5 ms·

> How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory? That's begging the question: you're assuming that failu

by wtbob 12y ago

> How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory? That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction, which really doesn't make sense. I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me. There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue. You're also assuming that discrimination is an inherently bad thing; it is, of course, not. Discriminating between a green and a red light is a pretty useful survival skill whilst driving, for example. Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful; there's a difference. My own personal view is that marriage is a religious matter, and that the State should no longer recognise it at all. If two men want to say that they're married, that's their right, just as it is mine to declare myself Grand Vizier of the Martian Republic—and no-one should be compelled by violence (which is what the law ultimately is) to heed either them or me.

lthornberry 12y ago
I actually agree with your proposal to get the state out of recognizing marriage (from what I suspect is a diametrically opposed political position). But you need to acknowledge that this would mean massive changes in many, many aspects of government policy. In the United States, state recognition of marriage is built into our tax structure, immigration policy, all aspects of social security, the regulation of trusts and estates, health care...the list is pretty much endless. Unless and until we change all of those policies, the failure to recognize same-sex marriages is discriminatory.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you care if you have to sit in the back?
- facepalm 12y ago
  Well married homosexuals get the right to adopt children (I assume). I don't think it's just a moral stance. Maybe some people really are convinced that having two dads is bad for children psychologically. They would probably be wrong, but it's not a question of morals (unless you dismiss the protection of children's wellbeing as a goal). I am not sure if science has really shown it's not bad for children. I personally don't think so, but I can't blame other people for thinking so. How does adoption in general work? For example it can happen through "natural causes" that a child has only one dad and no mother. It seems likely that having two dads would be better than just one. But if somebody wants to adopt, they might have to be "better than average"? Like would a single dad have a good chance of adopting? Or does some office consider the likelihood of a child's wellbeing in a family - so presumably they would try to find two parents, not just one, which is discriminatory against singles? And then if the "adoption office" (or whoever is responsible) has the choice between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple, things become difficult?
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    All that is government meddling in someone else's affairs in the most egregious way possible. Its not as far as taking kids from single parents etc. because they don't fit someone's model of a perfect family, but nearly there. My cousin has 4 kids, and is married to the love of her life Lisa. Their kids are certifiably the kindest, most considerate kids I know. There's been no psychological damage, at least not at their hands. Ignorant outsiders may say mean things but to blame that on these excellent parents would be twisted logic. Anywho, the decision about adoption is so far down the road from marriage as to be a red herring.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      Sure, that is what I said in another comment: if you argue homosexual couples are somehow unfit to raise children, you would also have to question other people's fitness. But I think you are wrong about adoption. I think it's one of the main concerns opponents of gay marriage have. What other rights would people be concerned about? The other one I can think of is the right to bring your spouse into your country. Are people going to the barricades because they don't want gays to be able to visit their partners in hospital? I rather doubt it. Adoption is one of the big issues.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction When it is a product of specific exclusionary provisions of the law, in the application of legal recognition of a relationship defined in law, then it is a legal restriction. > I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me. The rules governing the manner of succession to the British crown and the people who are eligibile to that succession most certainly are legal restrictions, and they most certainly are legal restrictions on most of the people in the world (even if it is a restriction where most of the restricted people don't care.) > There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue. Er, no, its not. Marriage is a legal status. The legal effects of the status are central to the issue, not a side issue. > Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful Perhaps, but (a) why should we believe that in the general case, and (b) given the legal effects of marriage, why is marriage specifically an appropriate and valuable venue for such discrimination? About the only legal effect of marriage that is specifically directed to reproduction is the legal presumption of parenthood in which a spouse is presumptively (either rebuttably or conclusively, depending on jurisdiction) assigned parental responsibility for any children produced by the other partner. Arguably, the value of that is largely in providing an assurance that dual parental legal responsibility will be assigned in the absence of any effort to establish (in rebuttable presumption jurisdictions) or independently of (in conclusive presumption jurisdictions) the facts of biological parentage, which is as valid in a same-sex partnership as in an opposite-sex partnership.

by wtbob 12y ago

lthornberry 12y ago

I actually agree with your proposal to get the state out of recognizing marriage (from what I suspect is a diametrically opposed political position). But you need to acknowledge that this would mean massive changes in many, many aspects of government policy. In the United States, state recognition of marriage is built into our tax structure, immigration policy, all aspects of social security, the regulation of trusts and estates, health care...the list is pretty much endless. Unless and until we change all of those policies, the failure to recognize same-sex marriages is discriminatory.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you care if you have to sit in the back?

facepalm 12y ago
Well married homosexuals get the right to adopt children (I assume). I don't think it's just a moral stance. Maybe some people really are convinced that having two dads is bad for children psychologically. They would probably be wrong, but it's not a question of morals (unless you dismiss the protection of children's wellbeing as a goal). I am not sure if science has really shown it's not bad for children. I personally don't think so, but I can't blame other people for thinking so. How does adoption in general work? For example it can happen through "natural causes" that a child has only one dad and no mother. It seems likely that having two dads would be better than just one. But if somebody wants to adopt, they might have to be "better than average"? Like would a single dad have a good chance of adopting? Or does some office consider the likelihood of a child's wellbeing in a family - so presumably they would try to find two parents, not just one, which is discriminatory against singles? And then if the "adoption office" (or whoever is responsible) has the choice between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple, things become difficult?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  All that is government meddling in someone else's affairs in the most egregious way possible. Its not as far as taking kids from single parents etc. because they don't fit someone's model of a perfect family, but nearly there. My cousin has 4 kids, and is married to the love of her life Lisa. Their kids are certifiably the kindest, most considerate kids I know. There's been no psychological damage, at least not at their hands. Ignorant outsiders may say mean things but to blame that on these excellent parents would be twisted logic. Anywho, the decision about adoption is so far down the road from marriage as to be a red herring.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    Sure, that is what I said in another comment: if you argue homosexual couples are somehow unfit to raise children, you would also have to question other people's fitness. But I think you are wrong about adoption. I think it's one of the main concerns opponents of gay marriage have. What other rights would people be concerned about? The other one I can think of is the right to bring your spouse into your country. Are people going to the barricades because they don't want gays to be able to visit their partners in hospital? I rather doubt it. Adoption is one of the big issues.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction When it is a product of specific exclusionary provisions of the law, in the application of legal recognition of a relationship defined in law, then it is a legal restriction. > I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me. The rules governing the manner of succession to the British crown and the people who are eligibile to that succession most certainly are legal restrictions, and they most certainly are legal restrictions on most of the people in the world (even if it is a restriction where most of the restricted people don't care.) > There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue. Er, no, its not. Marriage is a legal status. The legal effects of the status are central to the issue, not a side issue. > Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful Perhaps, but (a) why should we believe that in the general case, and (b) given the legal effects of marriage, why is marriage specifically an appropriate and valuable venue for such discrimination? About the only legal effect of marriage that is specifically directed to reproduction is the legal presumption of parenthood in which a spouse is presumptively (either rebuttably or conclusively, depending on jurisdiction) assigned parental responsibility for any children produced by the other partner. Arguably, the value of that is largely in providing an assurance that dual parental legal responsibility will be assigned in the absence of any effort to establish (in rebuttable presumption jurisdictions) or independently of (in conclusive presumption jurisdictions) the facts of biological parentage, which is as valid in a same-sex partnership as in an opposite-sex partnership.