Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CortJstr]

"Sorry, Jesus couldn't make it."

Hey-zeus had to work tonight man.

[AlohaDawg]

I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others

Hell of seconded.

I say the government needs to get the fuck out of the marriage business.  On the civil side, marriage is just a living arrangement and people are more than capeable of designing contracts that meet their needs for the disposal of communal property, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.  The idea that everyone should have the exact same contract is totally unjustified.  Not only is a one-size-fits-none government solution to this "problem" not needed, it's actively harmful in that it stifles choice and infantilizes adults, just like almost everything else the government does.  Plus it's just one more thing to make fuck*ng taxes even more fuck*ng complicated.  FUCK!

As for the religious side of the question (which is not relevant to many people, myself included) the government should stay even further away from that.

Hubby and I got married down at the courthouse by a probate judge, and we could not make him understand that we did not want him to say anything about Jesus or any gods when he married us.  It should have been very simple--he showed us what he usually said when he conducted a marriage (it was very short) and we were like "Yeah, that's fine just leave out this Jesus part here," and he's like "What, I don't understand," and we're like "Just don't say the Jesus part, that's all, otherwise it's fine." He still said the Jesus part.  Hubby's mom looked smug.  I swear she slipped him a $20 to "misunderstand" us.

I would agree that a civil ceremony in a courthouse should not include Jesus.

As for the pigpile on me this past week, one point I made several times was that it would be OK to call it something else, just not 'marriage'. If there were a civil union and Cort, you did that rather than get married, then you should be allowed to use your flex spending accouint on your partner. That's pre-tax income to  your household.

The government isn't worried about your marital status, it's worried about the abuse of what would be TAX DOLLARS. Since that program costs tax dollars, the IRS has an interest in their use and rightly so since it's a benefit that comes at a cost to the government (and everyone, eventually).

Feel free to use your taxed income any way you like. The untaxed portion in your flexible spending account is basically granted to you by the IRS and the opportunity is costly to the government when you consider everyone who participates. That the money is spent with restrictions placed by the agency that basically funds the program makes perfect sense.

[CortJstr]

I would agree that a civil ceremony in a courthouse should not include Jesus.

As for the pigpile on me this past week, one point I made several times was that it would be OK to call it something else, just not 'marriage'. If there were a civil union and Cort, you did that rather than get married, then you should be allowed to use your flex spending accouint on your partner. That's pre-tax income to  your household.

Should anything that takes place in a courthouse not include Jesus?

I'd be fine with "civil union" but only if the government used it exclusively. Recognizing "marriage" as the crazy-werido version of civil unions instead of the other way around.

[Choop]

Should anything that takes place in a courthouse not include Jesus?

Absolutely not.

I'd be fine with "civil union" but only if the government used it exclusively. Recognizing "marriage" as the heterosexual way to  mate for like permanence is just legislating morality.

Agreed?

[CortJstr]

I'd be fine with "civil union" but only if the government used it exclusively. Recognizing "marriage" as the heterosexual way to  mate for like permanence is just legislating morality.

Agreed?

I'm not sure I follow. What I'm saying is the the government should recognize only one state and use one term, that being "civil union" regardless of the genders of the parties involved. Should some people wish to add religion to this state they could have some kind of ceremony and call it a marriage. But the government could not use this religious term.

[AugustWest]

I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others

Hell of seconded.

I say the government needs to get the fuck out of the marriage business.  On the civil side, marriage is just a living arrangement and people are more than capeable of designing contracts that meet their needs for the disposal of communal property, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.  The idea that everyone should have the exact same contract is totally unjustified.  Not only is a one-size-fits-none government solution to this "problem" not needed, it's actively harmful in that it stifles choice and infantilizes adults, just like almost everything else the government does.  Plus it's just one more thing to make fuck*ng taxes even more fuck*ng complicated.  FUCK!

As for the religious side of the question (which is not relevant to many people, myself included) the government should stay even further away from that.

Hubby and I got married down at the courthouse by a probate judge, and we could not make him understand that we did not want him to say anything about Jesus or any gods when he married us.  It should have been very simple--he showed us what he usually said when he conducted a marriage (it was very short) and we were like "Yeah, that's fine just leave out this Jesus part here," and he's like "What, I don't understand," and we're like "Just don't say the Jesus part, that's all, otherwise it's fine." He still said the Jesus part.  Hubby's mom looked smug.  I swear she slipped him a $20 to "misunderstand" us.

I would agree that a civil ceremony in a courthouse should not include Jesus.

As for the pigpile on me this past week, one point I made several times was that it would be OK to call it something else, just not 'marriage'. If there were a civil union and Cort, you did that rather than get married, then you should be allowed to use your flex spending accouint on your partner. That's pre-tax income to  your household.

The government isn't worried about your marital status, it's worried about the abuse of what would be TAX DOLLARS. Since that program costs tax dollars, the IRS has an interest in their use and rightly so since it's a benefit that comes at a cost to the government (and everyone, eventually).

Feel free to use your taxed income any way you like. The untaxed portion in your flexible spending account is basically granted to you by the IRS and the opportunity is costly to the government when you consider everyone who participates. That the money is spent with restrictions placed by the agency that basically funds the program makes perfect sense.

Well damn, why didn't you say so?  I think we actually agree completely.  To the extent "marriage" is a religion ceremony/sacrament/rite/concept/whatever, government has no business determining who can be married.  Conversely, to the extent marriage is a civil, legal status which can effect one's property and other rights, religion has no place determining who can hold that civil status.  It sounds as if we agree completely.

Very sorry you feel piled on.  I'm probably most guilty of it, but I swear such was never my intent.  You have my respect and affection plus we need a conservative around here.

[Choop]

I agree with you. Heterosexuality is, in our society, a mandate of religion and the people who follow and broker it.

While I don't have many close friends who ..."live alternative lifestyles," I appreciate the freedom of the choice to do so, and I'll write until I can't buy a new keyboard to defend their rights to the same legal and fiscal protections in which I and my wife rejoice. (this new keyboard i have is wierd: its home/end/pgup&dn keys are shifted down close to the arrows)

The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- an issuance that when read narrowly may mean that the whole country can't be made into Baptists by force, or when read loosley, that the government can't legislate morality -- either way, beliefs cannot be outlawed by our government.

Bear in mind that our government was founded, as was our Constitution written, with stability in mind. The founding fathers wished no more on us than stability in peace. They laid the foundation on which we (next to every other citizen of the world) have been abused over the last several months. It is the people of the original colonies whom we have to thank for protecting our freedoms of choice in any regard, on any issue. Our Constitution, when read strictly, is meant to provide for quite a rigid, orderly culture. When read loosely, it means to imply the possibility of Bacchanalia. Its framers intended from the start its ambiguity of interpretation, so as not to influence future readers, among whom a balance of sorts exists.


I hope I haven't sounded like I've been reciting a lecture I heard thrice. I have a degree in political science, which is why I decided to be a programmer. It's a terrible field today, what with Crossfire and Fox News Channel on the air.

[AugustWest]

Our Constitution, when read strictly, is meant to provide for quite a rigid, orderly culture. When read loosely, it means to imply the possibility of Bacchanalia. Its framers intended from the start its ambiguity of interpretation, so as not to influence future readers, among whom a balance of sorts exists.

I agree with your third sentence -- so has SCOTUS since Marbury vs. Madison.  I'm not so sure about the first two.  Care to elaborate?  I have trouble following how the Constitution was meant to provide for a "rigid" culture.

[Choop]

I meant for the first and second sentences to balance each other into the third. Read stricly: rigidity. Read loosely: Hedonism. Possibilty of both: balance of liberty with structure, and structure with liberty.

I try to compose with a balance among sentences and paragraphs with my conclusions.* Does that help?


* The search for balance and lack of bias led me toward programming, which is more a science than most disciplines, especially politics. Plus, I have a knack for it: logic reigns supreme in my field; in politics, emotion reigns.

[AugustWest]

No it doesn't help me understand what you mean by the Constitution's "rigidity".  I'm not trying to be obtuse or contradictory, I'm just not sure what you mean.

logic reigns supreme in my field; in politics, emotion reigns.

 Ah, you've hit upon the heartbreak of the government lawyer.  If only they'd listen to us we could tell them how to run things logically.  Damn politicians.

[Choop]

No it doesn't help me understand what you mean by the Constitution's "rigidity".  I'm not trying to be obtuse or contradictory, I'm just not sure what you mean.

The Constitution, read in one mindset, can be everything the framers meant exactly as they meant it. The beliefs, the temporal balances, the vision that each had, can be considered to have been set in stone when instead they were set in print not hours before Hancock signed the declaration.

I choose to believe that the Founding Fathers were a bit more liberal than their British oppressors, or the conervatives ruling the government at every branch today. They recognized the need for interpretation, because they themselves couldn't agree:

Washington: a great General.
Jefferson: a great writer.
Hancock: a great statesman.
Adams: a great politician.
Paine: a great philosopher.
Franklin: a great mind, too great perhaps to settle into one field.

How can these men have agreed, with many others on everything? I firmly believe in a strict adherence to the loose reading of our Constitution. Have you ever compared the first amendment to the, say, twentieth? Law itself has changed to include provisions for dealing with contingencies. a big difference between the third and fifteenth amendments.

Shit, it's time for bed. I haven't looked at what I've typed for half an hour. Hopefully, it's all made sense and, via composition, demonstrated my meaning of intended ambiguity. G'night.

[Nabubrush]

Donut Shop!!! We didn't even invite anyone, other than our witnesses. Giant, multi-thousand dollar wedding? No thanks, just want the paper.

Wait, did you seriously get married in donut shop?  That sounds so ...Canadian!  The idea of getting married at a Tim Horton's amuses me to no end!

Yes, yes we did.

[AlohaDawg]

Well damn, why didn't you say so? I think we actually agree completely. To the extent "marriage" is a religion ceremony/sacrament/rite/concept/whatever, government has no business determining who can be married. Conversely, to the extent marriage is a civil, legal status which can effect one's property and other rights, religion has no place determining who can hold that civil status. It sounds as if we agree completely.

Very sorry you feel piled on. I'm probably most guilty of it, but I swear such was never my intent. You have my respect and affection plus we need a conservative around here.

See, in re-reading this thread I think I see how it is that we agree on this.

I'm conservative but  I draw a distinction between political and moral conservatism. I don't want to publicly judge whether it's OK to be gay or not (and of course I have an opinion) but I do think that a democratic nation has a responsibility to offer fair and equal treatment to all people under the law in the least restrictive way possible.

Muddling the necessarily objective thought needed for governance to be fair with the necessarily subjective questions of Faith is not a good thing to do when the populace is spread across a continuum from atheistic to fundamental and within that, a broad spectrum of beliefs.

The problem with our Democracy is that (A) not enough people participate in it, and (B) Monied interests participate from pure self-interest and with an automatic advantage. That is why so many things counterintuitive to what I think government should be happen and its unfortunate.

[AugustWest]

I'm conservative but  I draw a distinction between political and moral conservatism.

I wish more people did.  I wish more people could distinguish between what is "moral" and what is "legal".  If we claim to have a free society (which is what we purport to be fighting for,) we have to accept that people may be free to do some things that we personally do not think are moral.