WinDis Polls - 3: Gay Marriage

[segwaystyle2012]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

[Alcon]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Gay marriage probably causes less bureaucratic issue than civil unions, so I don't understand how that works.

[segwaystyle2012]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Gay marriage probably causes less bureaucratic issue than civil unions, so I don't understand how that works.

If you consider gay unions to be marriages, though many of us don't. I think marriage is still a religious issue that shouldn't be defined by the government one way or the other but if the government has to be involved, I don't want the government trying to force us to accept gay unions as a marriage when it simply isn't.

[Associate Justice PiT]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Gay marriage probably causes less bureaucratic issue than civil unions, so I don't understand how that works.

If you consider gay unions to be marriages, though many of us don't. I think marriage is still a religious issue that shouldn't be defined by the government one way or the other but if the government has to be involved, I don't want the government trying to force us to accept gay unions as a marriage when it simply isn't.

     That brought a very good point to mind, actually. The point at contention here is equality under the law of heterosexual & homosexual couples. The government referring to the union of a couple as "marriage" gets us beside the point, because then you have the question of whether the union of two gay people should be called "marriage". We could achieve the goal of this project much more easily if we could come to a consensus that the secular contract be called "civil unions", for both heterosexual & homosexual couples.

[segwaystyle2012]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Gay marriage probably causes less bureaucratic issue than civil unions, so I don't understand how that works.

If you consider gay unions to be marriages, though many of us don't. I think marriage is still a religious issue that shouldn't be defined by the government one way or the other but if the government has to be involved, I don't want the government trying to force us to accept gay unions as a marriage when it simply isn't.

     That brought a very good point to mind, actually. The point at contention here is equality under the law of heterosexual & homosexual couples. The government referring to the union of a couple as "marriage" gets us beside the point, because then you have the question of whether the union of two gay people should be called "marriage". We could achieve the goal of this project much more easily if we could come to a consensus that the secular contract be called "civil unions", for both heterosexual & homosexual couples.

PiT,

I am glad you agree that the government should define what a marriage is. I know many libertarians support gay marriage but I view it as unnecessary coercion that is no better than not recognizing gay marriages. I would prefer the government separate itself from church and not define marriage, but civil unions aren't marriages and I don't care if gays partake in those. It doesn't affect me. For someone like me holding conservative values on issues like this, I support the government staying out entirely because I know one day those who disagree would be able to do the same and ignore my beliefs on the subject if my views became the minority. I strongly oppose calling gay unions marriages but have no problem allowing them equivalent benefits to heterosexual couples, despite disagreeing that there should be benefits or recognition at all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Gay marriage probably causes less bureaucratic issue than civil unions, so I don't understand how that works.

If you consider gay unions to be marriages, though many of us don't. I think marriage is still a religious issue that shouldn't be defined by the government one way or the other but if the government has to be involved, I don't want the government trying to force us to accept gay unions as a marriage when it simply isn't.

     That brought a very good point to mind, actually. The point at contention here is equality under the law of heterosexual & homosexual couples. The government referring to the union of a couple as "marriage" gets us beside the point, because then you have the question of whether the union of two gay people should be called "marriage". We could achieve the goal of this project much more easily if we could come to a consensus that the secular contract be called "civil unions", for both heterosexual & homosexual couples.

PiT,

I am glad you agree that the government should define what a marriage is. I know many libertarians support gay marriage but I view it as unnecessary coercion that is no better than not recognizing gay marriages. I would prefer the government separate itself from church and not define marriage, but civil unions aren't marriages and I don't care if gays partake in those. It doesn't affect me. For someone like me holding conservative values on issues like this, I support the government staying out entirely because I know one day those who disagree would be able to do the same and ignore my beliefs on the subject if my views became the minority. I strongly oppose calling gay unions marriages but have no problem allowing them equivalent benefits to heterosexual couples, despite disagreeing that there should be benefits or recognition at all.

     I personally have no issue with calling homosexual unions marriages, but I also recognize that the goal is not to have them called a certain thing, but rather to have them entail the same benefits at heterosexual unions. It seems clear to me that calling both civil unions would be the best way to prevent strife within the gay rights movement.

     To explicate further, I would hope that we eventually move to where the government engages only in civil unions rather than marriages, though in the meantime I would greatly prefer gay marriage to lack of any civil recognition for gay couples.

[paul718]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Isn't a governmental recognition of marriage required for intestacy purposes and ownership of property?

Also, what is the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"?

[segwaystyle2012]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Isn't a governmental recognition of marriage required for intestacy purposes and ownership of property?

No because the government recognizes all kinds of legal contracts, I don't see why people couldn't create their own contracts that the government can recognize that has nothing to do with marriage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The historical religious context of the institution of marriage and the cultural connotations we have with regards to it are key factors.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Yes.

[paul718]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Isn't a governmental recognition of marriage required for intestacy purposes and ownership of property?

No because the government recognizes all kinds of legal contracts, I don't see why people couldn't create their own contracts that the government can recognize that has nothing to do with marriage.

Intestacy involves the absence of a legal instrument (i.e., the person died without a will).  In which case the property is distributed through a familial hierarchy, starting with the spouse.  In a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, a heterosexual spouse would be entitled to the property, but a same-sex spouse wouldn't.  That seems highly discriminatory, and there is no benefit to society that would justify it. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The historical religious context of the institution of marriage and the cultural connotations we have with regards to it are key factors.

[/quote]

So you're telling me that it's basically the same thing, just with different names? 

[segwaystyle2012]

For those that argue that "it's up to the religion to decide"...are you arguing that state marriage licensing should be abolished?  Because I don't think anyone is arguing that churches should be compelled to administer marriage ceremonies. 

Yes, that is the only libertarian position on the issue and the only change to the status quo I will accept other than civil unions.

Isn't a governmental recognition of marriage required for intestacy purposes and ownership of property?

No because the government recognizes all kinds of legal contracts, I don't see why people couldn't create their own contracts that the government can recognize that has nothing to do with marriage.

Intestacy involves the absence of a legal instrument (i.e., the person died without a will).  In which case the property is distributed through a familial hierarchy, starting with the spouse.  In a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, a heterosexual spouse would be entitled to the property, but a same-sex spouse wouldn't.  That seems highly discriminatory, and there is no benefit to society that would justify it. 

There are other ways to remedy that problem without forcing gay marriage on the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The historical religious context of the institution of marriage and the cultural connotations we have with regards to it are key factors.

[/quote]

So you're telling me that it's basically the same thing, just with different names? 


[/quote]

I guess.

[Alcon]

Hamilton (or segway or what have you):

So, the government not violating your traditionalist definition is more important than even avoiding extra governmental bureaucracy?  Since you support civil unions, I figure that you see some benefit to recognizing their relationships.  Wherein lies the damage of violating tradition that outweighs whatever benefit that leads you to accept civil unions?

Are you Catholic or what?

[segwaystyle2012]

Are you Catholic or what?

Yes.

[Alcon]

Are you Catholic or what?

Yes.

You do realize your Church doesn't recognize marriages out of your religion, and yet the government is already forcing that on you?  That doesn't piss you off?

[segwaystyle2012]

Are you Catholic or what?

Yes.

You do realize your Church doesn't recognize marriages out of your religion, and yet the government is already forcing that on you?  That doesn't piss you off?

That is the business of the Church. I don't have to agree with them 100%.

[Alcon]

Are you Catholic or what?

Yes.

You do realize your Church doesn't recognize marriages out of your religion, and yet the government is already forcing that on you?  That doesn't piss you off?

That is the business of the Church. I don't have to agree with them 100%.

So, why Protestants and atheists and not gays?

[segwaystyle2012]

Are you Catholic or what?

Yes.

You do realize your Church doesn't recognize marriages out of your religion, and yet the government is already forcing that on you?  That doesn't piss you off?

That is the business of the Church. I don't have to agree with them 100%.

So, why Protestants and atheists and not gays?

To me there is a fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

[Alcon]

Are you Catholic or what?

Yes.

You do realize your Church doesn't recognize marriages out of your religion, and yet the government is already forcing that on you?  That doesn't piss you off?

That is the business of the Church. I don't have to agree with them 100%.

So, why Protestants and atheists and not gays?

To me there is a fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Sure, and there's a fundamental difference between Catholic couples and Protestant/atheist couples, according to your belief system.  Why don't gays get the same treatment when it comes to governmental policy?  "There's a fundamental difference" isn't an explanation when you just argued religious views, and your religious views would demand you be against both.

edit: You also didn't answer my objections to your earlier post, fyi