• Texas Rules Against Benefits For Gay Marriage
    45 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52421474]100% not trying to throw any shade here, but sgman91 would have a reasoning as to why[/QUOTE] in a similar thread a couple of years ago he insisted that gay couples in the US always had equal marriage rights to straight couples, for they too could simply marry the opposite sex
[QUOTE=Sableye;52421484]property rights. legal marriage is not a religious institution its a system for distributing property and therefore claims and rights to property between two individuals in what is presumed to be an equal way[/QUOTE] So draft up a will or other legal agreement with your spouse after you get married? Again, I see literally no reason why marriage should have any implicit or explicit legal ramifications. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52421474]100% not trying to throw any shade here, but sgman91 would have a reasoning as to why[/QUOTE] Who and why?
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;52422849]So draft up a will or other legal agreement with your spouse after you get married? Again, I see literally no reason why marriage should have any implicit or explicit legal ramifications. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] Who and why?[/QUOTE] in the current state of affairs in the US in which the title of marriage is conducted between various members of faiths or non-faith, where this government-recognized title automatically applies legal protections and abilities between the two members of the marriage, it is far from a religious institution it is not reasonable to ask gay couples to jump through tons of hoops to establish the same legal statuses such as hospital visitation rights through special documents that straight couples are not expected to do, or to apply taxation in a way that denies gay couples benefits given to straight couples
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;52422849]So draft up a will or other legal agreement with your spouse after you get married? Again, I see literally no reason why marriage should have any implicit or explicit legal ramifications.[/QUOTE] Marriage is the exclusive method that enables you to gain access to over a thousand Federal rights and responsibilities, including the right to jointly file taxes, having Power of Attorney over your spouse, hospital visitation rights, and even death benefits. Marriage has [I]massive[/I] legal ramifications. You can either rewrite every involved federal law to have this read "adult couples in committed relationships" or similar wording and then try and avoid creating unintended consequences, or you can just let gay couples get married the way straight couples can. Separate but equal is not equal. It's really fucking simple.
[QUOTE=bitches;52422870]in the current state of affairs in the US in which the title of marriage is conducted between various members of faiths or non-faith, where this government-recognized title automatically applies legal protections and abilities between the two members of the marriage, it is far from a religious institution it is not reasonable to ask gay couples to jump through tons of hoops to establish the same legal statuses such as hospital visitation rights through special documents that straight couples are not expected to do, or to apply taxation in a way that denies gay couples benefits given to straight couples[/QUOTE] I'm not proposing marriage stays the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals go through a lawyer and I never did, no idea where you got that idea. I'm proposing it changes for [I]everyone[/I]. Government doesn't recognize it for [I]anyone[/I]. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52422871]Marriage is the exclusive method that enables you to gain access to over a thousand Federal rights and responsibilities, including the right to jointly file taxes, having Power of Attorney over your spouse, hospital visitation rights, and even death benefits. Marriage has [I]massive[/I] legal ramifications. You can either rewrite every involved federal law to have this read "adult couples in committed relationships" or similar wording and then try and avoid creating unintended consequences, or you can just let gay couples get married the way straight couples can. Separate but equal is not equal. It's really fucking simple.[/QUOTE] Then what happens with the next group of people the law doesn't include?
[QUOTE=pentium;52421460][B]Religion[/B] Poor education practices Political pandering Personal beliefs Tradition Pick a category. Your question was pretty loaded.[/QUOTE] As someone who lives here, I feel like I can say that this is probably the number one reason for it. I'll also elaborate on some of these. You're in the deep south ([B]hugely[/B] conservative because of the traditions and morals held here that date back far before segregation ended), mixed with the bible belt. You'd be hard pressed to go on a road trip and not pass at least a single person carrying a Confederate flag on their pickup. Texas government also continues to slash funding for education. This means cost for college goes up, and funds allocated to mandated public education goes down. I've known many teachers who will unnecessarily insert their own political or religious views into the material they teach, sometimes frequently. This is the state that has, multiple times over the past decade, attempted to secede from the United States, where nearly half of voters reported they would support a secession movement if Hillary were elected. This is the state that is trying to bring back "separate but equal" by segregating transgender people from cisgender people in bathrooms, a bill that was killed and specifically reignited through a special session by the governor himself which is still waiting to be addressed this month. Texas will do everything in its power to go down kicking and screaming by limiting any sense of progressiveness in the state. Granted, these views only really heavily apply when it comes to smaller communities and towns. There's a very silent majority, while the progressive side tend to be a lot more vocal from what I've seen. However you view it, Texas probably won't be anywhere close to pushing for progressive reform for a very long time simply because of how ingrained racism and persecution is in the state. [editline]Edited: [/editline] [QUOTE=thrawn2787;52423339]Then what happens with the next group of people the law doesn't include?[/QUOTE] What group are you talking about? Marriage is legally identifiable between two sexes: man and woman. Whatever gender you identify as has nothing to do with that.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;52423339]Then what happens with the next group of people the law doesn't include?[/QUOTE] What group is there to exclude? Men marrying men, men marrying women, women marrying women. Bases: Covered. If you're going to use this as a slippery slope to "what about someone marrying their dog", I shouldn't even have to explain why that's a disingenuous argument.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52423436]What group is there to exclude? Men marrying men, men marrying women, women marrying women. Bases: Covered. If you're going to use this as a slippery slope to "what about someone marrying their dog", I shouldn't even have to explain why that's a disingenuous argument.[/QUOTE] Well first off you just used binary genders as did WitheredGryphon, wouldn't be surprised if the law did too. Speaking of binary my guess is that polygamy will be the next issue, though I'm not willing to put money on that actually getting main stream support, but I wouldn't be surprised. All this aside you still haven't come up with an actual argument besides "it's hard." Which I guarantee you you'd say isn't in argument in a different debate, like say global warming. "I acknowledge climate change may have some impact but it's too hard for us to get off fossil fuels quickly / entirely" etc etc. Like if the government dropped this and forced it to private citizens to deal with this you really don't think an industry (really the existing legal industry) would come up really quick and you'd have pre-written, standard agreements that are easy for people to sign for a small fee? [editline]2nd July 2017[/editline] Like it's pretty basic set theory that: Inverse(Nobody) (i.e. EVERYBODY) is a super set of (Heterosexuals Union LGBTQ+ Intersect Binary relationships)
Polygamy breaks all sorts of property law and tax law, plus everything about family law. It's not [I]nearly[/I] as simple as merely expanding the definition of marriage to be inclusive across the observed physical genders instead of explicitly restricting it to a man and a woman. There are very good, logistical reasons to bar households with three wives and four husbands from counting themselves as a single unit. First of all, if two of those people get a divorce, what happens? How does custody work? What the hell kind of tax loophole does that create? If the government devolved all legal benefits and requirements that are currently tied to marriage to applying to any civil union, and just said "all y'all get civil unions from the City Hall, marriage is the party you throw at a church after the paperwork is signed", and they actually got the religious segment of the population on board, I'd be okay with that. But at the moment marriage is a hugely important legal status and some people want to keep it limited to only heterosexual couples for reasons of either religion (which should never be a justification for a law that affects the legal rights of citizens) or bigotry. Something's got to give and it's hella easier to expand the legal definition of marriage to not be needlessly homophobic. And why the fuck are you bringing gender identity into this? The point of reforming the definition of marriage to not be exclusive to one man and one woman is to stop the law from looking at what's under your clothes, and instead recognize two consenting adults and their decision to form a long-term relationship and accept the legal benefits and responsibilities that come with it.
Because both of you said "men and women and men and men and women and women" when gender identity doesn't conform to it. If we literally took your post and made it law it would've excluded nonbinary people. You really trust the government to do better than you did? And aren't all those points about polygamy really just backing me up? "Oh two person relationships is all the government is wiling to handle so fuck everyone else?" Not that I support polygamy but, again, I'm predicting it's the next social issue. Polygamy is illegal, people will fight to make it legal, and then they'll fight for what they perceive as the full set of legal rights / benefits. Where did that happen before? :thinking: And the best part about dropping all this regulation is that for the [I]next[/I] group even after that I can't predict it won't be an issue! [quote] It's not nearly as simple...There are very good, logistical reasons to bar...[/quote] And once [I]again[/I] you're pulling the "but it's hard" argument, guess you didn't read my post. Cool. So far as taxes go civil unions shouldn't get tax breaks. Government should. not. care. Then the rest of the matters (inheritance, visitation rights, etc) can go to a private agreement. [quote] But at the moment marriage is a hugely important legal status[/quote] And I'm proposing it shouldn't be and you should be able to work out these agreements privately. They should be common place and easy to obtain and the government shouldn't get in the way. [quote]and some people want to keep it limited to only heterosexual couples for reasons of either religion (which should never be a justification for a law that affects the legal rights of citizens) or bigotry.[/quote] Okay, literally never argued this?? [quote]easier to expand the legal definition of marriage to not be needlessly homophobic.[/quote] Again with the "it's hard" argument. So you focus on gays at the detriment of other groups? Don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing we block gay marriage till we can fully fix the system. But don't act like gay marriage will be the last marriage legal battle in modern society. Unless, of course, we get the rid of all the laws around marriage all together. [quote]stop the law from looking at what's under your clothes[/quote] Literally the easiest way to do that is to get the government out of marriage completely. You're still arguing the government should look both under your clothes and in the bedroom but it should expand the definition of what goes on in the bedroom is okay and what isn't. I'm proposing the government quite literally stop giving a shit about both of those things all together.
Thrawn, the core of your argument is that marriage is an inherently religious entity, which is simply not the case.
[QUOTE=bitches;52424358]Thrawn, the core of your argument is that marriage is an inherently religious entity, which is simply not the case.[/QUOTE] not in today's society. just a dumb, stray thought: if you want to argue separation of religion and state then how come when you do your tax, if you're married you gotta put their income and shit down, on a legal form, if marriage is a religious thing?
Marriage isn't a religious institution, and hasn't been for a while now. It's a legal one. It's a representation of your relationship to another person that has been legally recognized, and codified, you're bound by certain rules and you bind the local governments to recognize you as a joint entity. This is wildly valuable and important to day to day life for people, like owning a home, owning a mortgage, joint ownership or healthcare reasons. Yes, you can do those things without being married, but marriage helps, and at least for healthcare, how would that be handled without marriage? Who gets to determine who gets in your hospital room? If that's just a private agreement, as you suggest Thrawn, hows that actually work in an emergency? What if said person didn't designate anyone(Most people don't designate shit, they're lazy)? I guess we just let them sit in the room in a coma because we can't just let someone else make their decisions without legal right. A parent, or a spouse often gets those rights, so marriage is important and I don't see an alternative to marriage.
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;52430893]not in today's society. just a dumb, stray thought: if you want to argue separation of religion and state then how come when you do your tax, if you're married you gotta put their income and shit down, on a legal form, if marriage is a religious thing?[/QUOTE] I don't think you read my post correctly. That, or you didn't write what you meant.
[QUOTE=bitches;52431905]I don't think you read my post correctly. That, or you didn't write what you meant.[/QUOTE] It looks like they interpreted it as you saying that it is a religious thing, when you were saying it isn't.
[QUOTE=bitches;52431905]I don't think you read my post correctly. That, or you didn't write what you meant.[/QUOTE] it wasnt a retort, it was sort of a reply to the guy you were replying to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.