The buggers are legal now, what more are they after?

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-10-19 05:50

"Legalising" gay "marriage" is not the solution to the problem of "marriage inequality".

The solution to the problem is for the government to get out of the business of issuing "marriage licences" to opposite-sex couples, not for it to get into the business of issuing "marriage licences" to same-sex couples.

Why should anyone require a licence from the government to get married, anyway? Libertarians should be concerned with abolishing such governmental intrusions, not clamouring for "intrusion equality", or insisting that the State "should recognise everybody’s right to be equally miserable."

The solution has a precedent in the abolition of titular Knighthood and Damehood honours by Helen Clark. (They were restored by John Key in 2009.) Wikipedia says

In April 2000 the new Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark announced that knighthoods and damehoods were abolished, and the order's statutes were amended accordingly. Between 2000 and 2009, the two highest awards were called Principal Companion (PCNZM) and Distinguished Companion (DCNZM), and recipients did not receive the title "Sir" or "Dame". Their award was recognised solely by the use of post-nominal letters, as for the lower levels of the order.

The government simply needs to set a date after which marriage licences will no longer be issued. Civil unions will be the only option available for gay and non-gay couples wanting governmental endorsement of their love lives and living arrangements. Existing marriage licences issued by the government, and those issued by other governments, would continue to be recognised, but the government would cease to issue new marriage licences after the set date.

After much time spent considering my co-bloggers' excellent arguments both for (Tim) and against (Reed) Louisa Wall's "marriage equality" bill, I'm off the fence now and picking the splinters out of my scrotum. I'm for marriage equality and against Wall's bill.

[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance.]


( categories: )

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

That's riiiiiiiight, Richard. In contrast to England, America recognized "common law marriage" as a legitimate basis for legal marriage, England did not.

So what? I made no mention of common law marriage.

Anyway, common law marriage is not a "legitimate basis" for legal marriage, it *is* legal marriage.

Duh.

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

Why you are insist in wading into legal issues I have no idea. But you always manage to illustrate you are a fool. Wikipedia is your friend:

"In ancient Greek and Roman civilization, marriages were private agreements between individuals and families. Community recognition of a marriage was largely what qualified it as a marriage. The state had only limited interests in assessing the legitimacy of marriages."

And as to England:

"It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that before the Marriage Act 1753 cohabiting couples would enjoy the protection of a "common law marriage". In fact, neither the name nor the concept of "common law marriage" was known at this time. Far from being treated as if they were married, couples known to be cohabiting risked prosecution by the church courts for fornication."

That's riiiiiiiight, Richard. In contrast to England, America recognized "common law marriage" as a legitimate basis for legal marriage, England did not.

This one is even funnier, as Richard wrote:

"Marriage is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution."

Neither is freedom of contract, freedom of travel, freedom to form friendships, etc. Are these therefore invalid?

You need to familiarize yourself with 9th Amendment:

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

You have no experience with the law, and it shows, very obviously.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

"Common law marriage" goes back at least to the Romans, if not the Greeks. Why? Because married persons had legal issues to be resolved; namely, custody of any children and settling disputes over co-mingled property.

You've been doing this legal thing awhile and you have no idea what you are talking about.

The early states based their laws on English common law, according to which

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.

In other words, there were no disputes over children or property and no legal issues to be resolved.

Marriage is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

The reason that government in the U.S. first got involved in the marriage business is the same reason it first got involved in the marriage-uana business, viz., racism. In 1691 (or thereabouts) the state of Virginia enacted a law stating that if a white person married a black person (Negro, "mulatto", or Indian), the couple would be banished from the colony.

It wasn't until 1839 (or thereabouts) that Mississippi became the first state to grant a woman the right to hold property in her own name. But only with her husband's permission!

Unbelievably, it wasn't until 2000 (or thereabouts) that Alabama became the last state in the U.S. to repeal the ban on miscegenous marriage in its state constitution.

In the past, state involvement in marriage signified racism and misogyny. Today, state involvement in marriage signifies Marxist-homosexualist secularism and noxious nullifidianism.

Never mind gay unions. I want to see a disunion between the state and the marriage business. I want to see the state get out of the marriage business. And I want to see the disunion CONSUMMATED. I want to see the state get the FUCK out of the marriage business.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

Marriage is a custom born of human nature, not a creation of Gobby or Gummy by fiat.

Never mind whether the custom we call marriage is born of God, the government or so-called human nature. What matters is that marriage is a human *custom*.

What is the nature of marriage? Ask an anthropologist.

What is the meaning of 'marriage'? Ask an anthropologist. More specifically, ask a lexicographer. A lexicographer is someone who studies human linguistic customs. Why do lexicographers study human linguistic customs? Because human linguistic customs determine the meanings of words.

Is it customary to use the word 'marriage' to refer to same-sex unions? No, it is not. As I've said, repeatedly,

the word 'marriage' is not used to refer to same-sex unions.

That's why the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'marriage' as

the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

There is no such thing as gay marriage.

Our understood corollary prescribes proper intervention and proscribes (please note the correct use of those terms, Michael) improper intervention, such as defining "marriage"!

Aye, there's the nub. Terms such as 'prescribe', 'proscribe', and 'marriage' have *correct* uses. And the meanings of such terms is determined by their correct *uses*, not by their incorrect *misuses* and outright *abuses*.

But, unfortunately, sometimes something truly awful happens. The tyranny of the tawdry majority prevails. If a large enough number of irredeemable fuckwits misuse a word for a long enough period of time, and the guardians of the English language take their eyes off the ball, then the brain dead's misuse becomes use. Sad, but true. The linguistic custom changes and, with it, the meaning of the term. Militant moronry, when preponderant, means dictatorship. And it dictates meaning.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You may not have found my arguments up to the usual "stellar standard", but I submit it is because you are wedded, ahem, to a rationalist approach. It is directly analogous to anarchists who think all law can be reduced to "contracts", you've just narrowed the scope to marriage. Usually you don't fall for the rationalist approach, but in this case you have.

I was willing to demonstrate that you are wrong via my concrete examples, which are the best cure for rationalism. However, you have abstained from answering those concrete situations (see John/Sarah and Bill/Erin). The John/Sarah example is the very real case where one person marries another without knowing that the other person is still married to a third person.

When you answer that they should "repair to the contract" with the "usual provisos", I, too, need to paraphrase Romney and say that I've been doing this legal thing awhile and I have no idea what you are talking about. From my perspective, you appear to think there is some magical remedy in contracts that escapes the need for the government to define the conduct (for marriage) in advance, which is false on its face because the government already defines the conduct for a valid contract. That is, the government would still be defining marriage via its definition of contract.

In any event, let's back up a second because you wrote:

"Second, as Marcus and others have pointed out, people managed to marry for millennia without the state telling them what marriage was, and the world didn't plunge into conjugal chaos because of it."

But this is false. "Common law marriage" goes back at least to the Romans, if not the Greeks. Why? Because married persons had legal issues to be resolved; namely, custody of any children and settling disputes over co-mingled property.

I would agree, as in the case of "friendship", the state has no need or business defining the term because there are no particular rights arising from the relationship itself. However, this is plainly untrue of marriage, and you agreed on the counts of settling property rights and custody disputes. That is the essential difference between marriage and friendship -- one involves a legitimate dispute of individual rights arising from the relationship (marriage), the other does not (friendship). The problem with Roman common law marriage was that the standard was "community recognition", which is a loose standard.

And this gets to the heart of the failures with your proposal:

(1) MORE Government, Not Less.

I wanted you to answer the John/Sarah scenario for this very reason. As you can see from the scenario, to resolve the dispute the government will have to wade into how the Church defines marriage.

Do you really want the government determining what is and is not Church doctrine? By not defining the conduct in advance, the government will be required to do so. You have created the exact opposite situation from what you desire.

Now contrast that with my my definition, which defines the conduct objectively. If the parties follow through, they are married. Period. End of story.

Furthermore, the government does NOT have to wade into Church doctrine and nobody's individual rights are infringed. That's why the definition is the basic standard for all 50 states!! This is in distinct contrast to some amorphous notion of "contract" where the parties define marriage to be whatever they want.

Just look at the John/Sarah and Bill/Erin examples. Your conception falls apart immediately.

(2) Promotes Fraud and Potential Rights Violations.

This was the point of the Bill/Erin example. Not only do we see the government wading into Church doctrine again, but also trying to discern the intent of the two people.

Bill could have purposely married Erin in the church of Religion A fully knowing that he could get the marriage later declared void. Bill will be saving himself lots of money in the divorce. But from the conduct alone, one cannot determine whether Bill's intent was to legitimately marry Erin, or to defraud her. Now the government is trying to guess as to the intent of Bill.

Leaving the definition up to the parties also includes, in some cases, leaving the definition up to fraudsters. Your conception actually promotes defrauding the other party as to their intent to be bound by marriage.

Now contrast that with my definition again. Did the couple have their marriage solemnized before a recognized authority, take the oath, and in the presence of witnesses? It is easy to answer 'yes' or 'no' without wading into Church doctrine or trying to determine the intent of either party.

You see, Linz, by not grappling with concrete situations, you are floating in the clouds and accomplishing the opposite of what you intend.

Linz wrote:

"Michael, you seem to think this is a recipe for a subjectivist cesspool, a morass of marital mayhem. Why? It simply recognises that marriage is man-made, not metaphysical (contrary to the Goblians, as you have so ably pointed out), and the concept allows many variations. The state's job is to register and recognise all of them, not define the concept. The state of affairs I posit here is called "freedom."

It is a recipe for the subjectivist cesspool, as the examples amply demonstrate. Those examples canNOT be resolved without reference to an objective standard of conduct.

Linz, you wrote:

"If thou, Michael, take me, Linz, to be thy lawfully wedded spouse, and I so take thee, Michael, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part (or whatever vows we might compose), and we want this commitment to be recognised and formalised in law ... then the state's only job is to supply the certificate: for that and anything we choose to add to it about babies, yachts, Mario Lanza CDs, fashionably awful shades worn on SOLO avatars, etc."

Help!!

Seriously, though, you are making two faulty assumptions:

(1) Nothing in my definition -- the same as most states -- precludes the parties from making these vows or religious vows or whatever. The law is impartial to anybody's views about marriage. Look at the definition again. All the law says is that if you want to get married, here is the conduct to which you must adhere. It says nothing whatsoever about specifics, like Church vows or vows to Mario Lanza CD's. All you need to do is affirm the marriage.

I still do not understand why you think it must include more than that, and no state in the USA does.

(2) In your example, the affirmation of marriage is clear. Again, your example does not take account of situation when two people do not make their intention and affirmation of marriage clear, and then later disagree about whether they are married. This happens all the time. There is a whole litany of cases regarding "common law marriage" concerning whether the parties considered themselves married or not.

Your proposal would only exacerbate the problem by having the government wade into religious doctrine and not defining conduct that establishes a clear intent and affirmation of marriage.

And Linz, the government is not defining marriage "by fiat" anymore than the government definiton of "corporation" or "contract" or "murder" is by fiat. You have not argued, at least very effectively, as to why marriage is different.

In fact, you are muddled in a contradiction. If you want marriage to be treated as a contract (which is more strict than the requirements for marriage, btw), it has to adhere to the government's definition of "contract". In other words, at the same time and in the same respect you want it to be a "contract" without the government's role in defining what a contract is.

You can't have it both ways.

Yes, marriage is "man-made". But so is "contract" and "murder" and "corporation" and...the list goes on. And the government, validly, defines all of these, in advance, so that the public is aware of exactly what constitutes that particular conduct under the law.

Again, not only is this legitimate, but it is absolutely necessary. To hold somebody accountable under the law -- whether it be for getting married or committing murder -- the conduct must be defined in advance; otherwise you introduce people being subject to ex post facto laws.

Michael

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

Smiling

Michael

reed's picture

Will you offer your rebuttal for Lindsay's gay marriage proposal?

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You write:

It is nothing personal, but you ARE misleading on my position.

Of course it's personal when you say, as you did say, I purposely misled, and "pretended" and "postured." That's an allegation of dishonesty and bad faith. Doesn't get much more personal than that. If I misrepresented you, I did so inadvertently; carelessly, perhaps, but not willfully. I repeat—it saddens me that you would kill our friendship in your haste to assert otherwise.

As to the "misrepresentation," the "frilly knickers" remark—it was directed at a number of posters, including you. I'm not an expert on knickers, but I understand that their function is to cover an unspeakable part of the female anatomy, half-way up the body, that reliable sources liken to anchovies. "Half-way" probably is too high up to do justice to your view of the state's proper role in marriage, so I withdraw it, where you are concerned, and substitute "up to its [the state's] lily-white ankles." Will that do? That's still too high up for me, as I continue to think your position does go beyond the upholding of individual rights, and indeed is antithetical to it.

The best thing that can be said about having the state define marriage is that it's superfluous. The worst thing is ... well, that it's antithetical to the upholding of individual rights.

Marriage is a custom born of human nature, not a creation of Gobby or Gummy by fiat. According to Gobbies (Baade, Reede, Rosie), Gobby says, "Let there be marriage" ... and behold, there is marriage. According to Gummies (Michael), Gummy says, "Let there be marriage" ... and behold, there is marriage. Both Gobbies and Gummies are guilty of the error of intrinsicism.

In the real world, marriage is between and among consenting individuals and, in most cases, private institutions these individuals voluntarily associate with. Individuals and private institutions are perfectly capable of reaching an agreement as to what it is they're agreeing to, and naming it ... and moreover, they have a perfect right to do so. The state's only role is to ratify such an agreement (with the usual provisos about age of consent, etc., on which we're all agreed). It is not for the state to dictate in advance what marriage is. First, that would be an unwarranted intrusion. Second, as Marcus and others have pointed out, people managed to marry for millennia without the state telling them what marriage was, and the world didn't plunge into conjugal chaos because of it.

It's perfectly acceptable to me that some institutions wouldn't recognise marriages performed by other institutions. That's the way of it in a free society. The state's job is to register all of them as marriage contracts, not to define "marriage" or take sides, say, between Catholics and Mormons.

What would happen under your arrangement, Michael, when the Catholic Church refused to marry a gay quartet and that quartet sued? The state, under your arrangement, has defined marriage as a union between two or more people of either gender (good definition—but it's not the state's place to supply, let alone enforce, it). What, do you suppose, would the state then decide in response to this lawsuit?

In a free society—and remember, that's what we're talking about, not a mere extrapolation of the status quo—the state would treat marriage as a contract. Qua contract, the state's only role would be to register it—render it recognised in law—as long as it met standard requirements that it, the state, is duty-bound to stipulate, consistent with its function of protecting individual rights. The state's role is not to question whether it's a marriage, or forbid it, or bestow its blessing upon it. As far as the state is concerned, as long as it's a valid contract, and the contract says it's a marriage, then a marriage it is. If thou, Michael, take me, Linz, to be thy lawfully wedded spouse, and I so take thee, Michael, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part (or whatever vows we might compose), and we want this commitment to be recognised and formalised in law ... then the state's only job is to supply the certificate: for that and anything we choose to add to it about babies, yachts, Mario Lanza CDs, fashionably awful shades worn on SOLO avatars, etc.

Michael, you seem to think this is a recipe for a subjectivist cesspool, a morass of marital mayhem. Why? It simply recognises that marriage is man-made, not metaphysical (contrary to the Goblians, as you have so ably pointed out), and the concept allows many variations. The state's job is to register and recognise all of them, not define the concept. The state of affairs I posit here is called "freedom."

Your case seems to rest on implausible scenarios about ditzes who end up arguing about whether they're married or not. Unless the state is standing by with its definition, you ask me repeatedly, how would the ditzes' argument ever be resolved? Yet you at least partially answer yourself when you assure me this type of dispute has actually happened. Well, if it has, it's happened under the status quo, so clearly the fact that the state is standing by with its definition hasn't preempted such bizarre outcomes. As to solving them: curiosities such as these (and that's all they are: curiosities, not catastrophes on whose prevention we should base our laws) are less likely in the free society of my envisioning, I would have thought ... it's that pesky thing called responsibility: the onus really will be on folk to spell out just what they're agreeing to, and they'll know it, in a libertarian ethos. Folk, as in individuals. Where it all begins.

Your opening salvo in this debate, Michael, was that it's "inadequate and incomplete" to advocate the separation of state and marriage—it's necessary, you said, to spell out the state's right to intervene when rights are violated or threatened. I observed that if this were the case, we'd have to make that qualification every time we advocated the separation of the state from anything: church, economy, education, medicine, publishing, etc., etc. ... and that this repetition is unnecessary, at least among Objectivists and small 'l' libertarians, since the qualification is understood in all cases. In advocating to gentiles, of course, it's no doubt desirable to state it explicitly. As I for one have done for years.

But when you think about it, it's not a qualification; it's a corollary. The state must be able to intervene to protect the very rights on which its separation from all other things is based. Our understood corollary prescribes proper intervention and proscribes (please note the correct use of those terms, Michael) improper intervention, such as defining "marriage"! Eye

In any event, I think we're at an impasse, here, Michael, and I'm done with participating in the argument, for now, at least. Have the last word by all means. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong—but I'm wrong in good faith, and am willing to be shown I'm wrong, which your chest-thumping self-proclaimed "debunking" didn't do, to my satisfaction at least. Not even close, as you young 'uns say. I don't think your arguments here have been up to your usual stellar standard. Certainly, attacking my sincerity, to paraphrase Mitt Romney, is not an argument at all.

Robert

Michael Moeller's picture

I have yet to see your definition. If you could lay it out that would be great.

And the dictionary argument has already been debunked. "Common usage" does not mean objective. The common usage of the 'earth' at one point was that it was the orbital center of the universe. How about not changing the dictionary in that instance?

Under such a standard, man would not have advanced out of the caves, as however the savages defined a concept according to their "common usage" would have been set in stone, according to your standard of "common usage". Nonsense.

Not to mention that gay marriage was legally recognized before Christianity. What if that "common usage" was allowed to stand simply because it was "common usage"?

Lastly, I think it is quite apparent, particularly on this thread, that Christians want to take over the dictionary and have their morals codified into law. Scary stuff, especially when you consider that Islamists want to do the same.

Michael

Robert

Richard Goode's picture

Homosexuals have attempted to grab on to the term, resefine it, and corrupt it to use it to advantage and establish a superficial public image.

Totalitarians attempted to grab on to the term 'liberal', redefine it, and corrupt it to use it to advantage and establish a superficial public image. And they succeeded.

Apparently some of you have been sucked into their false argument.

History repeats. But, unfortunately, most here are quite happy to steal the term 'marriage' from those to whom it belongs and to pervert its use. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. Why can't gays invent a term of their own to refer to gay unions if they think 'gay union' sounds kind of gay? Come to think of it, they already stole the term 'gay' ...

Due Diligence, Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Linz, you wrote:

"I assume the question to which you await my answer is, what happens under my system, where the state has not defined marriage, when two dizzy bitches disagree as to whether they are or have been married or not. My answer is: shoot them. Failing that, repair to their contract. If they don't have one, repair to the default positions we both agree ought to exist for the resolution of disputes. There is nothing in your scenario that I can see that requires the state to define marriage."

I've been trying to tell you that this stock libertarian position completely falls apart with a correct conception of contracts, and upon contact with reality. Let me outline that again.

(1) Where there is no marriage agreement, there is no contract. If the parties disagree that they are married, then any obligations under their alleged contract may OR may not apply. It does not resolve the dispute. Like any contract, there has to be an agreement among the minds.

Again, if the parties disagree that they are married, then how can any contract apply that assumes they are married?

If fact, the requirements to have a valid contract are, and should be, more restrictive than the requirements to get married. In any event, under your scenario, the government is still defining marriage via its legitimate role in defining what a contract is.

(2) This proposal introduces subjective law. Let me give you a simple scenario:

Scenario. John and Sarah agree to get married according to Christian teachings. They have a traditional Christian marriage in a church, with a priest, and with the requisite Christian vows. John later wants the marriage declared void because he finds out that Sarah is still married to another man.

John claims that, according to Christian teaching, polygamy is forbidden. Sarah claims that it is not forbidden, and cites the Old Testament.

Linz, how do you resolve this dispute as to whether John and Sarah are married?

I could give you any number of scenarios where the libertarian legal approach falls apart, and not just religious examples.

(3) Your only argument thus far is that the government may define marriage improperly.

True, I did not dispute this as a possibility, but this is not an argument against whether the government should define marriage. It is presenting the false alternative that two people can define marriage however they want vs. the government defining marriage improperly.

But again, the government may define 'contract' improperly so that it infringes individual rights. Eg. It defines contract to include a compulsory license to the government. Does this mean that government should not define what a cotnract is, even if it may define 'contract' improperly?

Absolutely not. Two of the hallmarks of objective law are to (1) define the conduct that falls under the law, (2) in advance. The libertarian legal approach to marriage fails on both counts.

Michael

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

It is nothing personal, but you ARE misleading on my position. And you have not done your due diligence with the counter-arguments to your position, at least as pertains to the counter-arguments presented by me.

Here is what you previously wrote:

"To my astonishment, people right here seem to be itching to have The Gummint involved in their relationships up to its frilly nickers, the only argument being about whether there's a goblin involved as well."

See the bolded part? That is a total misrepresentation of my position. I have stated no such thing. I have explicitly laid out the extent to which the government should be involved in marriage -- i.e. to settle property rights disputes and custody disputes.

You are turning around and reframing my position as: "The Gummint involved in their relationships up to its frilly nickers". Whether you did this purposely, or because you have not been paying attention, the result is the same -- it is totally misleading as to what my position actually is.

You've given exactly one argument as to how my position amounts to that, and I debunked it. You never countered my argument, and you simply reappeared to claim that I am proposing: "The Gummint involved in their relationships up to its frilly nickers".

Again, this is totally misleading and false.

Michael

Metaphysical vs. Manmade

Jmaurone's picture

"In the dictionary road signs, trees, glaciers, and dresses are defined. In my Websters marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman."

And the difference is that the former are objects, tangible "things." Marriage is a concept.

Marriage definition

RLKocher's picture

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2012-10-28 02:11.

Help me here. Where in there is the definition of marriage? What is it? Just pluck it out and quote it.
---------------------------------------
All laws relating to ordinary things or events are based on the dictionary basis of common usage. In the dictionary road signs, trees, glaciers, and dresses are defined. In my Websters marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals have attempted to grab on to the term, resefine it, and corrupt it to use it to advantage and establish a superficial public image. Apparently some of you have been sucked into their false argument.

Linz

Rosie's picture

One thing I would say: of course I'm as opposed as you to any effort to *force* private institutions such as churches to recognise gay marriage. And of course, if the state defines marriage in such a way as to include gays, private institutions will *have* to recognise it. And perform gay marriage ceremonies. All the more reason to get the state the hell out of relationships!

1. Currently "marriage" doesn't include gays - based upon the statutory rules of interpretation. (Hence the reason for Louisa Wall's Bill.) And if it does, those problems will occur. Agreed.

BUT

2. You say this is why you think the State should keep out of relationships but at the same time you also say you want the State in relationships where there is a problem. E.g., You want a legal basis for dividing property according to the "default rules" where there is no Contracting-Out Agreement but a disagreement between the couples over property.

This is where your reasoning/desires and your lack of understanding of law become irreconcilable for the reasons stated in my earlier verbiage regarding the need to know whether the parties of the Application are legitimately within the particular legislation's ambit.

An Alternative Solution for Gay Couples
Currently both civil union and marriages are treated equally under the Property (Relationships) Act because that Act was amended to enable gay couples in civil unions to be treated in the same way as a married couple.

Marriage is being defined under Louisa Wall's Bill to rectify other aspects of the law where people in civil unions claim they are not treated in the same way as a married couple. But to not distinguish the heterosexual relationship from the homosexual relationship opens another can of worms as you have agreed.

Thus another solution is to amend each individual Act where the gay couple declares it is discriminatory against civil unions vs married couples, as was done in the Property (Relationships) Act.

Will they care that they aren't called married if their legitimate discriminatory problems are solved?

Linz

Rosie's picture

Yes, but what you don't appreciate is the way the law works. I.e., if you want the Courts to be able to sort out the division of relationship property they have to know that the correct law is being applied. I.e., the people making the Application to the Court are within its ambit.

To understand how the law works, and as a result to see the legal pitfalls of a seemingly plausible explanation on its face, is indeed the result of one who clearly understands "The Anti-Conceptual Mentality" by Ayn Rand . Eye

Good point, Richard

Rosie's picture

That is why, to interpret what the legislation means by "marriage" we have to the look at the golden rule of statutory interpretation.

In the legislation of NZ, "marriage" is used in its ordinary sense between a man and a woman and distinguishes heterosexual unions from homosexual unions.

Contrary to Reed's Christian stance that the Government should not endorse what he believes to be an "immoral" act, my position is that it is not for the Gummint to involve itself in the morality of things at all and my position (I think at least) is not inconsistent with a Christian view. The choice of free will is God-given. Each individual may choose to believe or not believe in God and each individual may choose to live his life as he wishes (with both temporal and spiritual consequences according to their respective laws). It is not for the Gummint to force a person's choice of relationship. And nor should it be for Christians to remove this choice. A Christian should believe that this choice, along with every other choice, is between that person and God only on Judgement Day.

That is why I say my consideration that marriage is a word to distinguish heterosexual couples from homosexual couples is not based on my Christian beliefs so much as the other legal problems it can bring to other people's freedoms - problems occurring already where the distinction has been eradicated.

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Would you like me to locate some of this case law from the various Commonwealth countries, all of which is binding to a greater and lesser degree in NZ?

Please, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're not seeing the wood for the trees. Worse, you want to drag me deeper into the weeds. Same as you do with your other questions. Please read and absorb the post I reposted today in my reply to Michael. It actually tells you all you need to know. There is no call here for interminable concrete-bound verbiage. Here's something else I recommend: "The Anti-Conceptual Mentality" by Ayn Rand. Eye

One thing I would say: of course I'm as opposed as you to any effort to *force* private institutions such as churches to recognise gay marriage. And of course, if the state defines marriage in such a way as to include gays, private institutions will *have* to recognise it. And perform gay marriage ceremonies. All the more reason to get the state the hell out of relationships!

The 1955 Act

Rosie's picture

It is of no surprise that the Act does not contemplate gay marriage. It was enacted in 1955. And I have just read a section about a fine if the marriage is not registered or something. Guess what it said? 50 pounds!

So, it looks like the 1955 Marriage Act hasn't been attended to until recently, I would say! And the date of its enactment is also relevant to statutory interpretation.

Linz

Rosie's picture

The Marriage Act 1955 doesn't define marriage per se under the Interpretation Section because it is accepted (as a result of the Golden Rule of Statutory Interpretation that gives words their "ordinary" meanings) that a marriage is between a husband and a wife, as it does also with the Property (Relationships) Act. Finding the meaning of legislation is clarified and aided (believe it or not!) by way of the Interpretation Act 1999 (used to be called the Statutory Interpretations Act). E.g., looking at Part 1 and section 2 of Part 2 of the Interpretation Act tells you to get clarification from other parts and sections of the enactment.

For example, Section 15 of Part 3 forbids marriages as set out in Schedule 2 of the Marriage Act. As you see in the Schedule, it talks about who a man and woman might not marry (being the two parties to the marriage) and you will see that all the people a woman may not marry are male and all the people a man may not marry are female, it also states that a wife is "she" and a husband has the corresponding meaning. I.e., "he". It then goes on to talk about which civil unions are forbidden.

Although I appreciate the point being made, the rules of statutory interpretation are such that the first approach taken is to read the legislation in the way it was intended and to give words their ordinary meanings. Only if this results in absurdities, does one look to other rules of interpretation. It is clear by the way it is written in every respect that marriage is used in the ordinary sense of the word. Between a husband and a wife. I.e., a man and a woman. Just as the Property (Relationships) Act was written and intended for marriages between a man and a woman and hence the purpose for the amendments to include civil unions after that legislation was passed to allow gay couples' unions to be recognised in law for relationship property division.

The Court's role in law is to interpret legislation. There is case law on this point about marriage being between a man and a woman.

Would you like me to locate some of this case law from the various Commonwealth countries, all of which is binding to a greater and lesser degree in NZ?

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

Where in there is the definition of marriage?

There isn't one, as such.

There is a definition of marriage for the purposes of the Act ("In this Act, ...") but it is transparently circular ("... marriage includes a marriage that—").

Circular definitions are anathema to me, as they should be to any right-thinking person.

Of course, it's okay for a dictionary to define, e.g., 'marital' as "of or pertaining to marriage," since the term 'marriage' is, itself, defined elsewhere in the dictionary. In the case of New Zealand's legislation, however, there is, seemingly, no "elsewhere" that we may find marriage defined other than in terms of itself.

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I am thinking that there is *nothing* in there that defines marriage. If there is, I ask again: please point it out to me.

Now, the claim that current legislation doesn't define marriage is not original to Baade. Here is the preamble to Luisa Wall's Bill:

This Bill amends the Marriage Act 1955 (the principal Act) to ensure that its provisions are not applied in a discriminatory manner. The principal Act does not define marriage and makes no reference to a marriage being between a man and a woman. Essentially the principal Act sets out the technical requirements for the civil regulation of marriage. However, couples, other than a man and a woman, have not been permitted to obtain marriage licences under the principal Act. This Bill will make it clear that a marriage is a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Just as you copied and posted it, Linz.

Rosie's picture

2A Meaning of marriage
(1) In this Act, marriage includes a marriage that—

(a) is void; or
(b) is ended while both spouses are alive by a legal process that occurs within or outside New Zealand; or
(c) is ended by the death of one of the spouses, whether within or outside New Zealand;—
and husband, spouse, and wife each has a corresponding meaning.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the marriage of a husband and wife ends if—

(a) they cease to live together as husband and wife; or
(b) their marriage is dissolved; or
(c) one of them dies.

I think I know what you are thinking. If I am correct, you are thinking, "But that doesn't say specifically that marriage is between a man and a woman in the format that, for example, the definition Michael Moeller presented."

Is that what you are thinking?

So Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Help me here. Where in there is the definition of marriage? What is it? Just pluck it out and quote it.

Linz

Rosie's picture

Yes. Smiling

Note Section 2A(2)(b) which is the interesting bit since it, in effect, is what distinguishes a marriage ( between a husband and wife i.e., a man and a woman) from a civil union and why there is a need for Louisa Wall's Bill to be passed in the first place if gay couples are to be able to come within "marriage" as defined.

This was the obvious question to ask if one had thought about Richard's assertion. I.e., If there were no definition of marriage, why bother to have one now?! In other words, wouldn't it be a logical train of thought to think that if there were no definition, what was there precluding gay couples from marrying now so that the Bill needed to be written?!

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Do you mean this?

2A Meaning of marriage
(1) In this Act, marriage includes a marriage that—

(a) is void; or
(b) is ended while both spouses are alive by a legal process that occurs within or outside New Zealand; or
(c) is ended by the death of one of the spouses, whether within or outside New Zealand;—
and husband, spouse, and wife each has a corresponding meaning.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the marriage of a husband and wife ends if—

(a) they cease to live together as husband and wife; or
(b) their marriage is dissolved; or
(c) one of them dies.

Linz

Rosie's picture

Please address what I have said to you here and here.

Then explain to me, please, how your position (a) improves the status quo in relation to property division (which I have explained is not dictated by the State to be 50/50); (b) would solve the problems posed if Louisa Wall's Bill were passed; or (c) is an improvement to the solution I have posited.

Thanks. Smiling

Er...Linz .....About the definition of Marriage...

Rosie's picture

Baade did, however, make a salient point when he highlighted that the proposed same-sex marriage legislation in NZ has brought to light that existing marriage legislation doesn't actually define marriage. How on earth have we managed all this time?!

Richard is wrong.

I am surprised that you have ignored what has been said many times, by two lawyers on this thread, one of whom states she actually dealt in the damned subject for the last five years or so, that the word marriage needs to be defined for the purposes stated time and again on this thread. I'm sorry I didn't jump up and down about Richard being wrong before now. I thought his error could be more subtly overturned and overlooked simply by having two lawyers repeatedly stating it needs to be defined and why.

See Section 2 (always the Interpretation - or definitions - section of any Act) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 which directs you to Section 2A.

If you are interested, the definition of "civil unions" is also defined - in section 2AB of the same Act.

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You write:

Sadly, Linz is among those that won't answer questions either.

Quite so. I make it a habit not to respond to anyone who uses "that" instead of "who." Eye

Less flippantly, I'm not generally in a hurry to respond to anyone who accuses me of "posturing" and "pretending" as you have done here, with no shred of back-up—just a bald assertion that my dishonesty is "transparent." That occasions deep sadness within me, especially given our close history. To accuse me of insincerity is to plunge a dagger into the heart of our friendship.

I assume the question to which you await my answer is, what happens under my system, where the state has not defined marriage, when two dizzy bitches disagree as to whether they are or have been married or not. My answer is: shoot them. Failing that, repair to their contract. If they don't have one, repair to the default positions we both agree ought to exist for the resolution of disputes. There is nothing in your scenario that I can see that requires the state to define marriage.

For the record, the formulation you eventually provided as to what the government's definition should be if it is going to have one at all—a union of two or more people of the same or opposite gender—is one I'd agree with if I thought the government had any right to define marriage. Those like Baade who have asserted that marriage can only be between two people of the opposite sex have not, under your cross-examination, offered a single argument for their position, except to say that same-sex marriage would be an "affront" to Goblians, which of course is no argument at all. I congratulate you on exposing the threadbare nature of the Goblians' stance. I especially enjoyed the exchanges between you and Reed on this horrific-but-unspecified "immoral act" that the state would be sanctioning.

I note that Libertarianz "fully supports the concept of a civil union and would also support allowing marriages between same sex couples, and indeed polygamous marriages or marriages between people who are already related—in all cases as long as all parties are adults and consenting." I wasn't around when that was decided; I wonder where Baade was. Eye

Baade did, however, make a salient point when he highlighted that the proposed same-sex marriage legislation in NZ has brought to light that existing marriage legislation doesn't actually define marriage. How on earth have we managed all this time?!

My position remains: laissez-faire. It's the same as yours: "a voluntary act, and the state's role is only to settle property and custody disputes arising from the marriage," except you think this requires the state to define what marriage is, as opposed to treating it as it treats any other category of contract. The state should be passive. For instance, if you and Doug ever come to your senses and accept my proposals of marriage—i.e., if we all agree to make a formal commitment to each other which we wish to be publicly, legally registered and recognised as "marriage"—then the state's only role is to have us sign a form. And yes, if we divorce, as is probably inevitable, the state should "settle property and custody disputes" if there are any. (I'd insist there be no babies.)

I'm going to re-post here one of my earlier contributions, since I don't think folk generally did due diligence with it. They came at me with questions which I'd already answered, directly or indirectly:

I'm not sure how this thread became so noisy, since I'd have thought we were all after the same outcome on this matter.

The state has no place in relationships.

The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

The state has no place in the boardrooms of the nation.

The state has no place in the dining rooms of the nation.

The state has no place in the reading rooms of the nation.

Etc.

With all of the above nostrums, and all others like them, there is, for libertarians, a caveat: "except where there is an issue of force or fraud."

In the protection of the individual from force or fraud, the state has a place everywhere. That is the state's "default position." Force and fraud are violations of individual rights, and the securing of individual rights is the reason "governments are instituted among men."

What, then, of marriage in particular? This argument began with my saying government's role (government being the agency of the state) should be to enforce contracts, period. Michael responded by saying government had a much bigger legitimate role than that. I stated that, of course, the usual caveat, as above, applied. I imagined that would cover all of Michael's "default" contingencies, but he was not satisfied with that, going so far as to say it's the state's role to define what marriage is, just as it's the state's role to define what murder is (!). Thus, presumably, the Defense of Marriage Act, which says marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is an expression of the state's legitimate function, and it is proper that same-sex couples cannot marry and enjoy all the benefits that supposedly flow from legal status. If the state changes its mind on that, then gay marriage becomes legitimate by dint of that reversal.

I beg to differ. It is not the state's function to say, "There shall be marriage" and dictate what constitutes marriage. Marriage, and any other kind of union, should be a matter for individuals and private institutions. It's legitimate for the state to register marriages as it does other kinds of contracts; it's not legitimate for the state to say who (among adults—here I agree with Michael) may and may not marry. (Michael's "default rules" re the rights of children and the property rights of parties to marriage are, or ought to be, always a given.)

Marriage, properly speaking, arises not from a state decree that people shall marry, but from the desire of individuals to make a special, formalised, uncoerced romantic commitment to each other—and in that fundamental sense, absent any force or fraud, the fucking state can fuck the fuck off. Right now, of course, we don't have "properly speaking," just a morass of Nanny State intrusions driven by shrieking feminazis. Why anyone would want to marry under those circumstances baffles me, but of course, even de factos are not safe.

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

No need to assume it, you are hiding.

I'm not interested in having a discussion where people cannot answer questions and do nothing except assert, and, in your case, deny the obvious. What do I have to gain from such a discussion, except dealing with your childish games? Nothing, that's what.

Sadly, Linz is among those that won't answer questions either.

Michael

I surrender

reed's picture

Michael
Yes, you're all about serious discussion. And Obama is a capitalist. And Islam means peace.

Why are you so embarrassed to reveal the nature of your Christian ideas here?

Lets assume that your assertions are true - i.e. that I'm not serious about discussions, that I'm embarrassed, that I won't reveal the nature of my Christian ideas and that there is some undesirable nature of my Christian ideas.

How would the truth of these assertions affect your argument for gay marriage legislation?

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

Yes, you're all about serious discussion. And Obama is a capitalist. And Islam means peace.

Why are you so embarrassed to reveal the nature of your Christian ideas here?

Michael

The word 'marriage' is not used to refer to same-sex unions

Richard Goode's picture

The word 'marriage' is not used to refer to same-sex unions.

Michael

reed's picture

I think you justify specific legislation for some areas of life and not others by special pleading.

I also think that your view of government authority is more than can possibly be delegated from the people.

I'm not playing games but I do enjoy the discussions.

Cheers

Reed

There is no right to get married

Richard Goode's picture

There is no right to get married.

Good Question

Doug Bandler's picture

Are there individual rights involved in the situations you describe?

Interesting question. I would like to hear Michael's answer first b/c his grasp of O'ist epistemology is sharper than mine. But I will give an answer.

Doug

reed's picture

Michael says: [individual rights] is all the law should cover

Are there individual rights involved in the situations you describe?

But...

Doug Bandler's picture

I don't think that marriage is reducible to pure contract law. There are things involved in marriage that are not contracts like heritable property. If the parties don't have a will or trust, the government needs to have default rules for that purpose. There is a huge body of law dedicated to just that and it is not family law. Also there is health law component; ie visitation rights, assisted suicide (where legal), etc. Again, the parties may not have contracts written on these subjects (although they should).

So, the government DOES have a vital role to play in romantic unions between two people. Michael is right in his essential argument namely that Objectivism does not and should not accept the libertarian / anarchist view of "the privatization of marriage". That concept reduces to nonsense.

Linz,

I think you are talking past Michael. I don't see him arguing for improper gommint involvement. I think he's right here.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

We just had a civil conversation. I don't like where this is heading. Eye

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

I prefer to make you aware of your premises now before you become as extreme as Islamists. Eye

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

The word 'marriage' is not used to refer to same-sex unions.

Different issue, same principle. Traveling the same road as Islamists, you are. Further to go, I admit, but the same path nonetheless.

Scary stuff.

Get back to me when at least 50 people have been killed in protests against Louisa Wall's Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

Commie: "There is no such thing as private property."

Richard: "The word 'marriage' is not used to refer to same-sex unions."

Michael: you are "a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality (They don't.)". Eye

One more comparison for you, Richard wrote:

"If this bill is passed, it will redefine marriage as "a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity." This will constitute a huge affront to a large sector of the Christian community, to whom marriage is ordained, by God, as being between one man and one woman."

From here:

"At least 50 people have been killed in protests against the publication of the cartoons, which Muslims say are an affront to Islam. Newspapers, which have reprinted the cartoons, argue they are defending the right to media freedom."

Different issue, same principle. Traveling the same road as Islamists, you are. Further to go, I admit, but the same path nonetheless.

Scary stuff.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

You think that

the government should define marriage as a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

But you also think that

a union of 2 or more people regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity is permissible.

Not an outright contradiction, perhaps, but I don't think these two play well together. Do you?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

And what if the alleged perp is a communist and he brings in a communist dictionary saying there is no such thing as private property?

The commie perp is

a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality. (They don't.)

Likewise, the magic words "marriage is a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity" have no power to alter reality. (Actually, they do ...)

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"Whether or not the alleged perpetrator was on the wrong side of the sign saying "Keep out - private property".

And what if the alleged perp is a communist and he brings in a communist dictionary saying there is no such thing as private property?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

And why are you evading the question on the government defining murder, trespass, etc.?

Blank out.

So when the government brings an action for trespass, what do they use as a standard to argue that the alleged perp's actions constitute trespass?

Whether or not the alleged perpetrator was on the wrong side of the sign saying "Keep out - private property".

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Justice of the Peace to Gay Person #1: Do you agree to marry Gay Person #2?

Gay Person #1: Yes.

Justice of the Peace to Gay Person #2: Do you agree to marry Gay Person #1?

Gay Person #2: Yes.

The dialogue is possible.

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"You have explicitly stated that the government should define marriage as a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

Richard, I also think a union of 2 or more people regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity is permissible.

And why are you evading the question on the government defining murder, trespass, etc.? Let me ask again: So when the government brings an action for trespass, what do they use as a standard to argue that the alleged perp's actions constitute trespass?

Michael

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

The reportive definition by Church lexicographers was that the earth was the orbital center of universe. Was that "reportive definition" correct?

Justice of the Peace to Gay Person #1: Do you agree to marry Gay Person #2?
Gay Person #1: Yes.
Justice of the Peace to Gay Person #2: Do you agree to marry Gay Person #1?
Gay Person #2: Yes.

That is impossible? Do explain.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

You wrote:

"Why do you seek to prevent polygamy?"

I don't, and I have explicitly stated so.

You have explicitly stated that the government should define marriage as a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Again, why is "between a man and a woman" a "necessary condition" for marriage? You haven't answered this, you are just asserting it.

Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman.

By 'definition', I mean a reportive definition.

The word 'marriage' is not used to refer to same-sex unions. (Yes, you read that right.)

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"Why do you seek to prevent polygamy?"

I don't, and I have explicitly stated so.

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

You missed a question. I mean, that the law should not define trespass, murder, etc. is quite an extraordinary position. So when the government brings an action for trespass, what do they use as a standard to argue that the alleged perp's actions constitute trespass?

You wrote:

"Two gay people of the same sex can't get married. It's an impossibility. Marriage is between a man and a woman."

Again, why is "between a man and a woman" a "necessary condition" for marriage? You haven't answered this, you are just asserting it.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Yes.

Why do you seek to prevent polygamy?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Do you disagree that the law should apply equally to all individuals regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity?

I don't disagree.

The law should apply equally to all individuals regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Furthermore, what business is it of yours whether two gay people get married? Why do you seek to prevent it?

Two gay people of the same sex can't get married. It's an impossibility. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Two gay people of the opposite sex can get married. Ain't nobody's business if they do.

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"Michael: 'Do you find this invalid?'

Richard: 'Yes.'"

So when the government brings an action for trespass, what do they use as a standard to argue that the alleged perp's actions constitute trespass?

You wrote:

"What is your answer to the second?"

Yes. Do you disagree that the law should apply equally to all individuals regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity?

Furthermore, what business is it of yours whether two gay people get married? Why do you seek to prevent it?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

For the purposes of laws protecting individual rights, and that is all the law should cover, the government ...

I agree that the government should enact laws protecting individual rights. But I don't agree that the government needs to get into the lexicography business in order to do so.

In the introduction to Louisa Wall's Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill we read

This Bill amends the Marriage Act 1955 (the principal Act) to ensure that its provisions are not applied in a discriminatory manner. The principal Act does not define marriage and makes no reference to a marriage being between a man and a woman. Essentially the principal Act sets out the technical requirements for the civil regulation of marriage.

If, by 'define', you mean 'set out the technical requirements for the civil regulation of marriage', then I agree that the government should define marriage. But, note that "the principal Act does not define marriage." We (us Kiwis) seem to have been getting along fine in the absence of a government definition of 'marriage' (at least in "the principal Act"). Why the need for one, all of a sudden?

Louisa Wall's bill is social engineering, pure and simple. Business as usual for the New Zealand Labour Party.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Consider the following two questions.

1. Should the government, "for the purposes of laws protecting individual rights," define marriage?

2. Should the government, "for the purposes of laws protecting individual rights," define marriage as "a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity"?

We know your answer to the first question. What is your answer to the second?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

For the purposes of laws protecting individual rights, and that is all the law should cover, the government defines the conduct falling under that law. For instance, the government defines murder. It defines what a contract is. It defines what a copyright is. Etc etc.

Do you find this invalid?

Yes. (And copyright law is a violation of individual rights.)

Well, RIchard

Michael Moeller's picture

This betrays a particular ignorance on your part. Have you ever read a statute? Obviously not.

For the purposes of laws protecting individual rights, and that is all the law should cover, the government defines the conduct falling under that law. For instance, the government defines murder. It defines what a contract is. It defines what a copyright is. Etc etc.

Do you find this invalid?

This, by the way, hits on one of the failures in Linz's position. If marriage was to be covered by contract, the government is still saying when a marriage is and is not valid via the definition of contract. Ergo, marriage is not strictly whatever two parties agree to, i.e. the agreement has to meet the definition of contract. Linz is trying to paper over the falsity of his position by repairing to an apparently false notion of contracts.

Michael

INGSOC

Richard Goode's picture

Yes, the government should define marriage.

What other words should the government define, Michael?

Should the government publish a dictionary?

INGSOC

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

Well, I see you are back to playing games.

You wrote:

"If so...

Do individuals have a right to enter into lending contracts?
Do individuals have a right to enter into building contracts?
... etc...

...and wouldn't that justify (by your reasoning) legislation for all areas of life?"

Yes, individuals have a right to enter into building and lending contracts. No, by my reasoning, that would not justify legislation for all areas of life.

Reed wrote:

"Can you give some examples of individual rights violations that might stem from the absence of gay marriage legislation?"

Yes, I can.

Reed, it is quite apparent that you want to play games, as you have
demonstrated before. And it is obvious why, not only on that thread, but on this one as well.

Get lost Reed.

Michael

An endorsement of immoral acts ...

Richard Goode's picture

... brought to you by Streets Ice Cream. (It's moments like these you need Gumminties.)

Michael

reed's picture

Why is Civil Union legislation "a government endorsement of immoral acts"?
... I talking was about the immoral acts part, obviously...
Homosexual unions are immoral - the Civil Union Act specifically approves and supports same sex unions.
Therefore the Civil Union Act is a government endorsement of immoral acts.

... as it is not a government endorsement, anymore than a law protecting free speech is an endorsement of what a particular speaker says.
Free speech laws would be government endorsement of free speech in the same way as gay union laws would be government endorsement of gay unions.

Rosie

Jules Troy's picture

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/t...

 

Tadaaaa problem solved!! YAY!! All gay people wishing to be married in a religious ceremony can go see THAT guy.

Linz

Rosie's picture

In order for the Courts to adjudicate disputes in western civilisation, tribes probably just consult the "Wise Man", there must be legislation and precedent. This requires a definition of "marriage" to make sure the marriage law is being applied to people in a marriage. I.e., to exclude any two (or more) people arguing about property ownership. E.g., two or more people may have bought a house together paying unequal portions, but one has lived in it without rent, one has spent time and money on it to improve it, one has done a lot of damage to it during his occupancy but never paid for the fix-up etc and who are now arguing about the split upon sale of the property.

The only way in which your understanding of the law being without a definition of marriage could possibly apply is where marriage is not regarded as a special estate with its own set of "default rules".

Is this what you mean?

Michael

reed's picture

No, you cannot answer a question with a question.
OK then without a question...

Why does Christianity define marriage as "between a man and a woman", even though there is polygamy in the OT?
There is nothing here for me to explain.
A marriage is between a man and a woman.
A man can marry more than one woman.
A man married to more than one woman has more than one marriage.

Linz

Rosie's picture

If there's no contract then the government must still adjudicate as to who has the right to what (not some Nanny-ist legislation automatically decreeing 50/50) and who owes whom what (child support, etc), since the parties are in dispute about who has the right to what and who owes whom what. I am not averse to the idea of default legislation, but I am certainly opposed to the current morass.

I think that you will find the "current morass" is actually pretty well exactly as you state and wish it to be. I.e., there is no 50/50 decree. That is merely the starting point. There are numerous headings under which, should your circumstances fall within one or more of these, and only after numerous attempts to have the parties agree themselves (including informal discussions between the parties AND the judge who lets the parties know which way it is likely the hammer will fall) will the court adjudicate bearing these in mind. Most of the cases which go to court are rarely 50/50 splits.

So, I don't really agree with you that the State is involved up to its frilly knickers in relationships. The Courts try to stay out of both the property and the custody/access arrangements as much as possible. In fact, as someone who has worked in this field a lot in recent years, my observation is that it is mainly either the greed or bloody mindedness of the parties that seek the court's involvement in property disputes at this level. Occasionally, it is because of a genuine difficulty interpreting the law on the facts. Custody/access arrangements - again, the courts try to get the parties to agree and NOT adjudicate and a lot of effort goes in to the (often) simple and/or bloody minded parties who simply can not or will not. And, believe me, you would be aghast at what goes on between these ignorant people and how they will lie and deceive as they use the poor children as fodder in their domestic war. It is sick-making, actually.

The State's intervention is really in accord with your own sentiments/reasoning. The Courts only get involved as a last resort because of the idiots demanding this, usually. The fact that the Courts are full to bursting merely indicates the number of disagreeable people!

The issue about "marriage" here - amending the definition to include homosexual couples - is not so much the "Christian" difficulty from my legal perspective but the consequential REAL legal problems that will result from the people who like to jump up and down about their rights rather than respecting the word "No" and looking elsewhere; these people will be imbued with powers to usurp others' rights (those who choose to say no to gay couples for whatever reason) and their freedom to do so. Michael has said that he believes he has addressed, and solved, these problems but the truth is (with the greatest respect to you, Michael) that he has not.

There are already discrimination cases in the US against Christian Ministers who do not wish to marry gay couples. They can get round this legislation only by offering their services to parishioners of their church. The reality is that the church is offered to the public for various income-earning reasons however and this fact brings them in to the ambit of the discrimination laws unfortunately. There is also the threat of litigation to anyone who wishes to (a) write or speak their views about marriage which do not condone gay marriage (and there is currently a case in respect of some Twitter comment); (b) not sell property to a gay couple (for whatever reason and this is a current case in the UK); and (b) attention has been alerted to the risk to teachers in Church (or any) schools who will risk litigation unless they speak in the same way about gay marriage as conventional marriage.

The only solution is to keep the two types of union distinct (and it is considered that there may be even still a risk here) and/or to do as I posited - to distinguish between civil and religious ceremonies.

The exchange of labels mentioned (and criticised as meaningless) by some on this thread would actually be a necessary legality in order to protect and uphold others' freedoms as well as the gay people's rights - the freedom of others to say "No."

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

I've already stated this. Yes, the government should define marriage. We've already gone over this. If two people's actions meet the government's definition of marriage -- properly defined in accordance with individual rights -- then the only role the government plays in the marriage is to settle any property/custody disputes.

Somehow, and I do not know how, this is putting the government "up to the knickers" in marriage. I've made these arguments about 100 times, so your statement IS purposely misleading -- make no mistake.

You made your arguments against it, and I debunked them. You asked me questions, and I answered them. Now, you're pretending you do not know my position.

How about instead of your posturing, you go and actually answer my questions?

All you are doing right now is asserting, and it is transparent.

Michael

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

To whom are you referring? If it is me, you are purposely misleading because I've stated the exact nature of government involvement, i.e. settling property and custody disputes arising from the marriage.

It is you, and others (including the Goblians), and I am not misleading, precisely because you all go beyond "settling property and custody disputes arising from the marriage." In your particular case, you said it was government's job to define marriage. Let me be clear, here: is it your position merely that government currently does define marriage, or that government should define marriage as well?

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

" To my astonishment, people right here seem to be itching to have The Gummint involved in their relationships up to its frilly nickers, the only argument being about whether there's a goblin involved as well."

To whom are you referring?

If it is me, you are purposely misleading because I've stated the exact nature of government involvement, i.e. settling property and custody disputes arising from the marriage.

Btw, you do realize that the government has a standard/definition for what is a contract, don't you? It's not whatever the two parties say it is. That is, you can't slip through the back door with the magic wand of "contract" and claim that the government is no longer involved in saying whether the marriage is valid or not.

Michael

As one who has

Jules Troy's picture

Gone through the wringer, was left with a fork, 170k in debt and forced to pay child support for children that were not even mine and who I did not adopt I assure you I am all for "getting government " the fuck out of myyyyyy life...

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Linz, are you saying that you consider that resolution of property issues upon a marriage terminating where there is no force or fraud or violation of individual rights - but simply a disagreement between the two parties over what is considered joint property and/or its division - should not be a matter for the Gummint via legislation?

Rosie: my view is that protection from force and fraud subsumes the upholding of contracts. If there is a disagreement between soon-to-separate spouses then they must repair to their contract and, of course, it's the government's job to adjudicate. If there's no contract then the government must still adjudicate as to who has the right to what (not some Nanny-ist legislation automatically decreeing 50/50) and who owes whom what (child support, etc), since the parties are in dispute about who has the right to what and who owes whom what. I am not averse to the idea of default legislation, but I am certainly opposed to the current morass.

I don't remember seeing your question, but if I consciously decided to ignore it it would have been because of its marginal relevance. I am trying to point out that the freedom-lover's perspective on relationships is that relationships, including marriage, are not the state's business, save the usual provisos about force and fraud (and by extension, the upholding of contracts). To my astonishment, people right here seem to be itching to have The Gummint involved in their relationships up to its frilly knickers, the only argument being about whether there's a goblin involved as well.

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

Is it OK if I answer with a question?

What would Jesus do? Innocent

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

No, you cannot answer a question with a question.

And I talking was about the immoral acts part, obviously, as it is not a government endorsement, anymore than a law protecting free speech is an endorsement of what a particular speaker says. What are the immoral acts that the government is allegedly giving an endorsement to?

Stop playing games Reed and say what you mean.

Michael

Linz - the question I asked in response to something you wrote

Rosie's picture

"The state has no place in relationships. ........ In the protection of the individual from force or fraud, the state has a place everywhere. That is the state's "default position." Force and fraud are violations of individual rights, and the securing of individual rights is the reason "governments are instituted among men."

Linz, are you saying that you consider that resolution of property issues upon a marriage terminating where there is no force or fraud or violation of individual rights - but simply a disagreement between the two parties over what is considered joint property and/or its division - should not be a matter for the Gummint via legislation?

If so, how would you propose resolution outside government/judicial intervention and, following resolution, its enforcement (if necessary)?

Is it OK if I answer with a question?

reed's picture

Michael
Why does Christianity define marriage as "between a man and a woman", even though there is polygamy in the OT? (Complex question)
How many marriages does a man with three wives have?

Why is Civil Union legislation "a government endorsement of immoral acts"?
(Presumably you are asking about the endorsement aspect)
Because that's what it is
Endorsement: an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Look down the page for the legal definition (on my phone, can't link now). I'm particularly interested in your answers to my questions, though, as you've had one of your rationalistic slip-ups, which you are prone to from time to time.

Michael

Jules

Rosie's picture

smears of Michael, typical goblian behavior when confronted by logic and reason.

Smears? Where is any smear of Michael?

Typical behaviour when confronted by logic and reason? We speak in good faith!

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Whatever the question was, I missed it. Would you mind re-posting?

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm afraid I missed your definition of marriage also. Would you mind re-posting?

The Dichotomy Labotomy

Rosie's picture

Rosie and Baade-Reede say marriage can only be between a man and a woman because a goblin says so.

No, no, no (but also yes, yes, yes).

The dictionary also plays a significant role in my argument (at a temporal level).
marriage, bride, bridegroom, spouse, etc.

Marriage is distinct from civil unions in this regard.

(And you, Linz, have not yet answered a question I put to you a while back. I think it was neither facile nor incoherent! Well, not to me, at least!)

Not to mention..

Jules Troy's picture

That when presented with rational dialogue instead of returning the same the ever so common character smears of Michael, typical goblian behavior when confronted by logic and reason.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You should know the answer by my definition (and the answer to your second question)!

I'm still awaiting your reply to my questions. Let's hash it out.

Michael

Delectable dichotomies

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Rosie and Baade-Reede say marriage can only be between a man and a woman because a goblin says so. Mr Moeller says it's not Gobby who should define marriage but the Gummint. (If Mr Moeller has stated a position on whether gay marriage is OK even if The Gummint's definition precludes it, I missed it.) Gobbies vs Gummies. Both sides are wrong, of course. But it's all deliciously diverting. Eye

Checkmate?

Rosie's picture

I check my mate first.

A chess player?!

Or just exercising your individual right of "search before church" and avoiding caveat emptor perhaps?!

Michael

Rosie's picture

Rosie,
Do you smoke crack?

No. Usually Holiday Blue Supers if they have them in stock - as contained behind the (newly-legislated-in-this-nanny-state) cream coloured cupboards to prevent any possible risk of temptation to non-smokers!

Why do you ask?
laoj

Rosie...

Michael Moeller's picture

I would be "bowled over", considering I am heterosexual and I check my mate first. Eye

Michael

On gay marriage

Rosie's picture

The Lawyer, Moeller,
Was not bowled over
When his bride-to-be
Announced, "I am he!"

Doug & Rosie

Michael Moeller's picture

Doug,
I'm already aware of that answer. Eye

Rosie,
Do you smoke crack?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.