Nathan Collier, whodey's hero

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
I actually agree, but only on one, unnegotiable condition: that you don't get any, I repeat any bonuses, tax credits, subsidies, whatever, for being married. All accounts are to remain separate, spouses get no benefits, not during life, not on inheritance, none whatsoever.
In other words: if the state has no business in your marriage, your marri ...[text shortened]... fine: less of my tax money would go to married couples who only whine to me about their spouses.

At present, there is no US federal gift tax charged for money or other items of monetary value transferred between spouses (I don't know about other countries). But it is charged for parent-to-child, friend-to-friend, and other gift situations. Would you eliminate this and require the gifting spouse to keep track and pay gift tax when the limit is exceeded? In many cases there is income disparity, even to the point of one spouse being "stay-at-home," say, home schooling children or devoting time to charity work, or is unemployed involuntarily.🙂) This is clearly a government-bestowed benefit of marriage.

One might say the gift tax should itself be eliminated, but this "easy solution" is unlikely, and raises issues best discussed in another thread.

Originally posted by sh76
You can have civil domestic partnerships to accomplish all of those things.

But don't you want to have to buy a marriage license?

You must be an anarchist. 😛

Originally posted by vivify
You're not born polygamous. Case closed.

You're not born gay married either. On the other hand, bisexual males are (for the most part) born wanting to have sex with more than one woman over the course of a lifetime.

Originally posted by whodey
Marauder should be along any moment now saying that the state needs to determine if it is in the best interest of the state to let them marry, that is, after arguing that gays should be allowed to marry based upon the notion that it is their natural right to do so.

I guess we have no natural rights unless it is shown that the state has a compelling interest to let us have them.

Good luck with that! 😵

I think everybody here knows that your statements aren't even within shouting distance of my actual position which was rather carefully explained to you though it seems you were too ideologically blinded to grasp it.

"The best interest of the State" has nothing to do with it.

You have your Natural Rights no matter what the State does (or even if there is a State).

Governmental regulations which effect Natural Rights must satisfy the test I provided you one part of which is that the regulate must serve "a compelling governmental interest".

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The arguments for legalising polygamy are totally different
to same-sex marriage ... but why not? Good luck to him.

That depends on your reason.

Every reason I have heard for gay marriage is consistent with any marriage between consenting adults.

Originally posted by JS357
In a sense, government is taking over the role of the church for society's recognition and approval of the union. The way I see it, other than this symbolic role, the state provides a role in record keeping and adjudication service for couples wishing to make use of it for those wills and trusts and prenups and powers of attorney etc. Most of the work done, an ...[text shortened]... d that government could provide a court of last resort more or less along the lines of tort law.

The whole purpose of civil recognition of marriage is so that the parties don't have to write separate binding contracts covering all types of these items; you consent to one contract which does and that's called a "marriage".

Originally posted by sh76
You can have civil domestic partnerships to accomplish all of those things.

Calling Group A's contract "marriage" and group's B's identical contract "civil partnership" merely because you disapprove of Group B is invidious discrimination.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Calling Group A's contract "marriage" and group's B's identical contract "civil partnership" merely because you disapprove of Group B is invidious discrimination.

Being a sexual deviant is reason enough to be looked down upon.

Originally posted by Eladar
Being a sexual deviant is reason enough to be looked down upon.

Individuals may look down at whomever they want, though I suspect by the Victorian definitions of "sexual deviant" that you seem to approve of most sexually active adults in the US would be "sexual deviants".

The State, however, is banned from passing laws that invidiously discriminate.

I've been looking for some cases where polygamy laws were upheld using "strict scrutiny" analysis. I found Potter v. Murray City, 585 F. Supp. 1126 (1984) with this rationale:

It has been said that states have an "absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which marriage ... shall be created ...." (Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 399, 98 S.Ct. 673, 688, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978); Powell, J., concurring, quoting Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-35, 5 Otto 714, 734-35, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878).) In exercising that right, the state "represent[s] the collective expression of moral aspirations" and there is "an undeniable interest in ensuring that its rules of domestic relations reflect the widely held values of its people." Id. (Powell, J., concurring). States have traditionally passed laws regulating marriage which include "laws on incest, bigamy, and homosexuality, as well as various preconditions to marriage such as blood tests." Id. As stated in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 8 S.Ct. 723, 726, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888), "[m]arriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the Legislature."

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19841711585FSupp1126_11504.xml/POTTER%20v.%20MURRAY%20CITY

That case was 30 years ago. It seems rather plain that that "compelling interest" didn't survive last week at the SCOTUS.

Originally posted by JS357
At present, there is no US federal gift tax charged for money or other items of monetary value transferred between spouses (I don't know about other countries). But it is charged for parent-to-child, friend-to-friend, and other gift situations. Would you eliminate this and require the gifting spouse to keep track and pay gift tax when the limit is exceeded?

Yes. Absolutely yes. Or the government gets to say who can and cannot get married, and what requirements there are for that marriage. If you want the tax exemption, you've given the government a financial interest in your marriage, and therefore the right to check that it's legit.

Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the specific choices your, my, or any other government makes in this respect - only that I believe they are justified in making that choice, given married people's demands to be treated as special snowflakes.

Originally posted by sh76
You can have civil domestic partnerships to accomplish all of those things.

That may be true, but the present system has been in place for quite awhile now, and I don't see it changing anytime soon, in addition, I very much doubt the conservative folks here in America would be comfortable in taking the work "marriage" out of the legal language regarding the union of a man and woman, and replacing it with the term civil domestic partnership.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The whole purpose of civil recognition of marriage is so that the parties don't have to write separate binding contracts covering all types of these items; you consent to one contract which does and that's called a "marriage".

It would be interesting to know what various judicial rulings imply are the legally binding contractual commitments of the "one contract" that's called marriage. One, I suppose, is financial responsibility for the support of genetic or legally adopted children.