Chick-Fil-A and Homosexuality

[Soxbadger]

Just because its so simple, watch:

 

(b) The term “wife” means the wife of an individual, but only if she (1)the first person legally married to him, (1) is the mother of his son or daughter, (2) was married to him for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day on which her application is filed, or (3) in the month prior to the month of her marriage to him (A) was entitled to, or on application therefor and attainment of age 62 in such prior month would have been entitled to, benefits under subsection (b), (e), or (h) of section 202, (B) had attained age eighteen and was entitled to, or on application therefor would have been entitled to, benefits under subsection (d) of such section (subject, however, to section 202(s)), or © was entitled to, or upon application therefor and attainment of the required age (if any) would have been entitled to, a widow’s, child’s (after attainment of age 18), or parent’s insurance annuity under section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974[205], as amended. For purposes of clause (2), a wife shall be deemed to have been married to an individual for a period of one year throughout the month in which occurs the first anniversary of her marriage to such individual. For purposes of subparagraph © of section 202(b)(1), a divorced wife shall be deemed not to be married throughout the month in which she becomes divorced.

 

Wow that took me all of 5 seconds, and a similar change will be required for SSM, if you actually read the code, it uses pronouns (he/she) so it will have to be changed.

 

But I guess thats to complicated of a chance, so now youre against SSM?

Edited July 30, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Im not sure where you are going with this. Who cares about how many changes will be done, isnt the argument about fairness and equality? Are you seriously implying that we shouldnt treat a certain group fairly if "it is very complicated".

 

?

 

See my response to jenks where I explained why denying SSM is an equal-rights violation while denying multiple-partner marriage (MPM) is not. It is unfair to deny marriage rights based on gender; it is not unfair or unequal (imo) to define marriage as a two-party contract/arrangement. More importantly, it doesn't represent an unconstitutional violation of equal protection.

 

Personally, I'm not necessarily opposed to someone wanting to have a MPM or it being legal. But I do not see it as a constitutional right as I do SSM, and I do not foresee it ever gaining enough popularity to enact the necessary legislative changes.

 

Also as ive said, its not very complicated. There is a definition section, you merely have to change 1 section. This isnt rocket science.

 

This is one section of one particular example I pulled out of the air. Now find every other impacted program or law and draft the necessary changes. Better hope you don't miss one because that could make things quite messy! As I said, the individual modifications aren't necessarily complicated, but the legislative process would be enormously so.

[bmags]

legislating behavior my ass.

[StrangeSox]

Just because its so simple, watch:

 

(b) The term “wife” means the wife of an individual, but only if she (1)the first person legally married to him, (1) is the mother of his son or daughter, (2) was married to him for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day on which her application is filed, or (3) in the month prior to the month of her marriage to him (A) was entitled to, or on application therefor and attainment of age 62 in such prior month would have been entitled to, benefits under subsection (b), (e), or (h) of section 202, (B) had attained age eighteen and was entitled to, or on application therefor would have been entitled to, benefits under subsection (d) of such section (subject, however, to section 202(s)), or © was entitled to, or upon application therefor and attainment of the required age (if any) would have been entitled to, a widow’s, child’s (after attainment of age 18), or parent’s insurance annuity under section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974[205], as amended. For purposes of clause (2), a wife shall be deemed to have been married to an individual for a period of one year throughout the month in which occurs the first anniversary of her marriage to such individual. For purposes of subparagraph © of section 202(b)(1), a divorced wife shall be deemed not to be married throughout the month in which she becomes divorced.

 

Wow that took me all of 5 seconds, and a similar change will be required for SSM, if you actually read the code, it uses pronouns (he/she) so it will have to be changed.

 

But I guess thats to complicated of a chance, so now youre against SSM?

 

Why are you being such a dick about this? You'd have to make this change for hundreds if not thousands of bills. That would be very, very complicated, both in practice and politically. That's all I was saying.

Edited July 30, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

legislating behavior my ass.

 

[Soxbadger]

See my response to jenks where I explained why denying SSM is an equal-rights violation while denying multiple-partner marriage (MPM) is not. It is unfair to deny marriage rights based on gender; it is not unfair or unequal (imo) to define marriage as a two-party contract/arrangement. More importantly, it doesn't represent an unconstitutional violation of equal protection.

 

Personally, I'm not necessarily opposed to someone wanting to have a MPM or it being legal. But I do not see it as a constitutional right as I do SSM, and I do not foresee it ever gaining enough popularity to enact the necessary legislative changes.

 

 

 

This is one section of one particular example I pulled out of the air. Now find every other impacted program or law and draft the necessary changes. Better hope you don't miss one because that could make things quite messy! As I said, the individual modifications aren't necessarily complicated, but the legislative process would be enormously so.

 

Your argument is all over the place.

 

Why is MPM not a violation of equal rights? Why should I not be able to marry someone else who is already married? Why cant I be part of that family? Who are you to say that I cant be married to a Man and a woman, or to 2 woman?

 

Either marriage is a right, in which I should be entitled to it, or it isnt a right, in which case SSM isnt an equal rights violation.

 

Youre argument is terribly thin, MPM is a "contract"? Well isnt marriage a contract, and I just am defining it as a contract between a man and woman? And technically its fair to everyone, because everyone equally can marry a man or a woman.

 

The second paragraph, you are going to have to do the exact same thing for SSM. Read the code, they define with pronouns and define both "husband" and "wife".

 

If you have 2 men, which is the husband and which is the wife?

 

Oh you mean the entire code will have to be amended, which you just said was to difficult?

 

So are you really for SSM? Because you basically just destroyed the arguments for it.

 

[Soxbadger]

Why are you being such a dick about this? You'd have to make this change for hundreds if not thousands of bills. That would be very, very complicated, both in practice and politically. That's all I was saying.

 

Because youre not getting that they are going to have to do the same thing for SSM.

 

Literally hundreds if not thousands of laws will have to be changed.

 

Thus, not a great argument to hang your hat on, and since I am very pro-SSM, I want to make stronger, better arguments.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why are you being such a dick about this? You'd have to make this change for hundreds if not thousands of bills. That would be very, very complicated, both in practice and politically. That's all I was saying.

 

There would be the same issue with every law on the books right now talking about the rights of husbands and wives if SSM were adopted. I don't see your point here either, frankly.

 

As to your other comment re gender discrimination, I don't see how it matters. The point is you're discriminating against a group and not providing equal benefits. If I wanted to marry 5 women, under the current laws 4 of them would be denied the same benefits you want for same sex couples. And all because of the way marriage has been defined.

[kitekrazy]

I guarantee it happens. I've gotten comments twice for being married to a "non-white" (both times were in Chicago of all places too). So if I'm getting comments for something that has been going on a lot longer, you better believe it happens quite a bit for something that as a whole is far less accepted in society. I think its unfair.

 

To be honest, I think there are 2 debates. One is the religious debate regarding marriage. The other is the equality debate. I can see someone making the religious argument and understand there view (even if I disagree with it). However, I can't understand how you can't create a civil union which provides a gay couple the same exact rights as a married couple.

 

Plus, to be frank, the religious side of the argument, shouldn't be up to the government.

 

You are mistaken if you think gay marriage is only a religious debate and it is often portrayed that way. Communists don't support it.

 

[Reddy]

You are mistaken if you think gay marriage is only a religious debate and it is often portrayed that way. Communists don't support it.

is america a communist country? what relevance does this have?

[StrangeSox]

Your argument is all over the place.

 

Why is MPM not a violation of equal rights? Why should I not be able to marry someone else who is already married? Why cant I be part of that family? Who are you to say that I cant be married to a Man and a woman, or to 2 woman?

 

Because it isn't a protected class.

 

Youre argument is terribly thin, MPM is a "contract"? Well isnt marriage a contract, and I just am defining it as a contract between a man and woman? And technically its fair to everyone, because everyone equally can marry a man or a woman.

 

I was saying marriage is a contract, not just MPM. Please read more carefully.

 

The second paragraph, you are going to have to do the exact same thing for SSM. Read the code, they define with pronouns and define both "husband" and "wife".

 

If you have 2 men, which is the husband and which is the wife?

 

Who cares which is which? Perhaps I overstated when I said nothing would have to change for SSM, but I doubt it would need to be changed legislatively versus a new rules interpretation or something similar from SSA. The arrangement and the structure of the program still remain exactly the same. Modifying the language to limit it to "first-spouse," however, represents something a little more fundamental than simply clarifying some definitions.

 

Oh you mean the entire code will have to be amended, which you just said was to difficult?

 

Please try to pay attention to what I'm actually saying, as I've had to point out to you several times now that when I said it would be "legislatively complicated," I did not mean that one particular modification to one particular program would be complicated, but that the entire process of modifying every necessary program would be. Simply restating over and over how you could change SS survivors' benefits doesn't even acknowledge my argument, let alone address it.

 

So are you really for SSM? Because you basically just destroyed the arguments for it.

 

The arguments for it are equal protection and eliminating gender-based discrimination. MPM does not fall under either of those and my comment was to the difficulty of enacting it as a policy. I don't know why it caused you to flip your s***.

[StrangeSox]

Because youre not getting that they are going to have to do the same thing for SSM.

 

Literally hundreds if not thousands of laws will have to be changed.

 

Thus, not a great argument to hang your hat on, and since I am very pro-SSM, I want to make stronger, better arguments.

 

I doubt this very much because states have numerous programs that are impacted by SSM and, to my knowledge, have not had to re-write each and every one of those laws when SSM was enacted.

[StrangeSox]

There would be the same issue with every law on the books right now talking about the rights of husbands and wives if SSM were adopted. I don't see your point here either, frankly.

 

As to your other comment re gender discrimination, I don't see how it matters. The point is you're discriminating against a group and not providing equal benefits. If I wanted to marry 5 women, under the current laws 4 of them would be denied the same benefits you want for same sex couples. And all because of the way marriage has been defined.

 

Where is the protected-class discrimination in a MPM restriction? The four of them are denied the ability to marry you because you are already married; this applies equally to every single person, thus there is not really discrimination.

 

Did Mass have to re-write every statute regarding the rights of spouses when they legalized gay marriage?

[Soxbadger]

I doubt this very much because states have numerous programs that are impacted by SSM and, to my knowledge, have not had to re-write each and every one of those laws when SSM was enacted.

 

Well, you brought up 1 area, SSA, and in SSA they are going to have to rewrite it, because it refers to mother/father and husband/wife, and Im not sure how you are going to reconcile that with gay marriage.

 

As I originally argued, its not terribly difficult under either scenario. You are the one trying to create some reasoning why polygamy is harder than SSM, I just think that is a terrible argument, as many people against SSM say that its too difficult to enforce.

 

(now to respond to the longer one)

[StrangeSox]

You are mistaken if you think gay marriage is only a religious debate and it is often portrayed that way. Communists don't support it.

 

Wait, what? I don't think communists have an ideological opposition to SSM.

[CrimsonWeltall]

There would be the same issue with every law on the books right now talking about the rights of husbands and wives if SSM were adopted. I don't see your point here either, frankly.

 

Why would it be?

 

There are laws that give your inheritance spouse when you die.

 

If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing.

If we allow a guy to marry 5 women, that law has to be updated in some way to determine how its split (all to 1st wife? 5 equal shares? pro-rate based on years married?)

 

There are laws that give your spouse the ability to make medical decisions for you when you are unable.

 

If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing.

If we allow a guy to marry 5 woman, that law has to be updated in some way to determine which wife (or majority vote?) makes the decision.

 

There are laws that allow your spouse to get Social Security benefits when you die.

 

If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing.

If we allow a guy to marry 5 woman, that law has to be updated to determine how those benefits are split.

[Soxbadger]

Why would it be?

 

There are laws that give your inheritance spouse when you die.

 

If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing.

If we allow a guy to marry 5 women, that law has to be updated in some way to determine how its split (all to 1st wife? 5 equal shares? pro-rate based on years married?)

 

There are laws that give your spouse the ability to make medical decisions for you when you are unable.

 

If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing.

If we allow a guy to marry 5 woman, that law has to be updated in some way to determine which wife (or majority vote?) makes the decision.

 

There are laws that allow your spouse to get Social Security benefits when you die.

 

If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing.

If we allow a guy to marry 5 woman, that law has to be updated to determine how those benefits are split.

 

Every state already has different laws about inheritance, why is this so difficult?

 

If some states want it per stirpes to wifes, if some want it all to first wife, why cant each state make up their own law?

 

[StrangeSox]

Well, you brought up 1 area, SSA, and in SSA they are going to have to rewrite it, because it refers to mother/father and husband/wife, and Im not sure how you are going to reconcile that with gay marriage.

 

It could be done with a memo or announcement of a rules interpretation. It would not have to fundamentally alter the structure of the program.

 

As I originally argued, its not terribly difficult under either scenario. You are the one trying to create some reasoning why polygamy is harder than SSM, I just think that is a terrible argument, as many people against SSM say that its too difficult to enforce.

 

(now to respond to the longer one)

 

There's still a significant difference structurally going from two-party to multi-party. Opening up to SSM means, at worst, some definition clarifications of "husband and wife" to spouse. Allowing MPM means having to determine whether or not something is restricted to one spouse or give to all spouses and how that spouse is chosen. That's a practical argument against the ease of legalizing MPM, not a moral argument against it.

[StrangeSox]

Every state already has different laws about inheritance, why is this so difficult?

 

If some states want it per stirpes to wifes, if some want it all to first wife, why cant each state make up their own law?

 

They absolutely can. But it would require an awful lot of legislative work which ssm does not. Which was my only point.

[bmags]

I missed the origin of this new argument, but if something is the right thing to do, no amount of work can really justify not doing it.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Every state already has different laws about inheritance, why is this so difficult?

 

If some states want it per stirpes to wifes, if some want it all to first wife, why cant each state make up their own law?

 

They can. It's just a lot more work, which was the original point.

[StrangeSox]

I missed the origin of this new argument, but if something is the right thing to do, no amount of work can really justify not doing it.

 

It was this comment from me:

 

I don't have a problem with people who want to live in a multiple-partner relationship, but I imagine it would be quite messy legally to recognize these marriages. For example, it'd really screw up social security survivor's benefits.

 

You're absolutely right that, if allowing MPM is the right thing to do, the difficulty of doing so is no reason not to do it. I think maybe soxbadger thought that's what I was saying.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because it isn't a protected class.

 

But you're not being denied those rights because you are a man or a woman, it's because you like a man or woman.

[StrangeSox]

But you're not being denied those rights because you are a man or a woman, it's because you like a man or woman.

My ability to marry a man is determined by my gender. How is that not gender-based discrimination?

[Jenksismyhero]

Where is the protected-class discrimination in a MPM restriction? The four of them are denied the ability to marry you because you are already married; this applies equally to every single person, thus there is not really discrimination.

 

Did Mass have to re-write every statute regarding the rights of spouses when they legalized gay marriage?

 

Well, there's not. But that's the point of this debate. There's also not a protected class discrimination for SSM either, but you want it. I'm relating your arguments to other situations.

 

And i'm not sure what Mass laws are, but I know in illinois everything is written in husband/wife language. Some is "spouse" stuff, but you're still going to have to rewrite a LOT of laws already on the books.