Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[tomBitonti]

Heh. That is similar to the "homosexuals aren't discriminated because they can marry people of the oppiste gender" argument.

I was wondering about this. The question may seem silly, but how does it actually working legally?

That is, couples are married. But rights are individual. Does that change when going from couple to individual to mean "a person has a right to marry" or "a person has a right to be married to", with the other person unspecified? And, how is "having the right to marry a person of the opposite gender" differentiated from "having the right to marry a person of any gender"?

In the same space, is discrimination based on sexuality or gender? Those are, of course, related, but they aren't the same thing. For example, a person might marry another so to lend legitimacy to a child, while having no actual romantic interest in their partner. Legally, I'm not aware of a requirement that partners consummate the marriage. That is a religious requirement. If I look a legal marriage as a specific contract which bundles a number of agreements, and not distinguish the contact from contracts in general, then the discrimination seems to be a gender based one. By analogy, if the government is seeking bids for a construction project, the selection process must not discriminate based on gender.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Ovinomancer]

Heh. That is similar to the "homosexuals aren't discriminated because they can marry people of the oppiste gender" argument.

No, it's very much not. You've moved the goalposts from 'it's another way to discriminate against multi-ethnic couples and homosexual couples" to "it sounds like a justification against same-sex marriages that's been discarded as illegal." At least stay on target.

Prior to recent law changes, you'd have been correct in stating that the marriage requirement discriminates against same-sex couples, because they couldn't marry. Now they can, so that's no longer discrimination against same-sex couples, it's back to discrimination against unmarried couples. Multi-ethnic couples haven't had issues for decades, so I have no idea where you're dredging that crap up from, unless it's just a need to remind everyone that once such couples were discriminated against? Yay, you, then.

So you've completely lost your prior argument, and now have moved your goalposts to having others try to defend some other words that they haven't professed at all, on a nearby but different topic. Exciting as always, goldomark, exciting as always.

 

[Kramodlog]

I was wondering about this. The question may seem silly, but how does it actually working legally?

For Canada it seems that it works by prohibiting certain unions and avoiding naming what is legal. You can't marry your sister, to name an example. It sets a minimum age. 16 years old, the age of consent. It also says that marriage is between two person. Once you get passed those hurdles, the sky is the limit, I guess. Not a bad approach.

Legally, I'm not aware of a requirement that partners consummate the marriage.

Or to love each other.

That is a religious requirement.

Is it? Like a sealing a bloodbond of sorts?

 

[Kramodlog]

No, it's very much not.

Yes, it's very much so.

You've moved the goalposts from 'it's another way to discriminate against multi-ethnic couples and homosexual couples" to "it sounds like a justification against same-sex marriages that's been discarded as illegal." At least stay on target.

I never moved it. I just made a comparison between arguments that were used in similar cases.

If you want to explain how couples who didn't go through a specific ritual aren't discriminated by the state, please explain. That certainly would bring us back to what I originally said.

As a side note, I'm curious, if I'm not mistaken you are a libertarian. You might not be and apologies if that is not the case. But if you are, how does a libertarian justify the state asking people to get a state issued or state recognized license to be a couple and get rights from it?

 

[tomBitonti]

Is it? Like a sealing a bloodbond of sorts?

I guess it's a kind of christian thing. See, for example:

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-constitutes.html

3) God considers a couple to be married at the moment they engage in sexual intercourse. There are some who take this to mean that a married couple is not truly “married” in God’s eyes until they have consummated the marriage physically. Others argue that, if any man and woman have sex, God considers the two of them to be married. The basis for this view is the fact that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is the ultimate fulfillment of the “one flesh” principle (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31). In this sense, sexual intercourse is the final “seal” on a marriage covenant. However, the view that intercourse constitutes marriage is not biblically sound. If a couple is legally and ceremonially married, but for some reason is unable to engage in sexual intercourse, that couple is still considered married.

I could be working from outmoded notions, or have simply got it wrong. This is from what I remember from many years ago.

Thx!

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

More news:

Utah judge removes himself from lesbian foster-care case

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...emoves-himself-from-lesbian-foster-care-case/

Thx!

TomB

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, it's very much so.

I never moved it. I just made a comparison between arguments that were used in similar cases.

If you want to explain how couples who didn't go through a specific ritual aren't discriminated by the state, please explain. That certainly would bring us back to what I originally said.

They are discriminated against, and for good reason, but that has nothing to do with gays, or multi-ethnic couples, or specious reasons to disallow same-sex marriage. Those are all of your boogeymen, and are irrelevant.

Governments discriminate legally all the time. Eyesight and pilots. Fitness and firefighters. Etc. Unmarried couples can dissolve a relationship at any time, for any reason, and break up a home, with no ability to impose legal responsibilities after the breakup. Marriage provides that legal framework. So, in the interest of the child (and the child alone), married couple provide superior legal protections for the rights of the child. Unmarried couples do not. This isn't a matter of discrimination against unmarried couples because the state has decided that they don't like unmarried couples, it's a matter of discrimination to ensure the rights and protection of the child. It is in no way analogous to miscegenation or discrimination against same-sex marriages.

As a side note, I'm curious, if I'm not mistaken you are a libertarian. You might not be and apologies if that is not the case. But if you are, how does a libertarian justify the state asking people to get a state issued or state recognized license to be a couple and get rights from it?

Firstly, you've confused libertarian with minarchists, when the latter is a only a small subset of the former.

Secondly, I'm not libertarian. While I think that the current US government is bloated, it's more because of the lack of any mechanism to determine efficiency and to prune inefficient services than a belief that the government shouldn't do government things. Marriage is clearly in the interest of the state to regulate and promote, and I'm 100% perfectly fine with it doing so. Even to the point that current law is generally right on target. I'd rather that any two persons could marry for any reason, with the only restrictions being those on being able to enter into legally binding contracts, but that's it.

As for "rights" from marriage, I generally hold that proper rights are those things that cannot be taken from you, ie, negative rights, and do not generally assign benefits and entitlements awarded by government as incentive for behavior to be rights. I have the right to marry. Marriage does not give me rights to anything, although there are a wealth of benefits.

 

[Ovinomancer]

More news:

Utah judge removes himself from lesbian foster-care case

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...emoves-himself-from-lesbian-foster-care-case/

Thx!

TomB

Excellent result, however it will probably mean that no sanctions are placed on the judge. Unfortunately, the US legal system is horrifically bad at chastising, much less punishing, egregious errors of law or misconduct from the bench or the prosecutor's table.

 

[Kramodlog]

They are discriminated against,

I know. I've said it many times.

and for good reason, but that has nothing to do with gays, or multi-ethnic couples, or specious reasons to disallow same-sex marriage. Those are all of your boogeymen, and are irrelevant.

I assure you that same sex couples and multi-ethnic couples do exist and that I are nothing to be afraid of. So they aren't "boogeymen".

married couple provide superior legal protections

And why is that? Is it because going through the ritual has a magical effect on people or because the state arbitrarely gives special legal status to couples who went through the ritual?

The thing is couples do not need to go through a state sanctioned ritual to be a couple. A couple is or isn't. The states discriminates based on lack of ritual, creating a second tier couple and it does this for no good reason, as the ritual doesn't do anything. Like it won't give better parenting skills.

All the states needs to do to correct this situation is to provide a legal framework for unmarried couples, like in Québec, and boom, no more second class couples/families.

I'm not libertarian.

If you say so.

 

[Nagol]

I know. I've said it many times.

<snip>

And why is that? Is it because going through the ritual has a magical effect on people or because the state arbitrarely gives special legal status to couples who went through the ritual?

The thing is couples do not need to go through a state sanctioned ritual to be a couple. A couple is or isn't. The states discriminates based on lack of ritual, creating a second tier couple and it does this for no good reason, as the ritual doesn't do anything. Like it won't give better parenting skills.

<snip>

Marriage, in addition to its magical effect, is also a form of "contract" (scare quotes used because it isn't arbitrated using contract law). That declaration is acknowledged by the state and according certain privileges and obligations. A couple is a couple before the contract is entered into, but marriage adds a expectation of stability on the part of participants (thus it is expensive and time-consuming to exit the union).

Many of marriage's effects can be at least partly duplicated by other legal frameworks: wills, living wills, contracts and agreements, power of attorney, etc. Marriage as a legal entity is merely a bundled package offered by the state with its own attached riders (like incestuous can't take advantage).