On Gay Marriage

[Ted S]

Seems like there is nonstop gnashing-of-teeth over this whole gay marriage thing but in my opinion the entire discussion is moot.

The real discussion ought to be:

Why should the government favor married people over single people?

If the government made law that treated people as individuals this whole gay marriage thing would go away. Can anybody tell me why the government should give preference to one group of people while ignoring or punishing another group?

Look, marriage is a good thing but it can be a private thing.  I just can't see why the government needs to be in the marriage business at all.

[RWE]

[wbcoleman]

Seems like there is nonstop gnashing-of-teeth over this whole gay marriage thing but in my opinion the entire discussion is moot.

The real discussion ought to be:

Why should the government favor married people over single people?

If the government made law that treated people as individuals this whole gay marriage thing would go away. Can anybody tell me why the government should give preference to one group of people while ignoring or punishing another group?

Look, marriage is a good thing but it can be a private thing.  I just can't see why the government needs to be in the marriage business at all.

You don't believe that spouses ought to be able to inherit each other's property automatically?

[Ted S]

You don't believe that spouses ought to be able to inherit each other's property automatically?

Seems like a minor convenience.

Don't get me wrong, I think lots of people will still get married but it wouldn't have legal implications.  I suppose most churches would offer the couple some sort of boilerplate legal agreement to sign around the time of the ceremony.  Just like when you but life insurance, you can name pretty much anybody as the beneficiary.

Apparently Iowahawk read my post and had weighed in.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/03/26/Same-Sex-Marriage-and-Gilligan-s-Island-Game-Theory

[wbcoleman]

You don't believe that spouses ought to be able to inherit each other's property automatically?

Seems like a minor convenience.

Don't get me wrong, I think lots of people will still get married but it wouldn't have legal implications.  I suppose most churches would offer the couple some sort of boilerplate legal agreement to sign around the time of the ceremony.  Just like when you but life insurance, you can name pretty much anybody as the beneficiary.

Apparently Iowahawk read my post and had weighed in.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/03/26/Same-Sex-Marriage-and-Gilligan-s-Island-Game-Theory

I'd call inheritance rights a bit more than "a minor convenience"!

[Ted S]

I'd call inheritance rights a bit more than "a minor convenience"!

Right now if you're married and you die, your stuff automatically goes to your spouse.  If you don't want this all you have to do is draw up a contract that spells out your preferred terms.

In a USA where the government didn't recognize the religious designation of marriage there would be a greater need for a written contract rather than today's implied contract.  As I said, I would guess that most churches would have some standard contracts on hand that basically said, "I leave everything to my spouse."  The couple would sign on the line that is dotted after the ceremony and legally it would be no different than it is today.  This seems logical and reasonable to me.

In the case of married people who didn't have a WILL, I suppose it would be decided much like it is today for singles who live together but never get married.  They would have the matter resolved in the court system.

Iowahawk makes a brief but effective argument I think.  The state doesn't recognize, nor confer special benefits on people who have been baptized or confirmed.  There's no special tax benefits taking communion.  Marriage is really a religious designation and even though it is widespread and popular, the state shouldn't be involved.

[wbcoleman]

I'd call inheritance rights a bit more than "a minor convenience"!

Right now if you're married and you die, your stuff automatically goes to your spouse.  If you don't want this all you have to do is draw up a contract that spells out your preferred terms.

In a USA where the government didn't recognize the religious designation of marriage there would be a greater need for a written contract rather than today's implied contract.  As I said, I would guess that most churches would have some standard contracts on hand that basically said, "I leave everything to my spouse."  The couple would sign on the line that is dotted after the ceremony and legally it would be no different than it is today.  This seems logical and reasonable to me.

In the case of married people who didn't have a WILL, I suppose it would be decided much like it is today for singles who live together but never get married.  They would have the matter resolved in the court system.

Iowahawk makes a brief but effective argument I think.  The state doesn't recognize, nor confer special benefits on people who have been baptized or confirmed.  There's no special tax benefits taking communion.  Marriage is really a religious designation and even though it is widespread and popular, the state shouldn't be involved.

You would abolish civil marriage, a la the State of Israel?

[Ted S]

I'm not familiar with civil marriage in Israel but it all boils down to the fact that the US government should treat people as individuals whenever possible.  I think the government goes astray when it puts people into groups and and then either grants them special favor or imposes special punishment.  Private organizations, like churches, should be allowed to draw such distinctions but lawmakers shouldn't.

[wbcoleman]

I'm not familiar with civil marriage in Israel but it all boils down to the fact that the US government should treat people as individuals whenever possible.  I think the government goes astray when it puts people into groups and and then either grants them special favor or imposes special punishment.  Private organizations, like churches, should be allowed to draw such distinctions but lawmakers shouldn't.

I brought up Israel because civil marriage doesn't exist there.  Is that what you are advocating for the United States?

[Ted S]

I brought up Israel because civil marriage doesn't exist there.  Is that what you are advocating for the United States?

Probably so.  I'm just not familiar enough with the thing called "Civil Marriage" as it is in Israel to give you an unequivocal yes but is seems the general flavor is correct.

[wbcoleman]

I brought up Israel because civil marriage doesn't exist there.  Is that what you are advocating for the United States?

Probably so.  I'm just not familiar enough with the thing called "Civil Marriage" as it is in Israel to give you an unequivocal yes but is seems the general flavor is correct.

See, in Israel only religious marriage exists.  Christian and Muslim authorities control Christian and Muslim marriages.  The Chief Rabbinate controls Jewish marriage and, if you are Jewish but if your proposed marriage would violate some aspect of Jewish law, you cannot get married without leaving the country.

[Ted S]

See, in Israel only religious marriage exists.  Christian and Muslim authorities control Christian and Muslim marriages.  The Chief Rabbinate controls Jewish marriage and, if you are Jewish but if your proposed marriage would violate some aspect of Jewish law, you cannot get married without leaving the country.

You seem to be hinting that there is a problem with this. It seems reasonable that the Jewish church wouldn't allow people who who violate Jewish law to be members of the church.  Maybe I'm missing something here but what's wrong with this?  You're going to have to spell-it-out plainly for me because if there is something fundamentally wrong I'm not seeing it.

[wbcoleman]

See, in Israel only religious marriage exists.  Christian and Muslim authorities control Christian and Muslim marriages.  The Chief Rabbinate controls Jewish marriage and, if you are Jewish but if your proposed marriage would violate some aspect of Jewish law, you cannot get married without leaving the country.

You seem to be hinting that there is a problem with this. It seems reasonable that the Jewish church wouldn't allow people who who violate Jewish law to be members of the church.  Maybe I'm missing something here but what's wrong with this?  You're going to have to spell-it-out plainly for me because if there is something fundamentally wrong I'm not seeing it.

Approximately 30% of the Israeli population is Orthodox.  A similar percentage is chiluni, or secular.  As an example, Jewish law prescribes that a Kohein, a priest, cannot marry a divorcee or a convert, which can be enough of a problem for the religiously observant, but for such a completely secular couple it still means they cannot marry within Israel.  And, of course, intermarriages may not be performed.  Such people get married in Cyprus which, I suppose, helps out the Cypriot economy.

[Ted S]

As an example, Jewish law prescribes that a Kohein, a priest, cannot marry a divorcee or a convert, which can be enough of a problem for the religiously observant, but for such a completely secular couple it still means they cannot marry within Israel.  And, of course, intermarriages may not be performed.

Are you saying that the state forbids it by law?  If so then Israel clearly violates my notion of getting the state out of the business of marriage. That's fine for Israel because it's their country and they can run it any way they see fit but the USA is forbidden from establishing a state religion.

[wbcoleman]

As an example, Jewish law prescribes that a Kohein, a priest, cannot marry a divorcee or a convert, which can be enough of a problem for the religiously observant, but for such a completely secular couple it still means they cannot marry within Israel.  And, of course, intermarriages may not be performed.

Are you saying that the state forbids it by law?  If so then Israel clearly violates my notion of getting the state out of the business of marriage. That's fine for Israel because it's their country and they can run it any way they see fit but the USA is forbidden from establishing a state religion.

The state forbids civil marriage, and the religious authorities prescribe the requirements for religious marriage.  I thought that's what you're proposing for the U.S.!