http://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com ... -majority/ (http://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/gay-marriage-in-new-jersey-continuing-to-overturn-tyranny-of-the-majority/)
Very interesting take on why the courts are needed to tell the majority they're wrong.. Gay marriage is a great example among many.
Once again, this is how the government, federal or state, doesn't matter who defines it, that it is something they can not without being bias. Marriage is, in the eyes of the U.S. government and its States governments is just an all around way to treat others who don't marry differently and make money. All marriages that the government recognizes is just a way to extract money from the people like a tax then deny others of certain rights. It is just that gay marriage is up front and center on the denial of rights of minorities at the moment.
Hmmm..so why do we have rich, elected officials who get married? I think you're oversimplifying things. :-k
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Why should anyone be treated differently for not getting a married through how the government has defined it for you.
I believe that the marriage license is the tax on getting married, but the tax benefits and other hand outs that the government affords them is why it is so important that they have the government recognizes it the why they want to keep the status quo. See they want the government to define the marriage as they feel fit to what their church defines it as.
Take for example all the christians that get married. Why are they so protective on how the government defines their marriage? Isn't it good enough the way the church they belong to defined it? If yes, then why do we need the government to define marriage at all for them.
Here is another, gay people want the government to define their marriage and I ask why is this so important to them? So that they can get what other than to cloak themselves under of being able to obtain what from the government. Isn't it good enough that they recognize between themselves how they define their relationship or even maybe their church? What is it they are actually asking to get from the government?
Here is another one if two people don't get married what are they loosing out on that the government affords married couples?
Why does or should the government define marriage at all for you? What exactly are you trying to obtain from a government recognized marriage no matter how it is defined.
The way I see it is if you want the government to recognize your marriage than pay the license fee and get married, but what should change from not being married as far as government is concerned? As far as I see it nothing.
QuoteHere is another one if two people don't get married what are they loosing out on that the government affords married couples?
I believe there's about 1100 different ways in which the government treats you differently if you are married.
There's a bit of a list on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and ... ted_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)
To take out some of the most important ones:
If you're married and your partner dies, you aren't evicted from your home because it was in his name.
If you're married and your partner dies, you don't lose all of your stuff because the inheritance goes to his parents or children instead of you.
If you're married and your partner is in the hospital, you get to make the decisions instead of his family.
If you're married and your partner has a baby, you're considered a legal parent.
There's loads of them. Marriage is a very powerful legal contract that grants a seriously large number of rights and responsibilities to those who sign their name on the dotted line.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteHere is another one if two people don't get married what are they loosing out on that the government affords married couples?
I believe there's about 1100 different ways in which the government treats you differently if you are married.
There's a bit of a list on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and ... ted_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)
To take out some of the most important ones:
If you're married and your partner dies, you aren't evicted from your home because it was in his name.
If you're married and your partner dies, you don't lose all of your stuff because the inheritance goes to his parents or children instead of you.
If you're married and your partner is in the hospital, you get to make the decisions instead of his family.
If you're married and your partner has a baby, you're considered a legal parent.
There's loads of them. Marriage is a very powerful legal contract that grants a seriously large number of rights and responsibilities to those who sign their name on the dotted line.
Yes, well aware of all the rights they fuck people out of for not signing on the dotted line.
Does not mean that it is right, and why if I say fuck the government version of marriage should I be treated differently? That alone is not something only gays are being fucked out of.
Also, if someone has your baby there are other ways to go about being considered the legal parent, if you are not married and you are in a solid foundation relationship she will sign with you in that declaration in the hospital.
POA, Living wills and wills should take care of most other things, it is only the government that wants to make that part complicated to accomplish.
These are not rights they are fucking you out of if you don't sign. The problem is that these rights can only exist if two people consensually sign a legal contract. Otherwise anyone can claim that they have the right to get half of a deceased person's stuff because they were "non goverment married".
The only way a court can uphold the decisions of two people regarding who is considered the mother/father, who should get the final say in medical decisions, and all that jazz if they have it in black and white. The only way it is affordable to most of the world to get all these things signed without having to get a second mortgage, is if there is a standardised form that doesn't require thousands in legal fees to write up. And that's what marriage is.
That said, I'm not sure how possible it is to create your own legally binding version of a marriage contract, but I believe it should be possible if you have that kind of money. But in the end 'marriage' is nothing but a standardised contract that is affordable for most/all people in the country so that they can get the most common things arranged if they want to.
What would you want people to do to get all this stuff arranged if the government didn't have a standard affordable contract for it?
Sorry about the edit while you posted but,
POA, Will And Living Wills cover most areas that you are referring too, it still doesn't really need a government defined marriage to accomplish this does it? Well maybe it does, but this is because the government doesn't want to change their definition of marriage is. So again why should a person be treated differently at any front if they decide to opt out of the defined marriage of said government.
Of course you could put in a lot of work and hours and get most things arranged, and probably pay a lot of money for setting all that up, if you really didn't want a government marriage.
Personally I'm glad I could sign a marriage contract for free instead of having to pay anywhere between hundreds and thousands of euros to get all that crap sorted out though. I don't really feel any desire to have to go through all that hassle myself.
(Also I have to remember you're from the US. Marriage might mean multiple different things at once for you. To me, marriage is nothing but a legal contract the government offers you to fix most of the legal issues around spending your life together. If there is anything more that the word means to you, please do elaborate so I can make sure to address the right points :))
Marriage to me has been defined to the government from a religious point of view, thus the political friction that you see in the U.S. I feel that most what marriage has become outside of that has become nothing more than what has become a handout of crap that only treats people differently. Sure I could run down and get a marriage license and be married within 3 days and have all said handouts given to me by the government that you say was convenient proposition for you as it fit good in your life. It does not fit like a missing puzzle piece in mine, in fact it would hurt me and my wife. By the way we are not engaged nor plan to be married through the eyes of the government, and we recognize ourselves the date we did embrace over 15 years ago and approaching 20. I did not feel that it was a burden to make sure that a POA, Will and Living Will being made or that it cost money to have it updated over the years as things changed and which even being married would have had to be done through these three documents. Kids? all good and all taking care of before even leaving the hospital, both on birth certificate along with SS card being applied for didn't cost anything nor was it a big problem. I have never been for government involvement in marriage and still believe to this day should have no involvement what so ever.
You shouldn't think that marriage means something to me. You kinda sound like you think it does. Neither me nor my girlfriend even remember the day we signed it. It was simply the cheapest solution that met our demands, nothing more. If it doesn't fit your life, you shouldn't sign it, and instead do it the way you are doing it.
But, the reason I posted in this thread is because I think that it shouldn't mean anything to anybody and that the government should step aside all together when it comes to marriage. After all the op says "Tyranny of the majority and gay marriage" but it isn't really. As described it is really a tyranny of religious majority against all minority of being treated differently when it comes to the definition of marriage. This is why I say it should not be something that a government has any business in defining, because I would say that they have the definition fucked up on many fronts having their fingers in it, that's all.
From the article, I liked this:
QuoteI heard a commentator yesterday saying the California court should have left the issue to "the prerogative of the voters". But if the voters' prerogative is to oppress someone else, then the court does not simply step aside and let this happen.
The same people who rage against the partial and biased justices who lifted this ban are generally the same people who would celebrate justices who imposed a ban on abortion. People who cry out for impartiality are generally only applying it to cases they oppose.
So that's what the judiciary does: it prevents the tyranny of the majority from enforcing injustice in a democracy. Like it or not, the "will of the people" is not always sacred, and sometimes must be opposed in the name of equality
I've hear that "justices making the laws" bullshit all the time. I think the Republicans are worse than the Democrats about it, but I suppose both do it. It's just that it seems like I've heard the Republicans squawking most of the time. It might be because conservatives are a majority. I'm not sure about this, but I see a lot of Democrats supporting very conservative things, and from my perspective, it seems like most Americans of either party are conservative at heart. And the majority does seem to love their tyranny, even though they don't realize it's unfair.
I usually hear the bullshit from politicians, who may be just parroting the bullshit they get from their constituents. The bottom line is that legislators pass popular laws and avoid doing much on divisive issues, because they don't want to be unpopular with anyone. Or maybe they actually believe their own bullshit and end up passing unfair and unconstitutional laws thinking they are really great ideas.
Then the courts have to be the bad guys and overturn the laws as directed by the Constitution. Oh that fucking Constitution; It gets in the way of such lovely sounding shit, and then the legislators get mad because they passed the lovely sounding shit, and here is the finally authority telling them their lovely shit is just plain shit.
Sometimes I disagree with the court, but not for making laws. I usually get pissed when they vote to uphold a shit law. But of course, they are appointed and approved by the executive and legislative branches who make those laws. So between the biases they were selected for, and for the favors they owe, how much can we expect from them?
However, I'm still mostly thankful for the judiciary branch. Humanly flawed as they are, they are a lot smarter than the average politician. And while they often uphold the constitution as their job description directs, there is seldom unanimous agreement among them. There's always some asshole opinion coming from the dissenters. But that's the way it goes. Once a law is upheld or overturned, there's no reason to squawk about it, because they are there doing what they do as provided by the Constitution, which the flag waving patriots claim to love while it seems that most of the time, they hate what it does.
Among other things, what marriage provides is a shortcut to all of the other individual rights mentioned. call it lumping in one pot the rights of child rearing and legal quardianship and so on. As Plu mentioned, there are many individual specifics that come under that one heading. To accomplish what is legally accomplished by one word would require many separate actions. Because marriage is a long standing principal of law, it has been defined and understood in the courts for a very long time.
Most people forget that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996 by Bill Clinton. When it was overturned in 2011, Obama recognized it was unconstitutional and didn't defend the challenge against it. It was never challenged when first submitted as law, because the majority of both houses was behind it. There were many previous attempts to legalize gay marriage. If you look at the timeline of gay marriage in the US, it goes back all the way to the 50's; but that was the biggie in our era that turned the corner. And tyranny of the majority is a very apt term. DOMA is proof of that.
Quote from: "barbarian"So again why should a person be treated differently at any front if they decide to opt out of the defined marriage of said government.
Because marriage requires both parties to take vows in front of witness'. And doing so establishes that both parties are good with allowing the other access to those previously mentioned 1100 privileges. I had my share of girlfriends before I got married. I would not have wanted any one of them making medical decisions on my behalf if I were unable to do myself. But if we had the system you're proposing, I could have ended up in a coma and whatever toothless barfly I happened to be fucking that week (times were rough when I was younger) would have had the right to say 'I'm his partner, we're together and I say do not resuscitate'. Yeah, no. I'll pass on allowing all those privileges to anyone I happen to bump uglies with a few times. There are very good reasons to require a formal legally binding commitment between two people before those privileges are granted. That is exactly what marriage is in the eyes of the government and that is exactly as it should be.
Regardless of what you might think about the marriage contract it has little to do with the court's role in overturning laws. Personally I could give a hoot because I was only married once to some bitch over 30 years ago and probably won't try that silliness again in my lifetime. Sometimes I'll say I had two wives, but number 2 and I never actually married, just lived together for 22 years...shacked up in SIN! :shock:
The point is that legislatures are generally really so fucked up they can't pour piss out of a boot with directions stamped on the heel. The courts aren't always any better, but at this point in time the courts are doing generally better than elected yokels who are almost always partisan and not reflecting sensible legislation.