Gay Marriage and the law of unintended consequences...

[Night Stalker]

No, it is not wrong to legislate morality. It just varies with level of scale. A society must on some level legislate morality otherwise there is no purpose to laws. You are correct. "Do no harm" is a moral concept.

Note that I did not say "abolish all morality laws". That would do away every law on the books, because in some way, most laws have an underlying guiding morality. But, you have problems when you macro level scoped laws dictating micro level aspects of life. i.e. a Constutional ban on gay marriage.

MTF ...

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Anyway, back to Thoran! I don't like the lifestyle of 'those people' either, I don't think the Constitution supports any ban on their lifestyle. Therefore, live and let live and all. The less "Moral decency" laws (applying the consenting adults standard and "my rights end where another's begins" standard), and the less "Nanny" laws we have, the better I think this country will be. [/QB]

I can definitely agree with that! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Maelakin: I believe I brought this up before in another thread, but it also pertains to this thread. Marriage in the eyes of the law is a business merger, in essence, between two people. Unless a contractual agreement is made before the union, all possessions between the pair are considered mutual holdings. In addition, each party is able to make decisions pertaining to the other party’s well being. Benefits are also bestowed upon the pair as a result of this union. For example, health insurance benefits now cover the other party. The above illustrates why polygamy is not at all related, or even in line, with a gay marriage. When you increase the number of individuals contained within the union, you also increase the monetary cost to third parties. Insurances companies, for example, now have to cover three individuals, if one additional party was involved, instead of the normal two individuals. By legalizing polygamy, you also institute a reorganization of most medical and benefit packages intrinsically tied into every company. Marriage overall is an outdated practice. All benefits associated with marriage should be removed and each person should act as their own party, much like Timber stated. If people still want to get married, they can understand it is for no reason other than the symbolism it presents. There is no sanctimony in marriage anymore. Attempting to draw a correlation between gay marriage and polygamy may at first glance seem easy, but once you realize marriage is nothing like it once was and is a business venture, it completely changes the outlook. In effect, by having multiple wives/husbands, you are stealing from companies who have, because of the laws, established marriage to include two parties…no more.

Well I've been thinking about this, and it makes sense but some annoying bugs keep popping into my head:

First of all... I don't believe the notion of a contract is limited to two parties, so conceptually the idea that marriage as a contract does not preclude polygamy.

Second... polygamy would most certainly increase the burden on a benefit providing company (assuming benefits packages weren't altered due to these law changes), but I would argue that divorce/remarriage can and does shift the burden on many insurance companies (one company gets to pay for two marriages worth of kids). I would further argue that the gay marriage of two women (or men) with children may very well significantly increase the benefit load of the partner with the best medical coverage. Taking this possibility and factoring in human nature, if you don't think there will be pairs of single women (men) out there who will "marry" (in name only) for superior med. benefits for their kids then I've got a bridge for sale. [img]smile.gif[/img] Now keeping it at two WOULD in effect "control the damage", limiting the impact to a company... but the difference between covering two and three adults is not nearly as much as covering two adults with 6 or 8 kids between them. In reality I think we may start to see a shift in how workers benefits are delivered, and in the unlikely event that polygamy was made legal I think you'd see a QUICK change in benefit packages to avoid this sort of problem.

IMO it comes down to the morality question recently discussed. Any government desireing to maintain stability NEEDS to legislate a certain degree of morality.

From Webster's 1913 Dictionary:
3. The doctrines or rules of moral duties, or the duties of
men in their social character; ethics.

The end of morality is to procure the affections to
obey reason, and not to invade it. --Bacon.

The system of morality to be gathered out of . . .
ancient sages falls very short of that delivered in
the gospel. --Swift.

I believe our society was on firm footing when it defined marriage as a "state of being husband and wife", it was cut and dried, no exceptions. Gay marriage and Polygamy were rejected because marriage was this simple concept... no room for any other interpretations, the moral position was clean and difinitive. Now it seems we've got another interpretation, and our government is saying that it doesn't have the moral imperative to deny Gays their right to marriage. That's fine, but now the simple concept of marriage isn't limited to man and wife... an exception exists... to me this seems like an "open season" declaration. ANYONE desiring a non-traditional partnership can challenge the governments right to where it draws that line in the sand (and I have no doubt we will see challenges... soon). The only justification I can see for the government fighting those challenges will be based on "current moral attitudes" in the US, which still reject things like Polygamy... but the fact of the matter is that the majority of US citizens don't want homosexuals to be allowed to marry, but that doesn't seem to matter. IMO our government is acting on the relative morality of powerful special interest groups, and although it took me a week to realize it... THAT'S what bugs me about this whole blessed thing (and I really did just realize it right there [img]smile.gif[/img] ). I fear our government no longer represents the will of the people, and as a wise man once said, "a house divided against itself can not stand". Abe was a clever fellow, don't believe what the revisionists tell you.

[ 12-09-2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Originally posted by Thoran: I believe our society was on firm footing when it defined marriage as a "state of being husband and wife", it was cut and dried, no exceptions. Gay marriage and Polygamy were rejected because marriage was this simple concept... no room for any other interpretations, the moral position was clean and difinitive. Now it seems we've got another interpretation, and our government is saying that it doesn't have the moral imperative to deny Gays their right to marriage. That's fine, but now the simple concept of marriage isn't limited to man and wife... an exception exists... to me this seems like an "open season" declaration.

if simplicity is what you desire, then surely defining marriage as a "state of being between two people" is the simplest of definitions. more to the point, restricting that those two people be of opposite sex requires the kind of moral interpretation you deride from those that would have marriage be genderless.

the opening up of marriage to same sex couples is not creating an exception to marriage. rather, removing the requirement that couples be of the opposite sex delivers a freedom that never should have been restricted.

Originally posted by Thoran: the fact of the matter is that the majority of US citizens don't want homosexuals to be allowed to marry, but that doesn't seem to matter.

the majority has been known to be in the wrong before. what's so difficult to accept that they're wrong now?

besides, defining marriage is not about a popularity contest. it goes back to the constitution and bill of rights that define the country - equal opportunity, equal rights.

Originally posted by Thoran: a wise man once said, "a house divided against itself can not stand". Abe was a clever fellow, don't believe what the revisionists tell you.

if you truly believe the wise man in this instance, then you would let go of your pre-conceptions about same sex marriages and get behind the constitution and bill of rights.

i'm sure honest abe, one of the greatest humanitarians ever to have lived, is rolling in his grave that you would try to use his words to restrict civil rights in this fashion.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Thoran: ...Now it seems we've got another interpretation, and our government is saying that it doesn't have the moral imperative to deny Gays their right to marriage. That's fine, but now the simple concept of marriage isn't limited to man and wife... an exception exists... to me this seems like an "open season" declaration. ANYONE desiring a non-traditional partnership can challenge the governments right to where it draws that line in the sand (and I have no doubt we will see challenges... soon). The only justification I can see for the government fighting those challenges will be based on "current moral attitudes" in the US, which still reject things like Polygamy... but the fact of the matter is that the majority of US citizens don't want homosexuals to be allowed to marry, but that doesn't seem to matter. fIMO our government is acting on the relative morality of powerful special interest groups, and although it took me a week to realize it... THAT'S what bugs me about this whole blessed thing (and I really did just realize it right there [img]smile.gif[/img] ). I fear our government no longer represents the will of the people, and as a wise man once said, "a house divided against itself can not stand". Abe was a clever fellow, don't believe what the revisionists tell you.

That's a good point that is being obscured and/or overlooked in the debate on this issue. Interestingly enough, a good friend showed me an article addressing this very concept yesterday afternoon. The author has an....."interesting" perspective...to say the least.

I don't make any claims to the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the source site. For those interested, you can read the article here --> I Want to Marry My Dog

[Thoran]

Originally posted by sultan: if simplicity is what you desire, then surely defining marriage as a "state of being between two people" is the simplest of definitions. more to the point, restricting that those two people be of opposite sex requires the kind of moral interpretation you deride from those that would have marriage be genderless. the opening up of marriage to same sex couples is not creating an exception to marriage. rather, removing the requirement that couples be of the opposite sex delivers a freedom that never should have been restricted.

I disagree, "between two people" has more permutations than "man and women", it is more complex... plain and simple. This doesn't mean it's not the correct concept for marriage (after all, divorce has already made marriage MUCH more complex), but it is DEFINITELY not a simpler definition in practice.

Permitting same sex couples does make an exception (call it what you want, expansion, extension, etc...) to the currently held (and until recently historically stable) societal concept of marriage. Your statement is presumptive, it assumes that the object of debate, homosexual marriage, is a given historical right that needs to be restored instead of the restricted activity it has been. It also makes the assumption that gay marriage should never have been restricted, another assumption that is based more in very recent changes to society than on any real historical prescedent.

the majority has been known to be in the wrong before. what's so difficult to accept that they're wrong now?

It's totally possible that they're wrong, and government is not required to always follow the will of the people, but rather to act in their best interest. However, buckling to special interest groups is not a good reason to defy the majority. ESPECIALLY in areas of morality I believe it's exceedingly dangerous for such groups to be allowed to guide the government. I would turn your question around given the track record of our governemnt... It's been known to be wrong before (and with a truly staggering frequency), why is it so difficult to accept that they might be wrong now?

besides, defining marriage is not about a popularity contest. it goes back to the constitution and bill of rights that define the country - equal opportunity, equal rights.

Red Herring, the Bill of Rights does not give people the right to do anything they want based on thier personal desires and interpreations of right and wrong, or morality.

Just for reference:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

if you truly believe the wise man in this instance, then you would let go of your pre-conceptions about same sex marriages and get behind the constitution and bill of rights.

You are presuming to understand my pre-conceptions... incorrectly, which I find ironic given the fact that I clearly communicated earlier that my concerns are not at all based on the notion of Gay marriage itself. I (being a child of modern society) would in fact tend to support the idea (and said so). I started this debate in an attempt to explore some of the second order issues that are sure to arrise when Gay Marriage becomes the norm. You are also presuming that the constitution provide some sort of basis for gay marriage... without providing a shred of evidence.

Regarding pre-conceptions, whenever someone wants to strengthen the position of a demand for change they will by default have to get everyone else to ignore the historical record. The weaker their position, the more strenuously they will try to reduce or eliminate contrary prescedent. I would suggest that instead you need to provide a persuasive argument GIVEN the historical record. Let people have their pre-conceptions... they can be bad, but they also make up the foundation of a stable society. To say we should ignore the historical record is to say "don't worry about thousands of years of history, just do what a minority of people think is OK today.

i'm sure honest abe, one of the greatest humanitarians ever to have lived, is rolling in his grave that you would try to use his words to restrict civil rights in this fashion.

Abe was a strident supporter of marriage as the a fundamental building block of society, and rejected polygamy (it was a republican campaign plank)... which was seen to undermine the concept of marriage. I think you'd find yourself in lonely company if the three of us were in a room debating the topic of Gay marriage (modern revisionist theories notwithstanding).

[Maelakin]

On the subject of benefit companies, the cost is still there.

For example, if you are married and have three children, and later you get divorced, you have 3 dependants that need to be covered. Later, you remarry and have 3 more children upping your total count of dependants to 7 (3 Children + 3 Children +1 Spouse). In the case of polygamy, there is an added dependant in the above equation. In addition, there are now 2 people in the above example that are considered life long dependants, where as children are exempt from benefits at the age of 18 (Sometimes longer depending on the benefit or company).

Another note to make is in the case of divorce; many times, the parent with the best medical coverage covers the children, whether it is the father, mother, or stepparent. It should also be noted that children are less expensive for a medical company to cover then an adult. While children may have more regular doctor visits, adults usually accrue higher bills from the visits they do make.

[Timber Loftis]

CEREK, thanks for the great article. Here's the thing -- everyone keeps saying the majority are against gay "marriage."

However, the majority would nevertheless support gay domestic partnership rights. This is the key -- no one (much) seems to be against extending the rights of employment benefits, inheritance, etc.

Even the Marry my Dog guy seems to be fine with extending the substantive rights so long as we name it to-may-to rather than to-mah-to.

The deeper truth is this: The issue of "gay marriage" has nothing to do with being "fair" to homosexuals. Laws addressing domestic partnerships would handily take care of that. The advancement of a secularist – Godless – agenda is at the core of these efforts.

Oh, and by the way, he does have a point perhaps that should the "community norms" range far enough, you could marry your dog. And, maybe they are. My wife got 120 days in jail on a guy for animal abuse the other day -- which actually supercedes what you can get for Battery on a person. But, at this point, dogs are chattel, personal property, and the notion would be the same notion as "I want to marry my toaster."

Back to our "rose by any other name" discussion. For some reason the Mass. opinion is widely read as requiring marriage. It specifically does not -- and a footnote addresses so long as the rights associated with marriage are provided, it need not be a "marriage" -- the word "civil union" is even cited by the court in discussing this. So, no state has yet required that any such partnership provision be anything other than a substantive rights provision -- NO ONE has said it must be "marriage." Yes, every news station gets this wrong. More liberal media trickery? Maybe. But trust me, they're wrong if they don't understand this about the opinion. It might help them to read it.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Maelakin: On the subject of benefit companies, the cost is still there. For example, if you are married and have three children, and later you get divorced, you have 3 dependants that need to be covered. Later, you remarry and have 3 more children upping your total count of dependants to 7 (3 Children + 3 Children +1 Spouse). In the case of polygamy, there is an added dependant in the above equation. In addition, there are now 2 people in the above example that are considered life long dependants, where as children are exempt from benefits at the age of 18 (Sometimes longer depending on the benefit or company). Another note to make is in the case of divorce; many times, the parent with the best medical coverage covers the children, whether it is the father, mother, or stepparent. It should also be noted that children are less expensive for a medical company to cover then an adult. While children may have more regular doctor visits, adults usually accrue higher bills from the visits they do make.

I was thinking the same thing... that benefits are basically a zero sum game, but wouldn't that mean that adult benefits can be conceptualized the same way? When an adult goes on another adults benefits package he/she comes off thier own. If that person didn't have benefits (not working for instance) then I agree with your assessment... which is why I believe companies would change the way they deliver benefits. The downside of such a change is it would increase the load of "uninsured" persons on the health care industry. In any event I think your point's valid, there are some fundamental differnces between "2 partners" and "multiple partners" that would cause problems. I think challengers would argue that those are surmountable problems, but they ARE there.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Thoran: Red Herring, the Bill of Rights does not give people the right to do anything they want based on thier personal desires and interpreations of right and wrong, or morality. Just for reference: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Actually, one could argue that what you claim is a Red Herring is granted in the Bill of Rights. Just see IX and X - the catch all Rights.