Vigilance

Despite some remarks a I've made recently, I'm not really sure the conservative wing of the GOP is really that stupid. That is to say, they won't blatantly demand rights be forcefully stripped away from same sex couples. Oh, some will. Some already have. But such idiot opposition is so easy to counter it's laughable.

I'm more worried about other tactics. Consider one gaining popularity, which panders to the libertarians and a few others: get government out of marriage. This also appeals to the two "small government" conservatives left on Earth, I guess.

It sounds good, and I can see many embracing it, but it would be just a means of regulating personal behavior. How?

Easy: Suppose marriage is no longer a civil, legal government matter. What's next? Well, marriage carries with it a host of rights and obligations, from communal property to child rearing and more, that would suddenly be unavailable to everyone, married or not, same sex or opposite sex. No one would be happy with this, no matter how libertarian they are. It's one thing to talk the talk, to take a quaint expression, and another to walk the walk.

What may happen is one of two things, or a combination:

1) Marriage would revert to being a religious matter, and rights and obligations would be covered under the 1st Amendment (let that sink in for a minute). One might argue this wouldn't matter, much, to same sex couples, as plenty of established denominations and religions can, and do, recognize same sex marriages. But think of the massive intrusion in religious life which this would require. Government would perforce need to define marriage at some level.

2) Existing and prospective couples would need to draw up contracts, which could then be recognized by each state and which would include the rights and obligations heretofore common to marriage. Ah, do you think all the states would blindly accept same sex and opposite sex couples? Think again. They can call it the Child Protection and Parental Act, or something equally "noble," and exclude whoever they want, even religious minorities, mixed race or mixed faith couples, same sex couples, etc.

Now mix the two.

This has as much chance of passing as a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between a man, a woman and Santa Claus. Now. But given the insistence on how marriage has been "redefined," as though it no longer binds two people together, the impulse to throw the baby out with the bathwater will rise along with the rage.

This does for now, but there are other things to be watchful for. I'll post as time permits.

They Gay activists are saying this was the
first hurdle. The next is forcing churches
to accept Gay marriage in the same way
they accept straight marriage. That's been
the goal all along. Two Gay men raised in the
Church might as well be lepers in the eyes
of their god. They want that changed. Who
can blame them.

For years I was very angry at the passage of the misnamed DOMA (I won't dignify it further). But it backfired nicely in the end. While a Constitutional amendment cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional (or can it?), there is no chance now of a Federal law repudiating same sex marriage. So we're safe there for now.

But the ongoing misinterpretation of religious liberty continues unabated.

Granted I wouldn't advise any couple, opposite sex or same sex, to persist in ordering goods from an unwilling vendor. After all, it's very easy to spit, pee or worse in cake batter, allow flowers to wilt or be infested by vermin, miss settings on a camera, and let's not even bring up the 1,002 ways of ruining a catered dinner (which also apply to bakeries). But I do understand the anger at blatant, bigoted refusals. I've experienced them myself in things which really mattered to me. And I understand the desire to get back at the offender and make them hurt as bad.

In the larger picture, though, it's not worth it to bring suit against them, no matter what non-discrimination laws say. It merely feeds the trolls, and these trolls are capable of using deadly weapons.

What we should do is ask, incessantly and often, which religion demands denying services to anyone as part of its creed, or to use religion as a club to bash heads in. And then demand consistency and reciprocity. Look up the Satanic Temple on social media (I'm serious). They've managed to upset more than a few Christians by demanding equal access for distributing literature in schools, for example.

Boycotts can help, too. Sure, some wingnuts open their wallets at the slightest provocation. But we can last forever not patronizing a vendor or restaurant. let's see them bail them out for years.

The main things, though, is not to force anyone to do anything. And to continue doing what we've been doing for the past 50 years or more: keep showing everyone that human is human, regardless of gender, race, creed, color, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Things will change slowly, they always do.
I hear older parents of young children, people
like Letterman, say he's amazed at how
accepting his young son is of all races and
religions. He has no prejudices at all. That's
50 years after the Civil Rights Act. 50 years
from now, Gays will be in all churches and
it won't be a problem. Friday was a huge
step.

Quote: Nareed

...there is no chance now of a Federal law repudiating same sex marriage. So we're safe there for now.

How much does this matter? Federal law considers MJ a Schedule 1 drug, and is illegal. Yet there's WA and CO and probably more to follow.

Isn't Texas right now putting their foot down on the gay thing? And if so, then what?

Quote: Face

How much does this matter? Federal law considers MJ a Schedule 1 drug, and is illegal. Yet there's WA and CO and probably more to follow.

the High Court having ruled the Federal government cannot treat same sex marriages any differently than opposite sex ones, no way a Federal law can be enacted now to impede same sex marriages in any way. Short of throwing out any recognition of marriage altogether.

This matters a great deal in obtaining Federal retirement and death benefits, in many immigration cases, and in extremes it can matter in federal criminal cases.

Quote:

Isn't Texas right now putting their foot down on the gay thing? And if so, then what?

We'll see.

Quote: Nareed

This matters a great deal in obtaining Federal retirement and death benefits, in many immigration cases, and in extremes it can matter in federal criminal cases.

Ah, this I was unaware of. And to think, I was actually married once lol. So much wasn't known. Thanks for that =)

Quote: Face

Ah, this I was unaware of. And to think, I was actually married once lol. So much wasn't known. Thanks for that =)

You're welcome.

There's also the matter of federal taxes, inheritance taxes and the like.

about government getting out of marriage, not long ago someone told me same sex couples could obtain many, but not all, of the benefits associated with marriage through contracts, living wills, powers of attorney, etc. Things like having a say in your spouse's healthcare, having a say in bringing up adopted children, or your spouse's children, property management, inheritance and so on. But of course nothing concerning things like SS pensions or death benefits (I'm against welfare, but if you've paid into the system your whole working life, you're entitled by right to get some of it back), taxes, estate taxes, spousal confidentiality, etc.

IMO marriage is complicated enough without having to bring in lawyers to figure all this out. Not to mention the added expense. And not to mention how fragile the whole thing is.

Especially in healthcare and child custody issues, it's too easy to disregard a living will or a contract in favor of next of kin. There are dozens of heartbreaking stories involving just such things. A hospital wouldn't dream to deny a spouse access to a patient, or a say in treatment if the patient is unable to make decisions. But a "life partner" with a piece of paper? You'd be surprised how often it happens, especially with a hostile family standing in the way. And can you imagine having to sue a hospital in order to be able to merely visit your spouse?

Now, worst of all, an unmarried opposite sex couple would not have many of these problems in such situations, because as any half competent lawyer will tell you of something called "common law marriage."

Imagine you're a man living with a woman. You're not married, but you've been together for years. You've tried to have children, but haven't been able to. You and your girlfriend eventually decide to try artificial insemination, and finally succeed. You do not adopt the child, seeing no need to do so. Now, sorry, suppose the woman dies when the child is 1 or 2 years old. Her family, who disapprove of your relationship, some out of the woodwork and want to take the child. Chances are they'll have to take you to court to get her or him, and will have a hard time doing so.

Now substitute "man" in the example above for "woman." Add "you're not married because you can't be," and change you did not adopt "because you saw no need," to "because you are barred by state law from doing so."

When the family shows up, chances are you're going to have to take them to court over custody, and you'll have a very hard time making any headway.

So, if we get government out of marriage, how do you think things will work out regarding relationships, given "long precedent" regarding the difference in opposite sex relationships vs same sex ones?

Wouldn't it make more sense to get religion out of marriage, at least in the eyes of the state? I think this recent decision will lead to some Catholic Churches to stop worrying about getting civil marriage licenses. They might say look we will marry you in the eyes of God and give you the Sacrament of Matrimony in the Church, if you want to have this recognized by the state go for it, but we are just doing our own thing. What the state and the Church used to think about marriage was pretty much the same. The first shoe to fall was "no fault divorce" and now in the state's eyes it doesn't even matter what gender you are. Our views are now so far apart it even makes me feel a little uncomfortable being someone recognized by the state as able to perform marriages.