StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) 1) Just because it isnt protected, doesnt mean it shouldnt be protected. The argument isnt about what it, it is about, what should be. 2) I did read it carefully, which is why I remarked that calling them contracts is a terrible argument. They are more than a contract, you are saying they are a "right." I was not calling marriage a right. Equal protection is a right, and discriminatory marriage laws violate that. No such constitutional right is violated, imo, by MPM prohibition. I never disagreed that if it's the right thing to do, it should be changed. I was only remarking that the process for doing so for MPM would necessarily be more complicated. You are not simply redefining everything from "husband" and "wife" to gender-neutral "spouse," you have to consider each individual law and whether it should be restricted to one spouse and how it should be restricted. That does not apply to replacing husband/wife with spouse. I admit that I was wrong that SSM would not require any legislative changes. I still maintain that it requires less changes than MPM because you are only replacing language with gender-neutral terms, not considering the actual structure and impact. If every pertinent law had been written with "spouse" instead of "husband/wife," then there would be zero changes. The same could not be said for MPM, and each program or benefit would have to be analyzed to determine if it should be restricted to one or given to all. You're right, I don't really care, because it's not relevant to my side-comment that started this whole thing. I do not fundamentally disagree with what you are saying. I didn't address it because I don't really disagree with the main thrust of your argument. I disagree that the legislative changes necessary would be comparable in nature to SSM, and I do not think that MPM is protected constitutionally as SSM is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow it, but imo it's a policy argument, not a constitutional rights one.

Apparently Mass. did have to amend affected laws: I still maintain that definitional changes such as these are less complicated than the structural changes that would have to be considered for MPM. Hopefully we can end this tangent now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Well, there's not. But that's the point of this debate. There's also not a protected class discrimination for SSM either, but you want it. I'm relating your arguments to other situations. Yes, there is. I cannot marry a man. On what basis is that determined? It's still a definitional change at worst, not a structural change as MPM would require. I would be surprised if Mass laws weren't very similar to Illinois laws yet still did not have to be re-written. Hell, the bill legalizing gay marriage could include a broad statement on that, changing it simply to "spouse" instead of husband and wife.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) But you're not being denied those rights because you are a man or a woman, it's because you like a man or woman. My ability to marry a man is determined by my gender. How is that not gender-based discrimination?

Well played, sir.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) I missed the origin of this new argument, but if something is the right thing to do, no amount of work can really justify not doing it. It was this comment from me: You're absolutely right that, if allowing MPM is the right thing to do, the difficulty of doing so is no reason not to do it. I think maybe soxbadger thought that's what I was saying.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) Every state already has different laws about inheritance, why is this so difficult? If some states want it per stirpes to wifes, if some want it all to first wife, why cant each state make up their own law? They absolutely can. But it would require an awful lot of legislative work which ssm does not. Which was my only point.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:19 PM) Well, you brought up 1 area, SSA, and in SSA they are going to have to rewrite it, because it refers to mother/father and husband/wife, and Im not sure how you are going to reconcile that with gay marriage. It could be done with a memo or announcement of a rules interpretation. It would not have to fundamentally alter the structure of the program. There's still a significant difference structurally going from two-party to multi-party. Opening up to SSM means, at worst, some definition clarifications of "husband and wife" to spouse. Allowing MPM means having to determine whether or not something is restricted to one spouse or give to all spouses and how that spouse is chosen. That's a practical argument against the ease of legalizing MPM, not a moral argument against it.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:09 PM) You are mistaken if you think gay marriage is only a religious debate and it is often portrayed that way. Communists don't support it. Wait, what? I don't think communists have an ideological opposition to SSM.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:08 PM) There would be the same issue with every law on the books right now talking about the rights of husbands and wives if SSM were adopted. I don't see your point here either, frankly. As to your other comment re gender discrimination, I don't see how it matters. The point is you're discriminating against a group and not providing equal benefits. If I wanted to marry 5 women, under the current laws 4 of them would be denied the same benefits you want for same sex couples. And all because of the way marriage has been defined. Where is the protected-class discrimination in a MPM restriction? The four of them are denied the ability to marry you because you are already married; this applies equally to every single person, thus there is not really discrimination. Did Mass have to re-write every statute regarding the rights of spouses when they legalized gay marriage?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:04 PM) Because youre not getting that they are going to have to do the same thing for SSM. Literally hundreds if not thousands of laws will have to be changed. Thus, not a great argument to hang your hat on, and since I am very pro-SSM, I want to make stronger, better arguments. I doubt this very much because states have numerous programs that are impacted by SSM and, to my knowledge, have not had to re-write each and every one of those laws when SSM was enacted.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) Your argument is all over the place. Why is MPM not a violation of equal rights? Why should I not be able to marry someone else who is already married? Why cant I be part of that family? Who are you to say that I cant be married to a Man and a woman, or to 2 woman? Because it isn't a protected class. I was saying marriage is a contract, not just MPM. Please read more carefully. Who cares which is which? Perhaps I overstated when I said nothing would have to change for SSM, but I doubt it would need to be changed legislatively versus a new rules interpretation or something similar from SSA. The arrangement and the structure of the program still remain exactly the same. Modifying the language to limit it to "first-spouse," however, represents something a little more fundamental than simply clarifying some definitions. Please try to pay attention to what I'm actually saying, as I've had to point out to you several times now that when I said it would be "legislatively complicated," I did not mean that one particular modification to one particular program would be complicated, but that the entire process of modifying every necessary program would be. Simply restating over and over how you could change SS survivors' benefits doesn't even acknowledge my argument, let alone address it. The arguments for it are equal protection and eliminating gender-based discrimination. MPM does not fall under either of those and my comment was to the difficulty of enacting it as a policy. I don't know why it caused you to flip your s***.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:59 PM) legislating behavior my ass.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) Just because its so simple, watch: (b) The term “wife” means the wife of an individual, but only if she (1)the first person legally married to him, (1) is the mother of his son or daughter, (2) was married to him for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day on which her application is filed, or (3) in the month prior to the month of her marriage to him (A) was entitled to, or on application therefor and attainment of age 62 in such prior month would have been entitled to, benefits under subsection (b), (e), or (h) of section 202, (B) had attained age eighteen and was entitled to, or on application therefor would have been entitled to, benefits under subsection (d) of such section (subject, however, to section 202(s)), or © was entitled to, or upon application therefor and attainment of the required age (if any) would have been entitled to, a widow’s, child’s (after attainment of age 18), or parent’s insurance annuity under section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974[205], as amended. For purposes of clause (2), a wife shall be deemed to have been married to an individual for a period of one year throughout the month in which occurs the first anniversary of her marriage to such individual. For purposes of subparagraph © of section 202(b)(1), a divorced wife shall be deemed not to be married throughout the month in which she becomes divorced. Wow that took me all of 5 seconds, and a similar change will be required for SSM, if you actually read the code, it uses pronouns (he/she) so it will have to be changed. But I guess thats to complicated of a chance, so now youre against SSM? Why are you being such a dick about this? You'd have to make this change for hundreds if not thousands of bills. That would be very, very complicated, both in practice and politically. That's all I was saying.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) Im not sure where you are going with this. Who cares about how many changes will be done, isnt the argument about fairness and equality? Are you seriously implying that we shouldnt treat a certain group fairly if "it is very complicated". ? See my response to jenks where I explained why denying SSM is an equal-rights violation while denying multiple-partner marriage (MPM) is not. It is unfair to deny marriage rights based on gender; it is not unfair or unequal (imo) to define marriage as a two-party contract/arrangement. More importantly, it doesn't represent an unconstitutional violation of equal protection. Personally, I'm not necessarily opposed to someone wanting to have a MPM or it being legal. But I do not see it as a constitutional right as I do SSM, and I do not foresee it ever gaining enough popularity to enact the necessary legislative changes. This is one section of one particular example I pulled out of the air. Now find every other impacted program or law and draft the necessary changes. Better hope you don't miss one because that could make things quite messy! As I said, the individual modifications aren't necessarily complicated, but the legislative process would be enormously so.

It would be very complicated legislatively to amend hundreds of laws that would be impacted, not one specific example I plucked. The individual modifications may or may not be complicated, but having to first identify the areas of concern and then pass hundreds of bills modifying things to accommodate polygamy would be complex in a practice as well as being a non-starter politically. No such changes have to be made for SSM.

It would require writing a new section or modifying an old section for an awful lot of programs/laws/regulations/benefits/etc. My point is that it would be very complicated legislatively, unlike legalizing SSM.

That's one particular example, but it would still require a re-write of SS law. Stopping gay marriage discrimination would not.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 02:55 PM) You make a strong case for the legalization of incest and polygamy. I dont really care, but I can easily support polygamy, incest is slightly more difficult due to potential health ramifications of the child, but if the 2 adults were willing to agree not to have a child, Id give them a license too. Who cares what consulting adults do if it doesnt hurt anyone else? I sure as hell dont. I don't have a problem with people who want to live in a multiple-partner relationship, but I imagine it would be quite messy legally to recognize these marriages. For example, it'd really screw up social security survivor's benefits.

Marriage means whatever we say it means independent from religion. But there's a problem with that "can of worms" argument: it ignores the equal-rights argument in favor of gay marriage. Currently, in states without SSM, the rules on whom can marry Bob are determined by their gender; Ann can do so because she is a woman, but Bill cannot because he is a man. That's plainly gender-based discrimination. These other possibilities, marrying your close family or having multiple wives, are not the same sort of equal-rights issues. I can't marry my sister because she's my sister regardless of what my gender is; there's no protected-class discrimination in play. The same is true of multiple-partner marriages: the structure of civil marriage limits it to a two-party contract. There is a discrimination based on numbers, not on class or characteristic. Now there could be a separate discussion on whether those types of relationships should be legally permitted, but they are not relevant to the SSM debate.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 02:45 PM) Isn't that what YOU are doing? Marriage, civil union, civil union, marriage... I've posted a couple of links showing that, shockingly, "separate but equal" isn't actually equal. Creating an entirely separate category that's supposed to have all the same rights (but doesn't in practice) is a nonsensical policy for a secular government. edit: your pic makes no sense. Rahm did not ban or threaten to ban Chick-fil-a.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 01:06 PM) just out of curiosity, how would you feel if someone told you what your religion could and couldn't recognize? I'd feel like my constitutional rights were violated. Fortunately, that doesn't happen and nobody wishes for that to happen. For instance, the Catholic church is free to not recognize my marriage since it wasn't performed by them.

Apparently anything more than 4" is too much for them.

There's also what you get used to. Maybe I noticed this phone the first week I had it (can't remember doing so), but now I've been carrying it daily for almost a year.

Weird.