North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I think you're taking it way too far. If I am understanding you, you wish to destroy/obliterate the right of two people to enter into a government sanctioned contract that permits the pooling of resources, promise of mutual lifetime support and the resultant sanctioning of that contract by the State. As with corporations and the laws relating their creation, existence and dissolution, the laws relating to the creation, operation and dissolution of the marriage "contract" are an essential part of our civil society and have evolved over the course of time distinct from the sacramental rite of marriage. To say that this form of contract can no longer exist is far too simplistic. To remove this form of contract creates a legal void contrary to the evolution of our legal system and, further, represents a radical change to our fundamental legal philosophy [In a far, far too simplistic nutshell, Marxism espoused the concept that such contracts were bourgeous creations to be disposed of so that any artificial "familial bonds" would go the way of capitalism].

Nope, not at all. In fact, I'm allowing everybody and anybody the right to enter into a government contract, regardless of reason. There just would be gov't contracts based on whatever it is you would like for it to be; i.e., wanting to place someone on his/her health insurance in which this person is not blood relative..currently that's just spouses and dependents (children.)

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

There is great societal value in allowing two individuals the ability to provide mutual support such that they turn to each other, rather than the govt., for their primary support and for civil society to say what legal rights, liabilities and benefits should govern such contracts. Rules governing the formation, operation and dissolution of such contracts exist b/c, generally and from a societal point of view, the underlying nature of the contract creates a benefit for all members of the society not just the parties entering into the contract.

Why does the contract have to be a marriage? Why can't two people, gay or straight, enter into such a contract of support for each other? Why can't I just support a friend in such terms, without having to be married to that friend?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

My point has always been simply that the traditional contract of marriage has, within our civil justice system, diverged from the sacramental rite of marriage and different concepts and principles now govern each. As such, the form of the contract should remain but it should be clearly delinated from the religious sacrament which developed along with it. Such contracts would still require a State sanction (just like the fomation of a corporation) and be appropriately witnessed - just not by a priest/minister.

Not everybody feels marriage has moved away from its religious aspects, so I'm not sure making it solely a legal contract would solve anything. Moreover, you're still leaving out those who would also like to have these "rights" without having to be married. For instance, I don't want to marry my best guy friend just to help him get health insurance or something. I would be helping him out so that he would not have to rely on the go't for assistance.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Also, you say "Only extending these 'rights' to gay people is still discrimination." Sorry, we must mean different things when we say "discrimination". Extending the right to enter into the civil marriage contract and providing benefits based on the contract is only "discriminatory" when some are allowed to do so and others are not. Further, it is only illegal discrimination when the denial is based on race, religion, gender or some other immutable characteristic recognized at law as a "protected class". Thus, it is perfectly constitutional for the law to prohibit polygamous marriage contracts as long as no one is allowed to enter into them. The fact that people who enter into a particular type of contract receive particular benefits, however, is not a form of discrimination against those don't enter into the particualr contract and don't receive the benefits.

I understand what you're saying, but you're stuck on marriage being the only vehicle to receive certain benefits or rights. And I'm saying, why?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

....I understand what you're saying, but you're stuck on marriage being the only vehicle to receive certain benefits or rights. And I'm saying, why?

You can call it a "banana" as far as I am concerned. I have used to the term "marriage" b/c that is the traditional way this type of contract has been identified.

In my original post on this particualar topic, I suggested that the term "marriage" be removed from the government's dictionary and be replaced by the term "civil union" to describe the particular contract that has evolved to shorthand the multiple property rights that are created when two people join into contract of mutual lifetime support.

As an example, no insurer would permit and most (if not all) State's prohibit taking out an insurance contract on someone you don't have an insurable interest on - i.e. a spouse, child or blood relative. This prevent's "gambling on someone's life. (I can't just take out a 400K life insurance policy on NC Skins and then hope he dies a horrible death to my benefit). Without a spousal relationship created by the "Marriage Contract", I simply could not take out a life insurance policy on my wife.

The "Marriage Contract", as it is currently known, creates a bundle of property rights and liabilities some of which are obvious, some not so much. You can use whatever term you want but to eliminate this form of contract would be incredibly disruptive to the estate planning, property transfers, tax liabilities, etc. etc.

It would be similar to saying "From now on, no one can incorporate."