Detour: Point of View thread

PeterZ wrote:I believe that a same sex civil union would work. It doesn't matter if you are gay or strait. If you want to engage in a long term same sex union, this relationship will provide the rights and responsibilities that apply.

But if such a civil union provides all the rights and legal status that a marriage does, why retain a distinction?

Thing is, you keep saying that we shouldn't redefine "marriage", as if this one word in the english language is somehow special, somehow forever fixed to mean that one specific thing you want it to mean. This is not how language works. It's not how legislature works.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I believe that a same sex civil union would work. It doesn't matter if you are gay or strait. If you want to engage in a long term same sex union, this relationship will provide the rights and responsibilities that apply.

But if such a civil union provides all the rights and legal status that a marriage does, why retain a distinction?

Thing is, you keep saying that we shouldn't redefine "marriage", as if this one word in the english language is somehow special, somehow forever fixed to mean that one specific thing you want it to mean. This is not how language works. It's not how legislature works.

Because same sex civil unions might need different restrictions placed on them. Some states might wish to limit same sex civil unions to avoid people taking advantage of inheritance tax avoidance. A wealthy widower might marry his son to avoid paying taxes upon his death. Close consanguinity is only prohibited to protect progeny after all. A good lawyer could argue that such limits should not apply to same sex unions. If the lawyer wins the argument, does the elimination of the consanguinity restrictions mean a daughter is allowed to marry her father? If the limits apply to one sort of potential related couple (male and male or female and female) but not other (male and female), does that not imply the relationships are inherently different?

By separating the two relationships, states can place different limits on each relationship as best achieves the states goals. They do this and provide homosexuals with the advantages of a long term relationship.

Before anyone pooh-poohs my example, please consider the amounts of money that some rich families control. Going through such legal hoops to save a million here and there is a fait accompli.

I'll pooh pooh your example -"A wealthy widower might marry his son to avoid paying taxes upon his death."

A little matter of incest laws prohibit a wealthy widower from marrying his daughter now, so how would he suddenly be able to marry his son?
This is irrelevant in our country as we don't have death duties or inheritance taxes anyway.

The whole point of our camp's argument is that exactly the same laws should apply to all. Thus I can't see how a gay marriage would get special privileges. If a "good lawyer" (oxymoron) was to push for special advantages for same sex marriages, I'd be standing alongside you arguing against it.

Daryl,

Gay marriage is not matter of equal rights but one of expanded rights. My point from the beginning is not should the right be expanded but how it should be.

This is yet another example of our mutual misunderstanding.
I have no idea of what you mean by gay marriage being expanded rights. All I suggest that gay people have exactly the same rights as hetero people. Essentially just change the definition of marriage from being between a man and a woman to being between two consenting adults. Leave everything else the same.
Perhaps you mean that currently gay people have less rights than hetero, so allowing them to be married expands their rights up to the same level?

As a straight friend joked "Let them get married, why should we be the only miserable ones?".

PeterZ wrote:Daryl,

Gay marriage is not matter of equal rights but one of expanded rights. My point from the beginning is not should the right be expanded but how it should be.

If the God would have a skull, now He would certainly punch a hole in it, by facepalms.

PeterZ wrote:Because same sex civil unions might need different restrictions placed on them. Some states might wish to limit same sex civil unions to avoid people taking advantage of inheritance tax avoidance. A wealthy widower might marry his son to avoid paying taxes upon his death. Close consanguinity is only prohibited to protect progeny after all. A good lawyer could argue that such limits should not apply to same sex unions. If the lawyer wins the argument, does the elimination of the consanguinity restrictions mean a daughter is allowed to marry her father? If the limits apply to one sort of potential related couple (male and male or female and female) but not other (male and female), does that not imply the relationships are inherently different?

By separating the two relationships, states can place different limits on each relationship as best achieves the states goals. They do this and provide homosexuals with the advantages of a long term relationship.

Before anyone pooh-poohs my example, please consider the amounts of money that some rich families control. Going through such legal hoops to save a million here and there is a fait accompli.

Except that again, you can currently make precisely the same argument in favor of a father-daughter marriage if the daughter is barren (naturally, by age or by sterilizaiton). In addition, there are a number of reasons for laws prohibiting incest and I seriously doubt those laws would be struck down if SSM exists.

Civil unions can run in in of two ways:

1) They are legally distinct from marriage. In that case, than frankly they're not worthwile from gays' POV because a state or business may decide to limit those rights.

2) They are functionally and legally identical to marriage. In that case, the differentiation hasn't accomplished anything.

PeterZ wrote:... [snip]... Same sex marriage wants to expand that right to include persons of the same sex.

Exactly!

The key word here being 'right'.

It means that no one is proposing to force anyone to marry a person of the same sex. People who have found a same-sex life partner just get the same rights as everyone else -> being allowed to marry them.

You do not need to fear that this will open some sort of flood-gate that might end up with someone thrusting you into a same-sex marriage!

Your beliefs or religion (if that is an issue for you which I don't know) aren't affected in any way. No one is trying to interfere with your beliefs and life-choices in any way.

Somehow the tone of this thread makes me feel it necessary to point out that seperation of church and state exists for a reason though. It is anyone's right to believe what they want but it is not constitutional in western societies to found laws on religious beliefs or force minorities into some sort of 'moral corset' that a certain religion (or rather: some members of a religion) deems appropriate. We are not living in Iran.

Bruno Behrends wrote:

PeterZ wrote:... [snip]... Same sex marriage wants to expand that right to include persons of the same sex.

Exactly!

The key word here being 'right'.

It means that no one is proposing to force anyone to marry a person of the same sex. People who have found a same-sex life partner just get the same rights as everyone else -> being allowed to marry them.

You do not need to fear that this will open some sort of flood-gate that might end up with someone thrusting you into a same-sex marriage!

Your beliefs or religion (if that is an issue for you which I don't know) aren't affected in any way. No one is trying to interfere with your beliefs and life-choices in any way.

Somehow the tone of this thread makes me feel it necessary to point out that seperation of church and state exists for a reason though. It is anyone's right to believe what they want but it is not constitutional in western societies to found laws on religious beliefs or force minorities into some sort of 'moral corset' that a certain religion (or rather: some members of a religion) deems appropriate. We are not living in Iran.

If by "exactly" you include that the right is an expansion on traditional marriage, we agree totally. Matter of fact, we have always agreed on these issues you posted in all the particulars contained in your post.

My point has always been how the right was to be expanded. 1) Change the current definition or 2) create a new legal relationship. My preference has been #2.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Because same sex civil unions might need different restrictions placed on them. Some states might wish to limit same sex civil unions to avoid people taking advantage of inheritance tax avoidance. A wealthy widower might marry his son to avoid paying taxes upon his death. Close consanguinity is only prohibited to protect progeny after all. A good lawyer could argue that such limits should not apply to same sex unions. If the lawyer wins the argument, does the elimination of the consanguinity restrictions mean a daughter is allowed to marry her father? If the limits apply to one sort of potential related couple (male and male or female and female) but not other (male and female), does that not imply the relationships are inherently different?

By separating the two relationships, states can place different limits on each relationship as best achieves the states goals. They do this and provide homosexuals with the advantages of a long term relationship.

Before anyone pooh-poohs my example, please consider the amounts of money that some rich families control. Going through such legal hoops to save a million here and there is a fait accompli.

Except that again, you can currently make precisely the same argument in favor of a father-daughter marriage if the daughter is barren (naturally, by age or by sterilizaiton). In addition, there are a number of reasons for laws prohibiting incest and I seriously doubt those laws would be struck down if SSM exists.

Civil unions can run in in of two ways:

1) They are legally distinct from marriage. In that case, than frankly they're not worthwile from gays' POV because a state or business may decide to limit those rights.

2) They are functionally and legally identical to marriage. In that case, the differentiation hasn't accomplished anything.

Number 1- Quite the contrary. States are resisting the idea of altering the definition of marriage because each state has to recognize other states' definition of marriage through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. By recognizing the differences in the two different relationships, each state can legally recognize both relationships and apply their different inheritance and custody laws appropriately. Since all states have different laws governing marriage, custody and inheritance, separating the two relationships will reduce any unintended disruption to this change and hence make it easier for each state to adopt the expansion of the right to form a long term legally recognized union.

Number 2- Nonsense.recognizes that the two relationships have fundamental differences. That legal precedent for disputes, especially over inheritance and children, was based on dual sex marriage and that some of those precedents will not apply to same sex unions. Trouble is that if the definition of marriage is changed then those precedent would have to be made to apply to the current definition of marriage. How will the precedents built over centuries be altered because a fundamental definition of the relationship has been dramatically altered? I haven't a clue and do not want to find out.

The judges can use the precedents for traditional marriage that apply to the new relationship and not use those that don't. An appropriate mix of specific precedents can built as they relate to same sex unions over time.