free speech!
Congress and the courts have to power to recognize that same-sex unions as the LEGAL EQUIVALENT of marriages. But it's none of the government's business what those unions are CALLED.
If the "Unmarried by Choice" people want their relationships RESPECTED as much as marriages, gee, shall we LEGISLATE respect? Can't do that.
I think the only way to secure public respect is to win it through action, allowing the public to judge for themselves.
The UMC people have respect for the traditional marriage, they just don't think it should be given so much preferential treatment, and that other arrangements (like yours) should be recognized. For example, if my significant other and I had a child, it would be considered "illegitimate", not matter how dedicated we were to raising it right and taking care of it. And, of course, right now she is not eligible for any insurance benefits I get from work.
Hey Mike, I've checked the link & seems to work fine.
Are you just clicking on the part that says "Please Read First"? You need to scroll down to the part that
says "Serious Stuff" that's where it has a bunch of funny articles. Try this one: http://www.nomarriage.com/slave.html
I have to admit, the letter-writer in Mike's
original post does make some pretty good points...
And while I can't speak for Mr. Simko, I'm
GUESSING that his point was about how MLK
preached about universal brotherhood &
equality. And by discriminating against
homosexuals people are forgetting his message.
Although I don't believe MLK ever specifically
addressed gay rights, he did have a few associates
who were homosexual (a fact that J. Edgar Hoover
tried to use against him) & it's not difficult
to imagine that if he were alive today, MLK
would support the right of gay marriage, tho
again, that's just a guess on my part.
Now I do haveta say I am disgruntled by the Mayor of San Fran's actions, yesterday and today.
He is directly encouraging people to commit acts of civil disobedience and is himself participating in creating a shitstorm of controversy. He should be acting to change the law, if he feels it is onconstitutional, not circumventing the legal process by way of a four-day holiday, wherein a restraining order cannot be issued.
Thats just silly.
There's a difference between civil disobedience and boycott.
Civil disobedience is the public act of breaking a law which one finds morally outrageous. The purpose is to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the law in order to alert the public and encourage legal change.
One may, for example, refuse to answer the draft. Or one may sit on in a restricted seat on a bus. Or a bar owner in New York City may invite his customers to smoke and dance AS IF THIS WAS FUCKING NEW YORK CITY, MOTHERFUCKERS. Those acts, done appropriately and with public notice, may be act of civil disobediance.
To commit civil disobedience to protest the law, a cleric or Justice of The Peace or a shipcaptain in neutral waters may refuse to marry a couple. Or an employer may refuse to recognize a couple as married.
But there is no such thing as "civil general misbehavior." Or if there is, I prefer the more classic term: tantrum.
If you hate laws that recognize same-sex couples as "married," change the laws by voting, by lobbying and by making your opinion known to your representative.
Chaz wrote: "For example, if my significant other and I had a child, it would be considered "illegitimate", not matter how dedicated we were to raising it right and taking care of it. And, of course, right now she is not eligible for any insurance benefits I get from work."
_______________________________________
I found an employer who recognizes my domestic partnership as the equivalent of a marriage, at least as regards benefits and insurance. I guess that's pretty standard in big media businesses in NYC; I don't have much experience elsewhere (except self-employed/freelance).
If you were to form a domestic partnership with yourrrr... "spouse-like friend," would your company treat her as your spouse as my company does Adam?
JEEZ, does MY company recognize heterosexual domestic partnerships?
I consider the actions of San Francisco's mayor to be the leftist equivalent of Roy Moore's 10 Commandments debacle in Alabama. By all means, stand up for what you believe in, but an elected official defying the law to promote personal opinion and belief is inappropriate as well as ridiculous.
No, they've already told me we have to be married in order for her to get the benefits. It's a shame to "sell out", but it wouldn't matter if we were married or not if she was sick and dying with no healthcare available.
That's really cool that your employer recognizes you and Adam's partnership. I had no idea this was being done. I guess that's one of the differences between places like NYC and small-town West Virginia, though.
edited to add: "spouse-like friend"
Actually, I usually refer to her as my wife, using the term "wife" to mean "chosen mate" or whatever. I'd probably use another term but I'm not sure what would fit and be recognized by people in conversation!
This message has been edited by chazervin on Feb 13, 2004 6:55 PM
I recently learned that until the middle ages marriage was an entirely secular matter. Then people began to ask the church to bless their marriages and to recognize the sacred nature of their union and soon marriage became a sacrament. Now some are suggesting marriage be entirely reserved for the church and the secular government should stay out of the marriage biz.
Doesn't prove anything, just something I found interesting.
That may have been true at some points in history, but not completely. Tomorrow's holiday is named after an early Christian priest who performed marriage ceremonies in defiance of a Roman law that forbade soldiers from marrying. He was executed around the 3rd or 4th century, but a later emperor repealed the law. Valentine was canonized because and made the patron saint of love and marriage because of his actions and his martyrdom.
"To commit civil disobedience to protest the law, a cleric or Justice of The Peace or a shipcaptain in neutral waters may refuse to marry a couple. Or an employer may refuse to recognize a couple as married.
If you hate laws that recognize same-sex couples as "married," change the laws by voting, by lobbying and by making your opinion known to your representative."
Waitasecond. I got the impression that the cause of this action was that these marriages were not legal, as the law currently stands.
Isn't the mayor encouraging action now, as there is a public moratorium and high-focus at present, AND there is no way to overrule his order to issue marriage certificates? I thought NOW is the reason behind it, the timing, specifically. If this IS legal action, then why did it make the news at all?
ORIGINAL LIST (AGE 22):
1. Handsome
2. Charming
3. Financially successful
4. A caring listener
5. Witty
6. In good shape
7. Dresses with style
8. Appreciates finer things
9. Full of thoughtful surprises
10. An imaginative, romantic lover
REVISED LIST (AGE 32):
1. Nice looking (prefer hair on his head)
2. Opens car doors, hold chairs
3. Has enough money for a nice dinner
4. Listens more than talks
5. Laughs at my jokes
6. Carries bags of groceries with ease
7. Owns at least one tie
8. Appreciates a good home-cooked meal
9. Remembers birthdays and anniversaries
10. Seeks romance at least once a week
REVISED LIST (AGE 42):
1. Not too ugly (bald head OK)
2. Doesn't drive off until I'm in the car
3. Works steady - splurges on dinner out occasionally
4. Nods head when I'm talking
5. Usually remembers punch lines of jokes
6. Is in good enough shape to rearrange the furniture
7. Wears a shirt that covers his stomach
8. Knows not to buy champagne with screw-top lids
9. Remembers to put the toilet seat down
10. Shaves most weekends
REVISED LIST (AGE 52):
1. Keeps hair in nose and ears trimmed
2. Doesn't belch or scratch in public
3. Doesn't borrow money too often
4. Doesn't nod off to sleep when I'm venting
5. Doesn't retell the same joke too many times
6. Is in good enough shape to get off couch on weekends
7. Usually wears matching socks and fresh underwear
8. Appreciates a good TV dinner
9. Remembers my name on occasion
10. Shaves some weekends
REVISED LIST (AGE 62):
1. Doesn't scare small children
2. Remembers where bathroom is
3. Doesn't require much money for upkeep
4. Only snores lightly when asleep
5. Remembers why he's laughing
6. Is in good enough shape to stand up by himself
7. Usually wears clothes
8. Likes soft foods
9. Remembers where he left his teeth
10. Remembers that it's the weekend
REVISED LIST (AGE 72):
1. Breathing
2. Doesn't miss the toilet
My spouse-like same-sex domestic partner, JonnyWannabe, tells me on TV this morning Bush officially announced his pursuit of a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to male/female couples.
JonnyWannabe also tells me I can watch it when I get home if I like; he taped it unintentionally BECAUSE IT INTERRUPTED ELLEN DEGENERES.
Some may call that "adding insult to injury." But at least it's funny.
The Republican Party routinely trips up on issues of "morality". If they had a more contemporary outlook on social issues to go along with their economic outlook, I don't believe they'd be defeatable in any election.
As it is, I can't imagine many people being swayed to Dubya's side because he's pushing to ban gay marriages. I can imagine many people being swayed to Kerry's side simply by him not favouring a ban. It seems to be turning into a '00s version of the abortion issue.
<edited to point out that was a joke, a stereotypically queenie joke>
<because, you see, queenie gays are stereotypically depicted as very self-involved>
<aheh>
<is this thing on?>
This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Feb 24, 2004 4:38 PM This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Feb 24, 2004 4:36 PM This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Feb 24, 2004 4:35 PM This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Feb 24, 2004 4:33 PM
Linda-"The Republican Party routinely trips up on issues of "morality". If they had a more contemporary outlook on social issues to go along with their economic outlook, I don't believe they'd be defeatable in any election."
Well said. When I was younger (before puberty) I was usually on the Republican side of things, but the older I got the more I realized their self-righteousness was a problem for me. It's a problem for them too--they've always claimed to be the "get government out of our lives" party, but their inability to separate religion and politics will always hold them back from being that.
I've just got two words for all of those homosexuals down in SF who are so eager to get married that they're willing to break the law, & finally give Dubya a campaign issue for reelection (since he sure can't run on his record): PRENUPTUAL. AGREEMENT.
Whatever your orientation, if you get married in this country without one you're an idiot.
If the government would get out of marriage altogether, prenups wouldn't be necessary. Why should marrying someone give you the right to half their property? Unfortunately, divorce laws are one more way parasites can thrive in this country.
Capitalism recognizes my "spouse" while Bush does not
February 25 2004, 11:22 AM
My employer treats same-sex couples the same as married couples -- as regards benefits -- IF they register as "domestic partners" according to these stipulations:
1) we share a bank account and living expenses (a lease, in our case)
2) we live together
3) we state our intention to remain together
4) we have a statement of these points (plus documentation demonstrating points 1&2) notarized by a Notary Public
My employer offers several insurance benefits programs. Some of the insurance companies recognize same-sex domestic partnerships. Some do not. Obviously, I picked those that do. JonnyWannabe is fully covered -- even for vision!
Was that so hard?
( Gosh, I hope my employer isn't subverting civilization by recognizing my domestic partnership as equivalent to a marriage! )
Geez, Mike, do you care at all about all the heterosexual marriages you're DESTROYING the SANCTITY of? Civilization is doomed! I going to strip naked and go live out in the woods with a big stick for protection so I can be ready.
Wall St. Journal (which I sing to the tune of The Special's CONCRETE JUNGLE)
February 25 2004, 12:24 PM
Chaz wrote: "I going to strip naked and go live out in the woods with a big stick for protection so I can be ready."
_________________________
That would also make you ready to attend our annual summer barbecue. An invitation is in the mail.
Butseriouslyfolks
Debate is important, so let's check in with Mary Ann Glendon, the Harvard "Learned Hand" law professor who writes a WALL STREET JOURNAL opinion piece today titled "For Better or for Worse."
Ms. Glendon does what President Bush fails to do -- she suggests ways "the radical social experiment called 'gay marriage'" might have "economic and social costs." HOORAY for Ms. Glendon and her interest in responsible debate (instead of emotional hysteria).
She indicates that retroactive social-security survivor benefits would cost taxpayers a great deal of money. (She's talking about Canada in her example, but it seems fair to imagine comparable problems here in the US.)
She suggests that parenting (or the likelihood of parenting) is the reason our country gives special preference to heterosexual married couples. She finds heterosexual married couples much more likely to have children than homosexual couples. Parents have special expenses that most homosexual couples do not suffer. She asks, “Shouldn’t citizens be given a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?”
She expects that same-sex marriage would jeopardize the rights of children by confirming officially that kids do not need both a mother and a father, “that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together.” She warns that schools would teach this model of parenting in schools.
Children would also be taught about homosexual sex in sex-ed and “marriage preparation classes”, she suggests.
She sees jeopardy for religious freedom, as well. “Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against… Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.”
She closes by pointing out that courts and local officials have exceeded their legal powers by defying the law and authorizing same-sex marriages without appropriate democratic process -- illegally, in other words. She quotes Bush, saying public deliberation must be conducted “in a manner worthy of our country – without bitterness or anger.”
<< edited to clarify speaker>>
This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Feb 25, 2004 12:30 PM This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Feb 25, 2004 12:27 PM
It's refreshing to hear an intelligent opinion from the conservatives.
While it's true about the kids thing, it's not always true. Married or not, I don't plan on ever having them, so should my wife and I still be given preferential treatment because we can have kids, over a homosexual couple who has them? Besides, I haven't heard any cases of homosexual couples abusing children under their care yet or failing to support them*, so anybody who wants to tell me that preference should be given to the nuclear family is going to have to come up with something better than "a child needs a mother and father."
As for the religious freedom, I don't think legalizing gay marriage, civil unions, or whatever should change church procedures. If a church refuses to marry homosexuals, fine, those couples can go join another church, and the church has the right to set their rules. Switching governments is a little tougher.
Edited to add:
*I'm not saying children are safer with homosexual parents, but I haven't heard a convincing argument yet that the traditional mother-father arrangement is superior to other situations.
This message has been edited by chazervin on Feb 25, 2004 12:49 PM
I'm accustomed to hearing intelligent statements from conservatives, actually, and therefore dismayed when I hear otherwise.
Chaz wrote: "Mike, do you care at all about all the heterosexual marriages you're DESTROYING the SANCTITY of?"
I know you were making fun, implying that the current defensive posture toward marriage is hysterical. I agree hysteria deserves mockery. I do not however intend to discount marriage. I think marriage is good. I think nuclear families can be good, offering benefits that other models of family can not. Heterosexual marriages and the nuclear-model family often suck bigtime, but I don't discount their special value when they work right.
JonnyWannabe agrees, although he has seen many more toxic marriages than I have, and at closer range.
>> She indicates that retroactive social-security survivor benefits would cost taxpayers a great deal of money. <<
This is a false argument of the "We can't make this right because that is already implemented wrongly" variety. Using an institutionalised mistake to justify not fixing another mistake. There shouldn't be a Social Security system in the first place.
>> She suggests that parenting (or the likelihood of parenting) is the reason our country gives special preference to heterosexual married couples. She finds heterosexual married couples much more likely to have children than homosexual couples. Parents have special expenses that most homosexual couples do not suffer. She asks, “Shouldn’t citizens be given a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?” <<
One would expect sharper perception from someone who writes for a financial news service. The tax benefits of having children only hold true if you have children. Duh. There's little preferential treatment for childless couples. The benefits you get from simply being married are in place as an incentive to keep familial stability. There's no difference, generally speaking, between the stability afforded by a partnership between a woman and a man, or two people of the same gender. A household is a household.
>> She expects that same-sex marriage would jeopardize the rights of children by confirming officially that kids do not need both a mother and a father, “that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together.” She warns that schools would teach this model of parenting in schools. <<
Sigh.
First of all, schools already teach this, along with every other "Liberal Cause Of The Week" that comes across Principal's desk. It's irrelevant because of the Great Genetic Safety Lock which nature provides to children ~ they hate school on instinct, they reject most of what they're fed in school for this reason.
Since homosexual couples cannot have children through natural means, it leaves them with adoption or a third-party childbearer as choices. Adoption is a GREAT thing to do for an orphan if the potential parent or parents are reasonably decent people, regardless of their sexual orientation it's far superior to children being raised by the State. (Deliberately creating children for single people is an apalling act of ego and should be made illegal. Adoption of existing children by single people, I certainly don't have a problem with.)
>> Children would also be taught about homosexual sex in sex-ed and “marriage preparation classes”, she suggests. <<
It's only a "problem" if one presumes that homosexual sex is (1) aberrant, and (2) a choice. Doesn't current science posit that homosexuality is simply an inborn trait? Teaching children about its existence in school is not going to make homosexuals out of heterosexuals anymore than showing kids pictures of people with different skin colours will turn a Black child White.
>> She sees jeopardy for religious freedom, as well. “Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against… Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.” <<
This already happens regarding other issues, and it's bullshit. Religions are separate from the State, they're "private clubs" which should be allowed to make their own rules for membership, same as members should be allowed to start their own offshoot branches if they're not being serviced correctly in the current model.
>> She closes by pointing out that courts and local officials have exceeded their legal powers by defying the law and authorizing same-sex marriages without appropriate democratic process -- illegally, in other words. <<
THIS I totally agree with. What those "officials" are doing is very, very dangerous and makes a mockery of the Constitution. Today it's something we agree with ~ but perhaps tomorrow it will be their next fad, that we don't agree with. Those "public servants" who are breaking the laws they were voted in to uphold are disgraces, not heroes.
But if I were Dubya, or Ahnold, I'd have fired the lot of them and then started proceedings to institutionalise gay marriage legally.
I consider conservatives to be intelligent too, Mike, when it comes to political and economic issues--taxes, national defense, crime.
Unfortunately, they throw their intelligence out the window when it comes to social issues (like this one, or drugs), preferring to cling to religious ideas and mindless tradition that they insist this country was founded on.
You might get the impression from me that I'm very left-wing and anti-conservative, but on most issues I am extremely to the right or, less often, extremely to the left. If I may quote Bill Maher "I'd side with the Republicans if they would be Republicans." They spend money and interfere in our lives just like the Democrats.
And I'm not against the nuclear family (I grew up in one), I'm just sick of hearing about its supposed superiority to other families. I don't even think you should get a tax credit for having kids.
I usually side with the conservatives because the issues they agree with me on--national defense, crime, gun control--are more important to me than others. However, there is a tendency in the political culture to try to please everybody--we end up with people who don't stand for anything at all, at least when asked directly.
Linda-"Deliberately creating children for single people is an apalling act of ego and should be made illegal."
I've never really heard that argument before, Linda. Could you expand on it? (Not agreeing or disagreeing, I just want to know more about your opinion on this.)
Interesting bit on your workplace. Kudos to the employer. Are the same offers made to comitted opposite-sex couples as well, provided the same requirements are met?
>> I've never really heard that argument before, Linda. Could you expand on it? <<
Sure. If you accept that children have, statistically, the best chance at growing up emotionally stable and capable of living a responsible, self-reliant adulthood by being raised in a standard household with caretaking by both a female and male parent, then the deliberate creation of new children should only be done by people who can (hypothetically) provide that kind of upbringing to the child.
For pre-existing children, this notion of "close to ideal" has to go out the window, because any reasonably decent person, whether single or partnered, is a better choice for raising a child than the State. A single woman, single man, a pair of same-sex parents, all of these are preferable to the State.
My opinion is that it's a horrific act of ego to deliberately bring a new child into the world when you're alone. I'm not talking about the mother who decides to leave an abusive husband before the baby is born, or similarly unforeseen events. Not talking about an "unplanned" baby which the mother chooses to keep. I mean the single~and~intends~to~remain~so person who nevertheless decides s/he "must have an HEIR" with their own genetics, purchases sperm from a bank, hires a third party to carry the baby, whatever. That's an irresponsible creation of life for purely ego-based reasons, which right there is an indication of the person's inappropriateness for being able to care for someone else.
I certainly do understand how a person might desire to have a child, yet not be good at partnership with another adult. But that's one of the situations that adoptions are ideally suited for.
Bob wrote: "Interesting bit on your workplace. Kudos to the employer. Are the same offers made to comitted opposite-sex couples as well, provided the same requirements are met?"
_______________________________
I looked into that, and found the company does not recognize committed opposite-sex couples in the same way. I find this insane.
The company apparently offers recognition of domestic partnership to same-sex couples only because we can't get married, and presumes we would if we could.
JonnyWannabe and I have no plans to wed, should it become legal.
Is it unethical for us, then, to accept benefits as domestic partners if we have no intention to wed?
Good question.
I think our interest in marrying might increase if I knew it would keep him in contact lenses and health insurance. THAT I do not find unethical. Unromantic, perhaps, but we make up for that in other ways.
Daddio, no offense meant, dude. I wasn't talking about you. I know you're from, well let's just say an
"earlier generation" than I am, so it's different. I'm sure in your day these things weren't very common or talked about. I'm talking about people who get married in this day & age, with all of the divorce statistics out there. It's simpy illogical to not prepare for the worst, I don't care how unromantic it seems. Ecspecially if you're marrying someone with significantly less money than you. In most cases that's the man, but this goes for women too. If Oprah Winfrey, who is a BILLIONAIRE according to Forbes magazine, ever marries that Stedman guy or any other man, then she damn well better get a prenup. If not, then I think she's an idiot.
It's sort of like smokers. People who started smoking back in the 50's-60's are victims, because the tabacco companies lied to them, & the media promoted smoking (it's "settles the stomach after a good meal") so people didn't know it was bad for them. But when I see teenagers or people in their 20's & 30's who smoke, then they are idiots, because EVERYBODY knows that it's bad for you. It says so on every single box of cigarettes! Duh. There's no benifit at all. And for the past 20+ years that has been common knowledge. So I can't think of any sane reason for anyone to pick up a pack & start smoking in this day & age.
I feel that way about alcohol, skiing and dieting. All of which have been proven to damage the people who engage in the activity. I put it to you that drinkers, skiers and dieters are "idiots".
You have a right to feel that I'm an idiot for smoking. What you don't have a right to do is to restrict what I can do to my own body, nor I you. The argument you outlined just now, it's usually used as the preface to "... and this is why we must have LAWS AGAINST IT". Careful where you go, eh?
Okay, alcohol & skiing I get, but dieting? How do you lump that in there?
But some can say that a glass of wine a day can help prevent heart disease, & skiing can be seen as a form of exercise, even marijuana allegedly has some medicinal benefits. But there's just no reason for cigarette smoking.
In any case, please don't lump me in with all of those anti-smoking wackos. I do NOT agree with the various smoking bans. I'm a committed capitalist. And in a capitalist society I believe people should be allowed to run their businesses how they see fit. If a restaurant owner wants to allow smoking in his restaurant, then he or she should be able to do that. Patrons can then choose whether or not they want to eat in that restaurant based on the fact that it allows smoking, & waiters, waitresses, cooks & bellboys can decide whether or not they want to work in a restaurant that allows smoking. And the same rules apply if an owner doesn't want to allow smoking in their restaurant. In either case, someone is not going to like the rules, & it's up to the boss to decide which segment of the community they want to cater to. THAT'S the American way!
At the same time, & I'm about to get a bit morbid here so please bear with me, if you should, please GOD forbid, develop lung cancer then I don't believe you have any right to sue the tobacco companies for medical expenses. Or if you marry a nonsmoker who gets lung cancer via second hand smoke, he knew you smoked when he asked you to marry him, so that was his fault (unless he put that you would quit smoking after marriage in the prenup, of course). And in the absolute WORST CASE SCENARIO, if you should die, I don't believe your son should be able to sue for half a billion dollars or anything, because his mother made her own choice to start smoking. That's the American way too.
"Listen up people, haven't you heard? Tobacco is wack, yo, that's the word."
This message has been edited by LuthorDare on Feb 26, 2004 8:51 PM
"*I'm not saying children are safer with homosexual parents, but I haven't heard a convincing argument yet that the traditional mother-father arrangement is superior to other situations."
I have. Social workers across the country agree that the best placement for children is in a two-parent home, where good "modelling" of adults in both genders is readily available. In single gender households, "a friend" "babysitter" or something similar just doesn't fulfill that role.
This comes from extensive parenting courses and dealing with foster children. While it could be argued that these are "problem children" and NEED that extra stability, I really haven't found that to be the case, not the impression given by any social workers.
Now, placments in non-traditional homes do happen, but they do speak of the traditional "Mom and Pop" home as optimal.
"Daddio, no offense meant, dude. I wasn't talking about you. I know you're from, well let's just say an
"earlier generation" than I am, so it's different. I'm sure in your day these things weren't very common or talked about."
DAD: Good lord. Wanna go for another insult? Do you think I'm sixty? As your editor, I'll ask for a rewrite.
[snip]
It's sort of like smokers. People who started smoking back in the 50's-60's are victims, because the tobacco companies lied to them, & the media promoted smoking (it's "settles the stomach after a good meal") so people didn't know it was bad for them. But when I see teenagers or people in their 20's & 30's who smoke, then they are idiots, because EVERYBODY knows that it's bad for you. It says so on every single box of cigarettes! Duh. There's no benifit at all. And for the past 20+ years that has been common knowledge. So I can't think of any sane reason for anyone to pick up a pack & start smoking in this day & age.
DAD: Uh, no, they are "victims" only by the reckoning of today's standards, which is out of line with reaonable thinking. People now are just the same as they were then, and smoking has always been known to be generally bad for you. The "Its healthy!" ads were from a little further back.
Shoot, no one cared what other kindsa crap they were pumping into their bodies in the sixties! Why would they worry about tobacco of all things?
Ther'es never been any sane reason to smoke, except that its "Cool." I say this as a former smoker! Thats why I smoked, and I got to really enjoy it! But mostly, it was cool.
Sorry again, Daddio. I have no idea how old you are, but I just made an assumption that you were probably in your 40's or 50's. That wasn't meant as an insult,
I hope I make it to my 50's & beyond. I know from "that other board" that you're an "old school" comic book fan, & you made a comment here that your name used to be confused with the phrase "daring do" which isn't a very familiar phrase anymore so I assumed that it was some time ago.
I guess it's true what they say: When you ASSUME you
make an ASS of U and ME.
My bad.
So going with that assumption, I was trying to say that I wouldn't call you an idiot for getting married without a prenup because people in that age-range typically got married when they were younger, like right out of high school or college, & things like prenups weren't so common. But I'd say that within the last 10 to 15 years these things have become really neccessary. I know it sucks to think about stuff like that, when getting married no one wants to admit that marriage is about money. But get a divorce & then you'll see how suddenly it ALL comes down to money.
On http://www.peterdavid.net/, Peter David wrote: "I don't understand how anyone--including Bush--can advocate a ban on gay marriage. And Kerry's no different. 'Let's have civil unions instead.' Because separate but equal is a time honored tradition in bias, and apparently gays are the new Negros."
A lot of well-meaning friends have assured me they believe gays have a right to "marriage" just like heterosexual couples. They say civil unions are insufficient even if same-sex couple in those unions would enjoy all the same rights as married couples. Civil unions strike them as a "separate but equal" kind of compromise, and therefore evil.
I agree discriminatory "separate but equal" models are evil, but I don't find civil unions to be an instance of one. If JonnyWannabe and I enjoy the exact same privileges as a "married" couple -- that's EQUAL. That's not separate. We'd have the same civil officer as any heterosexual couple -- a Justice of The Peace, not a special gay Justice of The Peace. We'd apply for a civil union license from a municiple clerk just like any heterosexual couple. We'd be taxed just like any heterosexual couple. We would use all the same facilities.
The only "separation" would be semantic. Some people would insist on referring to us as a "couple in a civil union" instead of "married." Fine! Freedom of speech is their right.
Yet I know some friends would call me an Auntie Tom, acceding to second-class treatment. I don't see HOW a civil union would be second-class. Oh, I know that most churches would consider civil unions second-class (or worse) but holy smokes, since when do faggots expect approval from any church?
You can demand equal legal treatment. You can't demand respect. Well, you can demand it -- but that's no way to get it.
(Peter David's question whether gays "are the new Negros" was clumsy. It seems to compare the unfair discrimination facing people who are gay with that facing people who are black. I don't see them as comparable. It also seems to imply that the unfair discrimination against people who are black is now over, all fixed, no longer a problem. That has not been my observation, and I apologize if the quote sounds dismissive or rude. I'm sure that was not his intent.)
Okay...everyone sit down, because the day has actually occurred where I have a similar view with PAD.
I don't know what his intent was, but I had a conversation not long ago and made a similar statement to someone who was trying to "logically" argue against gay marriages, but ultimately couldn't defend it with anything other that "I just feel that way".
I personally wasn't trying to imply that the race barrier is gone, but that the people railing against gay marriages are the same type who were doing it to mixed-race marriages 30 years ago.
Your comments get to the root of the problem, Mike. There are a lot of people who think homosexuals shouldn't get the economic benefits of marriage, but I think the real issue is that "sanctity" thing: Let those dirty fags have what they want when it comes to taxes, insurance, or whatever, but don't call it a marriage because that's insulting to all the "proper" marriages.
...but I agree with almost everyone, to an extent.
Lessee, here. First, it shouldn't excite too many gays to force acceptance on the "Church"; it ain't really ever gonna happen is it? So the civil union, legal route is really the only logical route to take. A JOP marries you and thats good emuff in the eyes of the law.
I do see it in a slightly different eye, since I am an adoptive parent and don't truly feel that single gender households are as well-rounded for certain social upbringing situations. So long as that is adressed within the school of "social protection of children", meaning that civil unions are viewed in the same regard as marriages, but also viewed through a sociological window, wherein determination isn't ruled discrimination, fine. A single-gender household can be considered, but needs to be well-rounded, and be the best option for the child at risk.
So, I am against mucking with the Constitution, except for very good reasons. There are some out there right now, but I don't see this as one of them. Especially in light of the last 30 years of Supreme Court rulings regarding "separation of church and state" I cannot see this one making it through that gauntlet.
However, also feel that some of the issues brought up are important ones and need to be redressed. One argument used is that partners don't have the same financial benefits that "married" couples do. While this has been proven to be a "sometimes" issue, I think most people would agree. But THAT (benefits) is not a "right" protected by anything. We need to be careful in our consideration of what we are doing financially, on a large scale. If we automatically create 20 million new spouses eligible for benefits, what does that do to already skyrocketing insurance rates. Keeping those numbers down to "eligible" people is in the best interests of the people already benefiting from those plans, and opening the floodgates is not in their best interests, personal opinions aside!
Chaz wrote: "I think the real issue is that "sanctity" thing: Let those dirty fags have what they want when it comes to taxes, insurance, or whatever, but don't call it a marriage because that's insulting to all the 'proper' marriages."
________________________________
I am FINE with that.
Let those who recognize same-sex unions as legit refer to them as "marriages," if they like.
Those who don't, let them call same-sex unions "abominations" or "fake marriages" or "civil unions" or "dogs and candy canes." Who said I am entitled to respect?
Only a fool tries to legislate respect. Let me live my little civil union (or in my current case, my "domestic partnership"), and let others judge me as they may.
Referring back to a previous point:
Some so-called "cultural conservatives" (talk about your devaluated language!) are just as incensed by the idea of legal same-sex "unions" as they are "marriages." The writer of the second WSJ editorial (above) warns that legal same-sex unions will teach schoolkids that... "traditional" families are no better, in any sense. THAT's how gay unions threaten The Family, supposedly.
Legal gay unions would serve as propaganda, in effect showing kids there is no good reason to pursue a "traditional nuclear" model for their own families--
--which would result in later generations of poor parents, poor care for one's own elderly parents, and poor conservation of other traditions (since bad parents would fail to teach those other traditions effectively.
I think it's just plain wrong to deny any person the same rights as their neighbours enjoy, if they conduct their lives in an equally law-abiding manner. We don't see heterosexuals being denied the right to marry even when they prove they're neither good spouses nor good parents.
Incidentally, I would be offended if you don't call it a marriage. "Civil union" sounds like a politically correct divisively hyphenated buzz phrase for politicans to "not offend anyone with". Better call it a marriage when you get married or I'll be offended by YOU, Mike.
As I said, Jonnywannabe and I have no plans to get married (unless it becomes necessary as an act of civil disobedience). We just don't need the presents.
Linda, I completely agree that the terms "same-sex civil union" and "domestic partnership" and "spouse-like partner" are ugly, ugly, clumsy fucking neologisms. That's one reason I DON'T insist anyone be compelled by law to call gay civil unions "marriages." I think most people would soon call them "marriages" simply because the other expressions are so fucking awful (and long. Sheer verbal laziness will lead Americans to call it "marriage" before long.)
I see that Rosie O'Donnell has just married he female
companion in SF. Good for her, but...I hope she hope she got a prenup if she wants to hold on to all of that talk show money she made.
I know that I'm starting to sound like a cynical, heartless, unromantic bastard here, which is not what I want to sound like, so let me try to explain myself one last time.
For the record, I AM a cynical, heartless, unromantic bastard, I just don't want to sound like one. After this I'll drop the subject, I swear.
Regrding Mr. Bennett's comment, prenups aren't just for people who already have a lot of money, because
you never know what could end up happening. You can be a junior executive at a Fortune 500 company when you get married but be a senior vice president when you get divorced. And the divorce court doesn't care who made what, it's all community property. If you make $500,000 & your wife makes $20,000, they're going to split it up & give you each $260,000. And if you have
kids, then she gets custody & the house while you're paying alimony & child support, because she has to
"maintain her standard of living."
Nevermind that YOUR standard of living will drop because you're now supporting 2 seperate housholds.
And they can always fo back to court if you start making more money. I just read about how the mother of Sean "P. Diddy" Combs' first child wants to raise her child support from $5000 a month to $30,000 a month, because God knows you can't properly raise a child on a measly $60,000 a year. Her reasoning is that he makes a lot more now then he did when they agreed to the original amount, & that when he has the kid he can afford to do more things with him than she can.
So why doesn't she start a record company & make her own money like he did?
And speaking of credit, say you have good credit but you marry someone who either has bad credit or ends up running up a ton of credit card bills while you're married. You could end up liable for those debts & your credit gets screwed.
And there are plenty of non-monetary concerns that prenups can be useful for discussing before marriage.
Where will you live? Do you plan to have kids? How many? What religion, if any, will they be raised in?
If one of your parents ends up infirm, how will you take care of them? Will they come live with you or will you check them into a nursing home? That sort of thing.
This is why I have no problem with gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, marriage is basically 2 people forming a personal legal corporation, so why can't 2 men or 2 women do it?
Now you've made me feel like a geezer as well, Luthor.
BTW, just so you know, I'm divorced and I have the house, the van, and the kids. It doesn't always happen the way you describe. Indeed, in the past year I've discovered that fathers raising kids alone is more common than I thought.
If that's how you view marriage, then of course a prenup is only logical. Most people don't view marriage as a business deal, though. I don't know if I'll ever get married again, but I doubt I would bother with a prenup unless she wanted one, or if I needed to do it to make sure my kids were provided for.
And of course people don't think about marriage as a business deal. Nobody wants to think of it that way.
Everyone who gets married thinks it'll last forever. Everyone knows plenty of divorced people but they all think they will be different. And when you already have kids that's really the time to have a prenup if you get remarried. But good for you for having come through it the way you did. But if you have kids then that's when you REALLY need to have a prenup if you get remarried, because statistically speaking, 2nd marriages have a bigger failure rate then 1st marriges. And I hope some of what I said hasn't come off as if I'm just distrustful of women, because this all applies to them too. As I said before, if Oprah ever gets married I'd advise her to get a prenup. And you know the Hilton sisters & Donald Trump's daughters are going to have prenups, & they should, because sometimes men can screw over women in divorce. And sometimes men do get lucky like you & get the kids & the house.
And sometimes women sexually harrass men.
And sometimes gay guys beat up straight guys.
And sometimes Black cops pull over White drivers for no reason.
And sometimes fat people make fun of skinny people.
Interesting bit of history: At the beginning of this century, American women who married foreign citizens became citizens of their husbands' countries, and lost their American citizenship! Men who married foreign citizens retained American citizenship, and their wives became American citizens!
To allow husbands and wives the same rights regarding citizenship was apparently not a violation of the "sanctity" of marriage. But why would it be?
LINDA: thank you, I'll invite JonnyWannabe to join us.
"--which would result in later generations of poor parents, poor care for one's own elderly parents, and poor conservation of other traditions (since bad parents would fail to teach those other traditions effectively."
That argument would hold water, except for the fact that there is a lot of this happening already in traditional marriages.
As for the "civil union" vs. "marriage" thing, maybe I'm a bit uninformed here. Is there any legal difference between the two? I had assumed there was not. If not, I doubt saying "civil union" instead of "gay marriage" is going to appease the traditionalists.
Calling for public debate about his proposed marriage amendment, President Bush said:
"We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."
___________________________________
TO CHAZ: I wrote this before I saw your post. I think you might find it relevant.
____________________________________
The full proposed amendment reads:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marriage status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
The bolds are mine, obviously.
_____________________________________
A Mister William McHenry of Stowe, Ohio writes to the WALL STREET JOURNAL (Monday, March 1, 2004):
"[Once the amendment is ratified], if state teachers' retirement survivorship benefits are legislated for gay couples, and a third party sues to prevent them from being distributed, the courts will have no choice but to side with that third party, because anything else whould be construing that incident of marriage be conferred upon the gay couple."
Mr. McHenry defies the JOURNAL to prove otherwise.
Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, Republican, recognized same-sex couples as equivalent to marriage couples in matters regarding benefits paid to Commonwealth civil servants and public employees. Domestic partners of social studies teachers, for example, got the same health benefits as spouses. I'm not sure if Weld's policy applied the same to partners of the opposite sex, but Bill was SUPER COOL, so I bet it did. The proposed amendment would put an end to that type of public policy as soon as one grouchy "third party" complained in court.
I don't see a way the amendment would prevent private businesses from recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships... but I betcha mean muthah would seek a way, making my bolds everyone's bolds.
____________________________________
Back to Objectivism:
I do not see where the Constitution gives the federal government any power or responsibility to recognize any marriage, or to confer special "legal incidents" upon married couples, nevermind same-sex civil unions.
Is that were Objectivism would leave it? If we agree to hope, as per Linda, that our discussions here might one day interest Steve Ditko somehow -- and if Steve as an Objectivist would find the debate pointless -- then, shall we leave this debate now?
Or does my understanding of Objectivism (and my assumptions about Steve Ditko) fall short?
"I do not see where the Constitution gives the federal government any power or responsibility to recognize any marriage, or to confer special "legal incidents" upon married couples, nevermind same-sex civil unions."
You're absolutely right, Mike, which is another reason why I'm against marriage in the first place.
However, if the government is going to give married couples or civil unions benefits, it should not discriminate as to sexual orientation. You either give them to everybody or nobody. From the Objectivist point of view, nobody should get them--so rather than supporting gay marriage (or civil union) recognition, an Objectivist would want to abolish legal marriage in the first place.
If we agree to hope, as per Linda, that our discussions here might one day interest Steve Ditko somehow -- and if Steve as an Objectivist would find the debate pointless -- then, shall we leave this debate now?
But I do wonder if he would appreciate the intellectual growth that should come with such a debate. The key being "intellectual debate".
I like to believe that Steve is watching over us, and will step in when the right person says the right thing at the right time. (Or the wrong person says the wrong thing at the wrong time!)
Let’s see, I don’t know if you’re doing the “closed at 75 posts” thing here, so I
try to make all of points as concise as possible.
1) For some reason I also thought Daddio was an older guy (at least around
Byrne’s age). Oops.
2) I also hate when I hear about these huge settlements going to people who sue
tobacco companies. Take some personal responsiblity, people.
(BTW, if anyone wants to start a collection to buy LB a years supply of nicotine
patches then count me in. I know we all want to make sure she sticks around as
long as possible)
3) I agree that the best situation for raising a child is a happy 2-parent family, consisiting
of a man & a woman. That is the ideal. But a single parent, or two same-sex parents
is better than nothing. That’s why I think gays & single woman should be able to &
encouraged to adopt orphaned children. I don’t agree with intentionally creating children
in a less than ideal environment. My brother is gay & wants to one day have a child.
He plans to do the artificial insemination thing with some lesbian & they’ll share
custody. I’ve tried to talk him into adopting but he says he wants a child who looks like him. That’s just selfish IMO.
4) This also applies to infertile heterosexual couples, who do things like go hire
surrogate mothers to carry their children for them. I think that should be outlawed.
Look, if God or Mother Nature (whatever) decided that you can’t have biological
children on your own then do something good for someone else.
5) And I disagree with single heterosexual women who insist on having children without a man. Hey, relationships aren’t always easy, & maybe some people are just better off
remaining single, & I understand woman want to experience the physical joy of
childbirth, but that’s the breaks. Like LB, I disagree with woman going to sperm donor
banks, or as is more commonly the case, just having sex with some guy & planning to
“accidentally” get pregnant & have a kid whether the guy wants it or not (but still hittin’
the guy up for child support of course).
6) Government sponsored marriage should be legal for both heterosexual & homosexual
couples IMO. Or maybe they should all be called “civil unions.” That’s what people
can go to a Justice Of The Peace for. And if they want to go to a religious institution to
get “married” then that’s fine too. All I will say is that churches shouldn’t be forced to
marry gay couples if they don’t want to. That’s where the government stays out of it.
I can just see gay couples trying to sue Priest’s for discrimination next. No, that should
be up to each individual church (or mosque or synagog) whether they chose to recognize
such things. But those religions shouldn’t have the right to force their beliefs on anyone
else.
7) LB also made a good point about republicans & social issues. If they would truly
live up to their claims of being the party that wants government OUT of our lives, then
they would be virtually undefeatable. I was just reading a news article about how some
evangelicals are unhappy with Bush. In the beginning of the article it says that they’re
upset that he hasn’t done more to stop the SF Mayor who’s defying the law by
performing all of those gay marriages, then later in the same article they talk about
being upset that Bush didn’t support the Alabama judge who defied the law by placing
that monument of the 10 Commandments in his courthouse. HELLO? Contradiction
city here, folks!
8) I’m surprised Darin’s stayed out of this thread so far, since I know he disagrees with
most of us on this issue.
Current Topic - OT: Government & Marriage, Part Two (closed)
