Adrian Peterson says he's 'not with' gay marriage

[Smitty]

I guess I'm not understanding what the disagreement is here.

 

[skidadl]

I think the point is that you pretty much can't get married without having the government involved. I mean unless you want to convert and become a Druid or something.

Actually I think you can. Which is my reason for not wanting gay marriage to become part of the governmental oversight.

Go on down to the local gay preacher and have a ceremony. Or how bout this - why do you even need a preacher? Do it however you want, gay it all up and be happy. That is the way I'd rather straight marriage be as well.

 

[Carp]

Right...then you can do whatever you want legally like Schmitty said above, without including the government.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Actually I think you can. Which is my reason for not wanting gay marriage to become part of the governmental oversight.

Go on down to the local gay preacher and have a ceremony. Or how bout this - why do you even need a preacher? Do it however you want, gay it all up and be happy. That is the way I'd rather straight marriage be as well.

Let's assume for the sake of conversation you are correct. Tell me how you would deal with the inevetible circumstance of divorce or seperation. Who is going to determine property distribution and child custody arrangements?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

child custody arrangements?

This actually happens all the time outside of marriage. You file a paternity lawsuit with the courts and they decided the custody arrangements. You would lose the presumption that a child born in a marriage is a child of the husband though. Property distribution would get somewhat problematic since most people wouldn't be smart enough to set up a contract when they start.

 

[L.T. Fan]

This actually happens all the time outside of marriage. You file a paternity lawsuit with the courts and they decided the custody arrangements. You would lose the presumption that a child born in a marriage is a child of the husband though. Property distribution would get somewhat problematic since most people wouldn't be smart enough to set up a contract when they start.

All the more reason it is highly improbable to exclude government from marriage whether gay or conventional.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Right...then you can do whatever you want legally like Schmitty said above, without including the government.

But there are still problems, like familial medical rights and inheritance taxes, that can't be solved by drawing up legal documents outside of the purview of the government.

 

[EZ22]

But there are still problems, like familial medical rights and inheritance taxes, that can't be solved by drawing up legal documents outside of the purview of the government.

Right on. It's very difficult to be "married" without the government being involved.

 

[Carp]

But there are still problems, like familial medical rights and inheritance taxes, that can't be solved by drawing up legal documents outside of the purview of the government.

OK, so now we are getting down to the real issue. They need the documentation provided by the government to get those benefits, otherwise just any person could walk in and say that someone was their dependent, while really being a fraud. So I guess having the government involved in marriages does have some benefits.

And again...this has nothing to do with the social and religious aspects of marriage.

 

[skidadl]

Right on. It's very difficult to be "married" without the government being involved.

Well crap, now I feel like we've solved nothing.

 

[Kbrown]

Well crap, now I feel like we've solved nothing.

Maybe this will fire things up again: if it's all about equality under the law and familial rights, why won't gay activists accept the compromise of civil unions?

 

[Smitty]

All the more reason it is highly improbable to exclude government from marriage whether gay or conventional.

It's improbable that politicians will ever act on it. And it would make things more complicated.

But its not impractical.

 

[Smitty]

But there are still problems, like familial medical rights and inheritance taxes, that can't be solved by drawing up legal documents outside of the purview of the government.

Those rights can be distributed differently than they are now, is all.

Right now anyone who gets "married" gets a package of rights that includes, say, automatic inheritance under state intestacy laws, when their spouse dies.

Well, a "will" still always trumps state intestacy laws, for one, so you can always contract around it.

Two, in the absence of state marriage and the laws that assign property to a "spouse" upon death, you'd simply have new common law doling out the property on a case-by-case basis based on the facts. "Steve and I lived together for 25 years. We were married in the Unitarian Church on main street and we raised a child that I adopted together. I stayed at home while he worked. I am entitled to his stuff now that he's dead."

Well, a court can still sort through those arguments in the absence of a statute and come up with common law.

 

[skidadl]

Maybe this will fire things up again: if it's all about equality under the law and familial rights, why won't gay activists accept the compromise of civil unions?

I don't know but that is very gay of them.

My guess is that it isn't about equality. It is about pushing an agenda and demanding that everyone say that it is OK to do what they are doing. Gays want to be accepted by society as equal to straight couples. They using the government as a vehicle to push their agenda much like religious people have. Which is weird when I see libertarians coming on strong for more governmental involvement in favor of gays. We don't need more governmental involvement in much of anything.

I get what the agenda is - gays are normal, gays need acceptance, gays are wildly insecure so they need everyone to tell them it is OK, gays this, gays that, blah, blah, blah...

FINE! We love you, gays. Now be gay and go be happy. I am sorry that life is tough but so is life in general. Sorry, no special treatment for you.

Here is the logic for some though - that we love small government but if straight people get special treatment we should abandon our small government so-called convictions to make all things equal. I say step one is to slow this train down by not expanding involvement for the sake of fairness. And I use the term fairness because I dang sure don't believe that marriage is a right. Special treatment/recognition for straight marriage is not a right and neither is it for gay marriage.

 

[skidadl]

Those rights can be distributed differently than they are now, is all.

Right now anyone who gets "married" gets a package of rights that includes, say, automatic inheritance under state intestacy laws, when their spouse dies.

Well, a "will" still always trumps state intestacy laws, for one, so you can always contract around it.

Two, in the absence of state marriage and the laws that assign property to a "spouse" upon death, you'd simply have new common law doling out the property on a case-by-case basis based on the facts. "Steve and I lived together for 25 years. We were married in the Unitarian Church on main street and we raised a child that I adopted together. I stayed at home while he worked. I am entitled to his stuff now that he's dead."

Well, a court can still sort through those arguments in the absence of a statute and come up with common law.

Exactly. This is how it can work. No special recognition is needed for this. The deal is that society wants the government to make this all happen for them. Folks don't want to live with their choices and make their own way. They'd rather have government do it for them. Get a will, be a grown up and take control of your own life.

 

[skidadl]

I'm feeling chatty today. Let's do this!

 

[Smitty]

Exactly. This is how it can work. No special recognition is needed for this. The deal is that society wants the government to make this all happen for them. Folks don't want to live with their choices and make their own way. They'd rather have government do it for them. Get a will, be a grown up and take control of your own life.

Well, if a court is deciding it, it's still the government.

I'm just saying, a court can decide what is equitable in terms of distributing property without the existence of a law mandating that they have to do X or Y. It would allow a court to do what they think is fair in such situations. You would eventually have common law that existed saying gay people can inherit from one another on the basis of a church-recognized marriage.

The difference is that you don't get a government created entity that it will force everyone else to accept. If a private business wants to not recognize a gay marriage, it can, because the government itself is not recognizing it as anything.

Good luck with that in today's environment. If a hotel or business tried to not serve a black person, the full force of every regulatory agency in the country would fall upon them in a heartbeat backed by the peversion of the commerce clause. They'd say the actions violate law and that they can force them to change their policies under the commerce clause because if, say, hotels won't serve black people, that will effect them traveling, and that affects interstate commerce (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States). Same logic will soon apply with gay people.

So as soon as, say, a hotel refuses to recognize a gay marriage in today's country, you will see the same thing happening. As soon as gay marriage is recognized country-wide, the next step will be to force every private entity on the planet to accept it. They'll claim it's hurting interstate commerce not to accept it, because that's exactly what they did with race.

And that's not fair. It's not fair to private people who hold legitimate religious convictions that they cannot recognize such a union. If Ma and Pa's bed and breakfast wants to turn away two gay people from renting their rooms, they should be able to. But if the government says that gay marriage is equal to regular marriage, soon it will be the same equal rights issue as before and they'll force everyone to encorporate it into their businesses and lives. So when someone asks "How is gay marriage hurting you" it is a completely disingenuous rhetorical question because the fact is the government forces private entities to accept things all the time.

Since we're not overturning the commerce clause cases anytime soon and preventing the government from compelling private entities to do things they don't want to do, the other option is do away with official recognition of marriage and simply dole out the rights through the common law.

Complicated? Yes.

But fairer than the alternative? Very much so.

 

[VA Cowboy]

He's voicing his personal opinion. That seems totally acceptable to me.

I can't see any reason why anyone would be upset about him stating his opinion on this matter. He was in no way insulting and expanded on a topic that stemmed from the radio personality bringing up the cutting of Kluwe.

Yep and yep.

 

[BipolarFuk]

Maybe this will fire things up again: if it's all about equality under the law and familial rights, why won't gay activists accept the compromise of civil unions?

Did blacks accept compromise when fighting for their rights?

Did they agree to sit in the middle of the bus, but not the front?

There are equal rights or things are not equal.

There is no compromise.

 

[VA Cowboy]

I understand the gays like it in the back.