SCOTAL Itch

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

(citation omitted)

[Henry Quirk]

Stephen,

From my first post (#419) in this thread…

government's role (within the context of my presented notion) is simply as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter

Currently gov licenses marriages (pony up your bucks, get your piece of paper); gov sanctions marriages (you straight folks can marry, you gay folks cannot); gov promotes marriage (if you marry you can file jointly and save some bucks).

If folks could bind themselves legally to one another by way of contract (as they currently do in many areas) then the gov would have no place as licenser; the gov would have no say in who can bind themselves to another; the gov couldn't incentive a behavior.

What gov could do is what it does now for all manner of contracts, that being: arbitrate disputes.

As it stands now: gov is involved in marriage from hopeful start to regrettable ending.

If marriage were (dare I say it) 'privatized': then gov would only be involved in the regrettable ending (and only if there is a dispute that needs settling [some marriages end amicably]).


As for the whole “Lolbertarianism” thing: I’m not a libertarian (as my post over in ‘Basis of land ownership’ illustrates), so you can poke someone else with that stick.

#

Kael,

Thank you for your explanation.

[Henry Quirk]

And: yes, some effort has been made in this thread by other folks. (my apologies for not recognizing this).

Let me address those concerns that stand out to me…


“why don't we just throw out hundreds of years of civil law”

Law and regulation are not static. The current effort (on multiple fronts) to make gay marriage legal is evidence of that. Not seein’ how “hundreds of years of civil law” are any more jeopardized by implementing my suggestion that they are by the legal wrangling of those in favor of gay marriage (civil union).

#

“I doubt this contract of yours will somehow allow married people to file jointly or take out certain returns, or gain hospital visitation rights or not be obligated to testify against one another, among other things.”

-Not seein’ why marital status ought to be a factor in taxation. Joe (single or married) ought to be taxed under the current system based on 'his' income alone. According a special status to Joe cuz he has a wife is a kind of advocacy where there should be silence.

-Couldn’t the regulations within a hospital (visitations, etc.) be edited to reflect new legal definitions?

If no: why not?

-If Joan saw her husband butcher a guy in the park, shouldn’t she be compelled to take the stand as witness? Not understanding why she should be exempt.

#

“There are actually a bunch of rights conferred by marriage that can't (and shouldn't) be replicable with contracts. Things like immigration, visitation, joint tax filing and dependency, marital privilege, stuff like that.”

I think those ‘rights’ can be replicated…again: Law and regulation is not static. It moves forward in fits and starts, reflecting the people it serves.

[ChuckF]

That's cool that you think that things like immigration status and evidentiary privileges can replicated in a contract between two individuals. Shazam, sarge! Garsh and gollee!

[LadyShea]

I think those ‘rights’ can be replicated…again: Law and regulation is not static. It moves forward in fits and starts, reflecting the people it serves.

Well sure, if somehow all the laws defining or referring to the rights and responsibilities of being a married couple are changed, then the regulations based on those laws could be changed. What are the chances of that happening though, and to what end? I would love for the government to only offer civil unions to everyone, and leave marriage to the churches, but that's not likely to happen either, so I support the most equality that can pragmatically be offered within the current framework.

For gay marriage, really nothing needs to be changed. Everything is in place for two consenting adult people to legally become a recognized couple. Really no laws regarding marital rights and responsibilities are dependent on genitals. Some forms might say "Husband" and "Wife" rather than a more neutral "spouse" or something, but really that's just printing a new form.

Prior to the addition of the amendment defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, my state's marriage regulations (age of consent, etc.) just talked about persons and spouses.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

From my first post (#419) in this thread…

government's role (within the context of my presented notion) is simply as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter

So then, government wouldn't actually be "out of the mix," as also stated in #419, or "out of the marriage business," as stated in #422.

show spoiler

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

If folks could bind themselves legally to one another by way of contract (as they currently do in many areas)

See, this is why these getting-the-government-out-of-the-marriage-biz discussions tend to be so goddamn annoying. They go off the rails as soon as they leave the station. What, exactly, do you think a marriage is?

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

then the gov would have no place as licenser;

You're positing mutual exclusivity where none exists.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

the gov would have no say in who can bind themselves to another; the gov couldn't incentive a behavior.

In a lolbertarian utopia where government lacks the authority to regulate private contracts, perhaps, but not in this here world.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

If marriage were (dare I say it) 'privatized': then gov would only be involved in the regrettable ending (and only if there is a dispute that needs settling [some marriages end amicably]).

Setting aside the wholly dispositive workability issues, is there any point to this exercise beyond "gov bad"?

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

As for the whole “Lolbertarianism” thing: I’m not a libertarian (as my post over in ‘Basis of land ownership’ illustrates), so you can poke someone else with that stick.

You most certainly are a libertarian with respect to marriage, and I'll poke you with the lolbert stick whenever, in my considered judgment, you've earned it.

[beyelzu]

Henry,

If you aren't a libertarian then why do you want the government out of gay marriage.


You can be a true believer randbot, libertarian or a bigot who wishes gays to not have the same rights, but I'm having difficulty imagining a third option.

[Dingfod]

I'm not a Libertarian but I want the government to stop encouraging or discouraging marriage via the tax code. To me it is patently unfair to give advantage in that way in these modern times.

[chunksmediocrites]

So rather than a marriage license- a type of contract that confers rights, benefits and responsibilities, one could simply construct up to 44 distinct and separate contracts covering the 33 possible rights and benefits, and 11 responsibilities usually covered. And find a way to get all parties, including government agencies, care facilities, etc. to sign off and agree to said contracts.

That would somehow be an improvement over just making the right to marry a right that isn't dependent on the sexual orientations or sexes of those seeking marriage.

Something something less government interference between a couple and the drafting and confirmation process of up to 44 contracts and quite likely some attorneys and associated fees.

[Dingfod]

WTF, ?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I'm not a Libertarian but I want the government to stop encouraging or discouraging marriage via the tax code. To me it is patently unfair to give advantage in that way in these modern times.

This is probably more suited to being in a separate thread, and really is unrelated to Henry Quirk's line of thought or to this thread topic.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I'm not a Libertarian but I want the government to stop encouraging or discouraging marriage via the tax code. To me it is patently unfair to give advantage in that way in these modern times.

Okay, I guess I can understand this, but I've never seen you oppose gay marriage because if that reasoning.

[Henry Quirk]

"That's cool that you think that things like immigration status and evidentiary privileges can replicated in a contract between two individuals."

That's not what I said.

Again: law and regulation are not static. They move forward in fits and starts, reflecting the people served.

If the notion of idiosyncratic marriage contracts caught on, and the gov withdrew from the roles of promoter and sanctioner, attendant laws would change...not overnight, not evenly, and not without resistance, but they would change just as they do any time the culture changes.

[Henry Quirk]

"so I support the most equality that can pragmatically be offered within the current framework"

I'm all for practical, piecemeal, solutions if there's no other option.

I'm suggesting another option (not suggesting abandoning current efforts).

[Henry Quirk]

"So then, government wouldn't actually be "out of the mix," as also stated in #419, or "out of the marriage business," as stated in #422."

Context is everything.

You chose to dis-embed a line here and there, wholly ignoring context.

As you like.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I'm not a Libertarian but I want the government to stop encouraging or discouraging marriage via the tax code. To me it is patently unfair to give advantage in that way in these modern times.

I kind of agree with this, but I eventually came around to deciding it was OK based on a societal interest in creating cohesive legal entities that can act in the interests of the family unit, rather than solely on individual interests.

In exchange for the marriage benefits, the family unit can lessen the burden on the job market by providing some security for the non- or lesser earning spouse and some incentive to the higher-earning one*; and in the event of a divorce, the higher earning spouse takes on much or all of the responsibility for support that otherwise would be provided by the state.

So I know what you're saying. I used to totally agree with you, but have since decided I do think it's probably beneficial to society to encourage marriage. Ideally, though, I'd like to see the option of platonic unions as well, which would allow any two adults--friends, siblings or other family--to set up a similar arrangement.

* I knew a corporate attorney whose husband was also a lawyer, and they would take turns doing high paying vs. do-gooder work. At the time she was telling me about their arrangement, she was getting so frustrated and sick of the terrible company we worked for that they were in the process of switching spots so she could go work for a non-profit and he'd have to work for an evil corporation for a few years.

[Henry Quirk]

"If you aren't a libertarian then why do you want the government out of gay marriage."

I was clear: I'd like it out of all marriage (except where there is dispute and arbitration is needed).

[LadyShea]

Ideally, though, I'd like to see the option of platonic unions as well, which would allow any two adults--friends, siblings or other family--to set up a similar arrangement.

I posited that very thing somewhere's or another...or I agreed with you and have since decided it was my own idear. I have seen two widows sharing a house and expenses, multiple examples of an adult child living with a parent, etc. etc. I can see all kinds of relationships that could be considered a single unit/family for legal and financial purposes.

[Henry Quirk]

"one could simply construct up to 44 distinct and separate contracts covering the 33 possible rights and benefits, and 11 responsibilities usually covered. And find a way to get all parties, including government agencies, care facilities, etc. to sign off and agree to said contracts"

If I enter into a contract, a cluster of attendant laws and regulations come into play...one contract with supporting laws.

Why would the idiosyncratic marriage contract have to be any different?

The current system is the result of a slow, unsteady, and often resisted, editing, adoption, and crafting of laws and regulations...it didn't spring up overnight.

What I suggest would also take time but has the advantage of comprehensively keeping the righteous out of people's business when it comes to who they want to live with and bind themselves to.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

"That's cool that you think that things like immigration status and evidentiary privileges can replicated in a contract between two individuals."

That's not what I said.

Nobody said you were a bigot. Just FYI.

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Something something less government interference between a couple and the drafting and confirmation process of up to 44 contracts and quite likely some attorneys and associated fees.

I withdraw my objection.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

government's role (within the context of my presented notion) is simply as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter

Do you also oppose incorporation?

I mean, I assume all the rights and responsibilities granted to businesses via incorporation can be replicated through private contracts between individuals, and as for those which can't, you know, just... fits and starts and stuff.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Okay, I guess I can understand this, but I've never seen you oppose gay marriage because if that reasoning.

I have never been opposed to gay marriage, just marriage in general.

Originally Posted by lisarea

I kind of agree with this, but I eventually came around to deciding it was OK based on a societal interest in creating cohesive legal entities that can act in the interests of the family unit, rather than solely on individual interests.

In exchange for the marriage benefits, the family unit can lessen the burden on the job market by providing some security for the non- or lesser earning spouse and some incentive to the higher-earning one*; and in the event of a divorce, the higher earning spouse takes on much or all of the responsibility for support that otherwise would be provided by the state.

So I know what you're saying. I used to totally agree with you, but have since decided I do think it's probably beneficial to society to encourage marriage. Ideally, though, I'd like to see the option of platonic unions as well, which would allow any two adults--friends, siblings or other family--to set up a similar arrangement.

* I knew a corporate attorney whose husband was also a lawyer, and they would take turns doing high paying vs. do-gooder work. At the time she was telling me about their arrangement, she was getting so frustrated and sick of the terrible company we worked for that they were in the process of switching spots so she could go work for a non-profit and he'd have to work for an evil corporation for a few years.

There are two ways wherein the taxation regarding marriage are unfair, and I've been the beneficiary and also on the detrimental end of the tax policy. At most income levels, married people pay less taxes than two individuals that make the same amount of money. But, if both are high income earners, such as my wife and I used to be, our combined income pushed us into higher tax brackets and we paid more than we would have if single. Now that she is working for not much more than minimum wage, we actually pay a little less in total that we would in total as two single people. I just see it as unfair to single people in generally, and unfair to married couples if they both make good money.

[Dingfod]

And I don't much like the tax deduction for home mortgage interest either, or tax deductions in general, including exemptions for dependents.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

"So then, government wouldn't actually be "out of the mix," as also stated in #419, or "out of the marriage business," as stated in #422."

Context is everything.

No. It is not the case that "context is everything." That statement is incorrect as a simple matter of fact.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

You chose to dis-embed a line here and there, wholly ignoring context.

As you like.

Your word use was exceptionally sloppy and imprecise, even by your standards. You shouldn't say you want the government "out of the mix" when in fact you don't want the government out of the mix. All I did was point that out. Precision is your friend, or could be if you gave it half a chance.

But you chose butthurt.

As you like.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

If I enter into a contract, a cluster of attendant laws and regulations come into play...one contract with supporting laws.

Why would the idiosyncratic marriage contract have to be any different?

It's not, which is kinda the point. Again, what do you think a marriage is in the civil law context?

[beyelzu]

Ding, I know you aren't against gay marriage, I ended up phrasing that sentence shittily