A Gay Marriage Alternative
When the subject of same- sex marriage is brought up, most libertarians I've heard from suggest getting The State out of the marriage business altogether. Reason magazine looks at a proposal in Oklahoma to do just that...kinda.
A Republican state representative, in reaction to legalization of same- sex marriage in the state, wants to protect court clerks from having to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. His proposal would require couples to get married by a priest or other religious official. Those who couldn't do that simply file with the court clerk for common law marriage.
Sounds good enough to me. I wrote here long ago that since a surprising number of people think marriage is a religious thing, maybe we should let the churches have the word. Others, not interested in any religious aspect, could simply file as some sort of domestic living contract, civil union, or whatever you want to call it. So long as they're otherwise treated equally under the law, where's the problem?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 10:11 AM
19 comments
19 Comments:
"So long as they're otherwise treated equally under the law, where's the problem?"
Goddammmit, Fred, you are not this goddamned dense. That bigoted fuckwit of a state official wants the law to recognize ONLY those marriages performed by a religious official. Meaning that your "common law" marriage which comes with none of the perks and benefits currently given to married couples.
Add to that three additional bills introduced by yet another bigoted fuckwit of a an elected state official in Oklahoma allowing discrimination based on whatever bullshit religious reason bigoted assholes can dream up and you have what is simply an attempt to discriminate against a fellow citizen.
And you wonder why you and and every other blithering dipshit who claims to be "Libertarian" is laughed out the goddamned room.
I specified that so long as they're all treated equally under the law. I see no problem with that.
I also see no problem with protecting religious officials (and anyone else) from being forced to do things they feel are immoral. Your attitude alone is evidence of the need for such protections.
They don't have the choice to do or not do what they think is immoral, they are employees of the state bound to obey the laws of the state and to carry out their duties as prescribed in state law.
There is no "religious exemption" for bigotry and discrimination and you're well old enough to know that because they can't deny licenses to interracial couples or to Indian couples or to Jewish couples. They obey the law or they quit their goddamned jobs and go work for Jesus.
That marriage certificate isn't coming from them any more than the tax bill they mail out is a personal bill of theirs, it's not a part of their bullshit beliefs and it has nothing to do with them it's for a fellow citizen and that's just not that hard to grasp.
If you truly think that's the way to go, to allow religious bigots to determine who is worthy of service or consideration, I take back my sentence from earlier, you're stupider and more willfully ignorant of the law and the Constitution than I thought.
What about the atheists who want to have a same sex marriage? The problem with the "Get the state out of marriage argument" is that the state is heavily involved. You are treated differently if you are married. You have access to benefits, treated differently for tax purposes. The case that struck down the federal ban was exactly about those issues. It cost Edith Windsor $475,000 in taxes. That is why she sued. It also leads to this well there are two versions of marriage. Justice Ginsburg said it best, "you have a whole milk version and a skim milk version." So you can't just say, keep the government out of it, as long as being married has an important legal status, which it clearly does. I had a religious marriage, but that was nothing if I did not get a Marriage License from the state. That document is what makes me legally married.
A marriage is a legal contract. Nothing else. How in God's name do you remove government from legal matters? Are you saying that Sharia law would be better? Seriously, now. Come on
"Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business or run a publicly funded social service agency open to the public, those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate."
https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate
"They don't have the choice to do or not do what they think is immoral, they are employees of the state bound to obey the laws of the state and to carry out their duties as prescribed in state law."
And that representative wants to protect them from doing something they feel is immoral. I have no problem with that so long as the alternative is equal.
"A marriage is a legal contract. Nothing else. How in God's name do you remove government from legal matters?"
Agreed. That's why I've never really felt good when those folks said government should completely get out of the marriage business. This guy's idea should accommodate both sides.
"...those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate."
And I've wrote here repeatedly I think that is wrong. People should be able to discriminate over whatever they feel like.
In this case, many people feel marriage is some sort of holy union under God. I suggest we give the churches that use of the word.
As far as government is concerned, marriage is simply a legal contract, although we need not call it marriage. There's nothing wrong with just replacing government with "civil union" or anything else, as far as government's role in such things. That should accommodate all sides, although I'm sure the religious folks might say I'm threatening "marriage" by suggesting that.
My mistake. I wrote "There's nothing wrong with just replacing government with "civil union"
That should be replacing marriage with civil union.
"People should be able to discriminate over whatever they feel like."
Historically that has created abysmal conditions for many members of minority groups, and other low-status groups. Easy for a white male to take that position, assuming he doesn't care what happens to those who don't happen to be born white and male.
"Historically that has created abysmal conditions for many members of minority groups, and other low-status groups"
If this was 1950, I might feel differently, but it isn't. The vast majority of people don't discriminate (although we all do each day in making our own choices of where to shop or what to do).
Now it's gotten to the point some people feel we have to accommodate others no matter what. Bakers and photographers, for instance, being told they have to do things they're uncomfortable with. That's b.s.
Ummm....and some terrorists just killed some cartoonists because they were "uncomfortable". Why are you justifying religion's claim to marriage? Stop being afraid of offending people who are stuck in the stone ages. It's a civil matter. A legal contract. Nothing else.
God forbid we make religious fundamentalists(hypocrates) umcomfortable! We need to keep enabling them. And coddling their asinine "beliefs ". Otherwise they may fly airplanes into skyscrapers, kill cartoonists, or pray for the rapture.
Stop enabling unreasonable logic and behavior!!! Calling yourself a libertarian only makes you look silly when you bow down to religion like that.
Sorry Fred, looks like your opinion is unpopular with many of us who read your blog.
Uh, yeah. Bowing down to religious fundamentalists tends to be unpopular with true, free thinking people.
"looks like your opinion is unpopular with many of us who read your blog."
That doesn't surprise me at all.
I agree with Fred on this one. Not all people who get married are religious. As long as they get the same benefits, this has become more of a political agenda for libtards than about rights. This is a good compromise but as usual angry, radical libtards have to name call. Yes, I used libtards because if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Wait...you agree with Fred that religion has the right to own words, but you call yourself a conservative? How is letting religious fundamentalists take over marriage conservative in the least?
People already have the choice of going to a witch doctor or the courthouse to get married. I honesty don't see what anyone is proposing that is different than already exists now
I don't see it as being all that much different from the way it is except for some word games.
What I'm wondering is what if some priest performed a same- sex marriage and they go the the county clerk's office? What happens then? Would they still say they can only do civil union or whatever?
The proponent seems to be assuming no one in religious capacity would perform a s-s marriage, but there are some churches that are sympathetic to SSM.
Post a Comment
<< Home