Gay marriage

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by aknowledgeableperson » Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:57 pm

To those who are seeking support from the religious right, or evangelicals, like Hucklebee, Santorium this will still be an issue. They are a small but vocal part of the GOP so the other candidates will say they believe marriage is between one man and one woman but the law of the land says otherwise. Much like what the Dem Catholics and others may say about abortion.
The real test will come when the GOP platform is worked on next year. Will it contain, like it does now, language to push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man one woman.
One factor that may end up hurting the GOP may be one of those evangelical candidates end up running as an independent if there isn't much traction for support of a constitutional amendment within the GOP.

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Gay marriage

Post by pash » Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:50 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4458
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by earthling » Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:45 am

earthling wrote: As far as churches, would they lose tax exemption status if denying gay marriages at this point? Some have lost tax exemption for racial discrimination.

Major major cultural shift and impact to traditions going on... and more drastic polarization with it. Breaking out the popcorn...
Found out churches are not required to perform gay marriage. However, churches that won't perform inter-racial marriage or allow mixed couples can lose tax exempt status, so it may just be a matter of time.

Religious schools may be more more at risk of losing tax exempt status if they discriminate same-sex relationships within students.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/26/what- ... ruling-mea

Would think polygamy marriage will be targeted next. From libertarian perspective, there is no good reason to bar it. Consensus is maybe really the only mode that would prevent it and polygamy acceptance is also growing.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4458
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by earthling » Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:49 am

pash wrote:Any of those tactics would be merely further rearguard actions on the inevitable road to defeat. The sooner the GOP puts up the white flag and finds new battles to fight, the better for everybody, not least the Republican Party.
The GOP should give up the fight because the trend within own party is accepting gay marriage.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallup ... vfxv_a.png

Agree with AKP the hard right evangelicals/Catholics are mostly only ones who may attempt to continue fight and will ultimately destroy party if they do (if they haven't already).

longviewmo
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 875
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 am
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Gay marriage

Post by longviewmo » Sat Jun 27, 2015 6:23 pm

Why is polygamy always brought into the argument? I really don't see it taking off anytime soon. Look to the rest of the world: the US was lagging behind a huge number of countries in the whole gay marriage thing. I understand people are trying to figure out what the whole next big social issue will be. Immigration is still kind of unaddressed. If the GOP falls, do we finally wind up with more than 2 parties? Etc.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12816
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Gay marriage

Post by FangKC » Sat Jun 27, 2015 6:59 pm

Immigration will be a big issue, but I think that income inequality and the high cost of college education are quickly becoming the No. 1 issue for most Americans. As a part of the higher education issue, I also foresee a call to reduce the interest rates on college loans for both current students, and graduates with a lot of college loan debt. Elizabeth Warren has been talking about this a great deal. In addition to interest rate reductions, there might be some call to increase higher education spending to keep tuition affordable for many.

As part of the income/wage problem, there is the looming housing issue, where most major cities are becoming too expensive for people to afford to buy or even rent there. In recent articles on that topic, a lot of residents in many major cities are having to spend more than 35 percent of their income just on housing. This is in part because incomes haven't been rising to keep up with housing inflation.
Last edited by FangKC on Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4458
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by earthling » Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:33 am

longviewmo wrote:Why is polygamy always brought into the argument? I really don't see it taking off anytime soon. Look to the rest of the world: the US was lagging behind a huge number of countries in the whole gay marriage thing. I understand people are trying to figure out what the whole next big social issue will be. Immigration is still kind of unaddressed.
Polygamy is sometimes brought up along gay marriage because it is a legitimate scope item for marriage definition as well. I wasn't thinking polygamy as next social issue but rather next marriage hot button issue at some point. The next major social issue in US maybe should be the serious crime issues and somehow addressing those who struggle within the system - whether homeless/impoverished (aiding with self-sufficiency, not creating govt dependency with handouts) or police/race relations. Those might have more impact to everyone's daily lives than immigration. The US was built on immigration and we have made it work.

Back to marriage, seems many people don't realize when they get a marriage license they essentially sign a default govt contract. Govt doesn't need to define the terms of the contract and gay marriage approval is sort of leading that direction. The contract contents should be approved between the parties involved within enforceable parameters (or use a prefab contract with terms you can adjust that you can get at OfficeMax or post office or church) just like any other contract, such as a biz or any civilian party agreement - a much broader pre-nup where the type/relationship of persons are not restricted by govt.

Polygamy acceptance is still low (according to this pollster) but the rate of growth of acceptance is higher than most would probably expect - more than doubled in about 13 years. The rate of polygamy acceptance might increase well more than double again in next 10 years or so as more traditionalist silent/boomer generation dies off and more progressive minded genx/millennials have larger share of consensus... lots of other things could come into play that slow the acceptance down, but that hasn't been the trend...
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallup ... 34l22w.png

Outside of using religious beliefs as a factor, what legal/civil reasons are there to prevent polygamy marriage? Seems consensus is only thing blocking it now that gay marriage door has been opened. Polygamy would probably bring more complexity to things like taxes, insurance industry, child custody, etc, but can still be managed.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4458
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by earthling » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:00 pm

longviewmo wrote:If the GOP falls, do we finally wind up with more than 2 parties? Etc.
A weakening party breaking to 2+ would of course empower the stronger one even more. If one split can attract independents, might have a chance?

There was a study around last major election comparing 1960s Congress members, about 75% members showed record of regular compromise or some form of cooperation on differences - each decade after showed more members 'taking absolute sides'. The record of Congress members today shows most (over 75% if I recall) creating more polarization than cooperation. One major thing that separates successful tribes vs those that fail is ability to adapt and cooperate. Both major sides don't cooperate well today but GOP also struggling to adapt to social changes.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12816
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Gay marriage

Post by FangKC » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:12 pm

I've heard several analysts blame the lack of cooperation in Congress to a couple of things:

First is too much corporate money in elections. Even before the Supreme Court allowed that corporations were "persons," unlimited donations in elections, and voiding of earlier, sensible campaign finance laws, there was a huge gap between organized business interests bundling money for candidates versus donations that came from individual voters. This created a situation where corporate interests had too much influence over candidates, elected officials, and policy--in some cases writing the legislation that incumbents introduced. With the Supreme Court decisions on campaign spending, it has become even worse, because you now have a situation were candidates and elected officials are arguably owned by corporations and wealthy private interests like the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and George Soros. The interests of individual American voters are diminished in this scenario. For example, the issue of environmental protection. Voters in a district might overwhelmingly support stronge emission and pollution controls on industries there to protect air and water, but corporate interests trump their voices because the incumbent gets most of their money from large polluters.

Second is gerrymandering. This creates a situation where congressional districts are designed in such a way that it's hard for them to be competitive. Incumbents have a powerful advantage in this framework. There is less voter diversity within congressional districts, and minority voices aren't heard. Under this framework, more extreme, partisan candidates are elected, and those elected officials then are less likely to compromise. Incumbents become more entrenched because they have less fear of losing an election. This has also allowed states to turn consistently red or blue, and fewer become in play each election cycle. Gerrymandered districts lacking diverse voices tend to become one issue districts--often based on controversial social issues like immigration, unions, abortion, gun rights, anti-tax, anti-government, or gay and lesbian social issues. This results in more polarization in politics because entrenched candidates and incumbents don't have to bend on any other issue.

You get a situation where a candidate like former Congressman Dennis Moore cannot get elected in Kansas any longer. You see more crazy ideologues maintaining seats in Congress. These candidates and incumbents tend to play to their base, and are less concerned with representing the interests of other, more diverse voters in their districts. They basically can write them off.

I'm not convinced at this point that uprooting the two party system is such a bad idea. Both parties have become stagnant bodies less inclined to compromise. This creates a dysfunctional government that accomplishes little. It diminishes the possibility of new ideas coming forth and being considered in politics. If the two major parties were to break up into say four smaller parties, elections might become more competitive. Four parties might break up the strong gerrymandered districts.

On the Republican side, the conservative anti-government, evangelical side is often not willing to play with the Republicans who think that government is necessary, but should just remain smaller, and still are more liberal on social issues. On the Democratic side, big labor and liberals don't often see eye-to-eye. Big labor and union voters don't often agree with environmentalists.

This current framework no longer allows for a conservative, pro-choice, environmentalist like Barry Goldwater to exist and stay elected.

Having more parties might allow us to form coalition-type governments where elected officials have to compete for votes in Congress based on good ideas and policies, and less on ideologies and strident social positions.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10727
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Gay marriage

Post by mean » Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:00 pm

FangKC wrote:On the Republican side, the conservative anti-government, evangelical side is often not willing to play with the Republicans who think that government is necessary, but should just remain smaller, and still are more liberal on social issues. On the Democratic side, big labor and liberals don't often see eye-to-eye. Big labor and union voters don't often agree with environmentalists.
Yeah, it appears that the GOP is heading toward the kind of internal disagreement that has long been more a characteristic of democrats. Should be interesting, but I don't think there's any way we see alternative parties gain serious traction at the national level. I have to think that both sides of the aisle would do everything possible to maintain their collective hegemony if a third party began making any real noise.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4458
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by earthling » Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:17 pm

FangKC wrote: Second is gerrymandering. This creates a situation where congressional districts are designed in such a way that it's hard for them to be competitive. Incumbents have a powerful advantage in this framework. There is less voter diversity within congressional districts, and minority voices aren't heard.
Yeah, gerrymandering is a powerful tool to keep GOP in play as overall population leans more and more liberal/diverse and key base demographic dying off...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop ... ems-house/

So back to gay marriage, there are still some questions about how it can be enforced.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html
“Think about abortion,” Murray said. “Women have a right to abortion, but the state doesn’t seem to have to furnish the ability to have one.”

Indeed, states don’t have to support or fund abortion clinics even though the Constitution protects women’s right to end a pregnancy.

In other words, even when rights are confirmed by the Constitution, states don’t necessarily have to provide avenues to exercise those rights. Actively denying those rights or outlawing their exercise is unconstitutional, but states may be able to circumvent same-sex marriages by avoiding marriage altogether.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by aknowledgeableperson » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:49 am

Of course, the interesting topic of polygamy can have some support. Growing up most families were the husband being the breadwinner and the wife stayed home with the kids. Now most families, if husband and wife are together, both parties are the breadwinner, and quite a bit of the time the wife will make more money than the husband. For them it takes two incomes to make ends meet. In the future what if it takes three incomes?
Look at the various sects based on the Mormon religion, so yes there is some interest and current practice. And it is an interesting topic given the number of TV programs based on this concept. However, I think most, if not all, think of polygamy as one man with two or more wives. What if it is one woman and two or more husbands? Can people wrap their arms around that? And to take it to an extreme what about group marriage? Multiple men and women living commune style.
I have no way of knowing what the future holds for marriage but I think the general acceptance of polygamy will not occur in my lifetime.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16496
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Gay marriage

Post by DaveKCMO » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:50 am

earthling wrote:...but states may be able to circumvent same-sex marriages by avoiding marriage altogether.
they would still have to honor marriages from other states, which is why it makes to be consistent on this issue.

such is the problem with this whole state's rights obsession: there will always be a state more liberal/progressive/conservative nearby where you can [ get married / buy pot / have an abortion ].

the dilemma for some of the justices was this: had we had enough time with gay marriage (netherlands, 2001) to know there were no unintended consequences? for 5 of 4, the answer was yes.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Gay marriage

Post by flyingember » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:29 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote:And to take it to an extreme what about group marriage? Multiple men and women living commune style.
I have no way of knowing what the future holds for marriage but I think the general acceptance of polygamy will not occur in my lifetime.
Except for the getting married part, this sounds a lot like people having roommates who have kids and who sleep together. Which I expect happens today without marriage.

I would say that it's going to be like interracial marriage and gay marriage. My guess is for this to actually happen it needs to be humanized by some individuals of clear moral standing.

The subject began to be broached by the media many years ago. 20 years ago the show Friends covered this topic directly but very briefly, it never came up again.
The One at the Beach -and- The One with the Jellyfish (1997)

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4458
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by earthling » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:18 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote: However, I think most, if not all, think of polygamy as one man with two or more wives. What if it is one woman and two or more husbands? Can people wrap their arms around that? And to take it to an extreme what about group marriage? Multiple men and women living commune style.
I have no way of knowing what the future holds for marriage but I think the general acceptance of polygamy will not occur in my lifetime.
Have posted before that polygamy does work well with certain tribes and it is indeed often group marriage, communal living. Polygamy works very well with Xingu River tribes of Amazon region and makes a lot of sense for their situation. The women tend to be in charge of selecting their mates and they select a new mate over time (polyandry). When a girl is of breeding age she first selects an older male who is more experienced as a father. As she ages, she chooses younger males to mate with and mentors them into fathers - and as those males age they are later selected by younger females. It's a very good system where parenting and responsibility are literally 'taught on the job' as one parent is already experienced. And, many are what we call bisexual but there is nothing perverse about it - I call it 'polybonding' as it strengthens cooperation within tribe. Polygamy doesn't work when one or more in group are exploiting others in group, which is maybe how many Americans think of polygamy. But exploitation can also occur within two person marriages. We already have laws that in some cases protect from exploitation of others whether in marriage or not - it can be applied to polygamy as well.

Privatizing marriage with private contracts is the way to go - it should have been pursued rather than gay marriage specifically and it may be more appealing to the hard right/religious. There is no reason for the Feds to determine the conditions within a marriage contract outside of tax and other Fed specific house keeping implications (which are factored in other types of private contracts as well). It does open the door to polygamy though and that will take time to be acceptable by consensus. I have no personal interest in polygamy/communal lifestyle, but as an observer, seeing it work in other cultures, there is no reason there should be laws to prevent it. More people won't think about it though unless it is challenged and is hard to say if/when that would occur.
Last edited by earthling on Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by aknowledgeableperson » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:37 am

"Privatizing marriage with private contracts is the way to go - it should have been pursued rather than gay marriage specifically and it may be more appealing to the hard right/religious."
That had some success as civil unions, and I feel that if that hard more acceptance the issue of "gay marriage" would have been delayed for a few decades.

" There is no reason for the Feds to determine the conditions within a marriage contract outside of tax and other Fed specific house keeping implications (which are factored in other types of private contracts as well)."

A pre-nup can handle that very well The nice thing about a state sanctioned marriage is that a couple can get married without long, drawn out negotiations and let the laws and courts settle any differences if any arise. Which may happen anyway with a pre-nup or so-called private contracts.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4458
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by earthling » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:49 am

It turned out that specifically targeting gay marriage worked out and it is _astonishing_ how quickly it occurred. But privatizing marriage is the next logical step if there are more pressures on govt involvement - maybe could have been next approach if national gay marriage didn't succeed.

As far as complexity of many contracts that could delay court decisions, there could be a common stock of a dozen contracts to chose from that courts can be prepared for, which also allow for small variances decided by parties, meaning maybe even quicker resolutions than the unwritten 'contract' we have today. This is no different than stock contracts with different variations you can buy at office supply places - written by private lawyers, not the Feds. For completely unique contracts that are broken, the parties would simply have to be prepared for potentially long delays on court decisions.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Gay marriage

Post by flyingember » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:56 pm

Having formal contracts could be beneficial as a matter of course.

Have benefits in it that if both adults handle it themselves and go to a special court officer to finalize the agreement there's some sort of financial benefit. Or perhaps a lack of a financial penalty. Prove you lived together for one year and here's a tax credit kind of thing.

Sure, not everyone will be responsible but having a carrot would cut a lot of pain. A LOT of kids would benefit by parents having a way they can split cleanly without the money fights and custody battles.

I don't care who the marriage is between for that idea, there's a lot of value in encouraging civility.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4458
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by earthling » Mon Jun 29, 2015 5:00 pm

Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3eUUFHdcW

Gay marriage may have grown relatively quick acceptance as many in this era know gays in meaningful relationships. Polygamy argument now has its place but may take longer as most dont know others in polygamy relationships - though may start to ask why it should be restricted.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Gay marriage

Post by aknowledgeableperson » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:44 pm

"Found out churches are not required to perform gay marriage. However, churches that won't perform inter-racial marriage or allow mixed couples can lose tax exempt status, so it may just be a matter of time.

Religious schools may be more more at risk of losing tax exempt status if they discriminate same-sex relationships within students."

The church itself should be able to not have gay marriage since the Freedom of Religion is in the Bill of Rights. And I would think that would apply also to inter-racial marriage. Anyway, even if you are a member of the church the minister retains a right not to marry a couple for any reason, such as woman already pregnant, living together, couple not taking pre-marriage classes are a few. Schools though are a different situation since students can apply and the schools accept federal student loans and the schools themselves may have accepted federal dollars to help build dorms or receive some sort of federal grant money. Would imagine many religious schools are set up as a separate legal entity from the church itself.

Post Reply