Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 138

Thread: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

  1. #111
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    What marriage is to people is personal and so is what they expect out of it. If they want terms written in contract that is their choice and if they don't that is again their choice. They can treat their relationships and form whatever obligations they want on each other as they please. As long as both parties agree to the terms I have no reason to object.
    So, it would be marriage WITH contractual obligations?

    In order for their obligations to mean anything someone has to be empowered to act as an arbiter. In our nation that is the family law courts. So who would you replace them with? Would there be a method of appealing this arbitration and who would act as the ultimate arbiter? Whoever acts as the arbiter is arguably acting as a government, no matter what label you wish to apply to them.

    Now it might be fun to kick around those ideas between libertarians or in science fiction books. But holding out for them and nothing else is a good way to sit on the fence, never be taken seriously and I have witnessed it being used to support the status quo of inequality. I have no idea if any of that applies to you as I am not familiar with your views.

    So, I guess, my question then, is what do you suggest in the interim? Frankly, I am in favor of the courts striking down all bans against same sex marriage state or federal. DOMA is a no brainer. Even Bob Barr, the author of it, is against it now. The issue is NOT about federal benefits and I do not believe that is true for "liberals" who support this position.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by BayToBay View Post
    So, it would be marriage WITH contractual obligations?
    It could be whatever one wants. How is this hard to follow exactly? You either sign on the terms of contract and get married or you don't and still get married. It is up for people to decide on what they want. One involves handling conflicts by the government and the other doesn't.

    In order for their obligations to mean anything someone has to be empowered to act as an arbiter. In our nation that is the family law courts. So who would you replace them with? Would there be a method of appealing this arbitration and who would act as the ultimate arbiter? Whoever acts as the arbiter is arguably acting as a government, no matter what label you wish to apply to them.
    Unless there is a conflict or thoughts of a breach of the terms of the contract there is no reason to involve the courts. Sure I guess the state is still involved, but its only to those that wish to sign a contract and only if there is an issue.

    Now it might be fun to kick around those ideas between libertarians or in science fiction books. But holding out for them and nothing else is a good way to sit on the fence, never be taken seriously and I have witnessed it being used to support the status quo of inequality. I have no idea if any of that applies to you as I am not familiar with your views.
    If people want to be forced into a contract with terms they can't control that is up to them, but I will not agree with it.

    So, I guess, my question then, is what do you suggest in the interim? Frankly, I am in favor of the courts striking down all bans against same sex marriage state or federal. DOMA is a no brainer. Even Bob Barr, the author of it, is against it now. The issue is NOT about federal benefits and I do not believe that is true for "liberals" who support this position.
    Interim to what? There is no Interim. The path is set out for what will happen and what I want will not be part of it. People want the benefits from the state and don't think they are wise enough to handle the process without their intervention. I know this and I'm not thinking it is otherwise.

    The issue really is over federal benefits and its really is all that many liberals, conservative and in between care about. People want to marry who they want, sure, but they also want much more than that.
    Last edited by Henrin; 10-20-12 at 12:33 AM.

  3. #113
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    It could be whatever one wants. How is this hard to follow exactly? You either sign on the terms of contract and get married or you don't and still get married. It is up for people to decide on what they want. One involves handling conflicts by the government and the other doesn't.
    Check the transcript. You are going back and forth. You said some could have a contract and others could have marriage without a contract. I asked what marriage without a contract would be and you respond that it would be marriage with a contract they define.


    Unless there is a conflict or thoughts of a breach of the terms of the contract there is no reason to involve the courts. Sure I guess the state is still involved, but its only to those that wish to sign a contract and only if there is an issue.

    If people want to be forced into a contract with terms they can't control that is up to them, but I will not agree with it.
    Of course, there is no reason to involve the courts unless there is a dispute. That is true with the default marital contract.

    Are you arguing that the state should not insist on use of its contract? That is, allow for a custom contract and then have the default? A pre nup can be used to handle much of that. The state is still involved and we get back to the problem of contracts that pervert justice. I am sorry, I certainly do not believe OUR courts should enforce some other standard that perverts our legal standards (e.g, Sharia). It is not only the possible injustice but it would make the whole process more costly for the state as they would have to study each individual marital contract in detail. I would be fine with allowing the married parties to pick their arbiter and standard as long as they can appeal to US courts using our standards. That really, is not that big of a change though, and marriage arbitration is available.

    This is my point. This idea of getting the state out of marriage entirely is often half baked as used by many or seems so to me. It would make divorce too difficult for the state and the parties involved. That MAY be your goal, but I don't see how it is in the state's interest to promote that. I also don't see it as being very libertarian as it would likely just lead to a loss of rights for women.

    I don't want the state going too far in defining who may marry. Their involvement should be limited as as possible, but they must be involved in some way or we end marriage entirely.

    Interim to what? There is no Interim. The path is set out for what will happen and what I want will not be part of it. People want the benefits from the state and don't think they are wise enough to handle the process without their intervention. I know this and I'm not thinking it is otherwise.

    The issue really is over federal benefits and its really is all that many liberals, conservative and in between care about. People want to marry who they want, sure, but they also want much more than that.
    So then, you DO oppose or withhold support for any advancement of marriage equality and do so by hiding behind some half baked fairy tale that you pretend is libertarian?

    It is not about federal benefits. The courts are not ruling that any one has a right to benefits. Congress can end them and the courts would/could not interfere. But Congress and States can not favor some over others and we should not want them to do so. The courts will and should interfere if they do.

    Now let me ask, why is it okay for you to assume/invent what the "liberal" argument is about while decrying when I do that to you? I think it is important to listen to everyone's postion and try to understand it in the best light possible. I welcome your correction if I am misrepresenting your views, but I don't count them as libertarian in this regard.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by BayToBay View Post
    Check the transcript. You are going back and forth. You said some could have a contract and others could have marriage without a contract. I asked what marriage without a contract would be and you respond that it would be marriage with a contract they define.
    Yes.


    Of course, there is no reason to involve the courts unless there is a dispute. That is true with the default marital contract.
    Well then we have that understood. Good.

    Are you arguing that the state should not insist on use of its contract?
    Yes.

    That is, allow for a custom contract and then have the default?
    There should be no default contract, so yes.

    A pre nup can be used to handle much of that.
    A prenup has nothing to do with this if I'm not mistaken.

    The state is still involved and we get back to the problem of contracts that pervert justice. I am sorry, I certainly do not believe OUR courts should enforce some other standard that perverts our legal standards (e.g, Sharia.)
    They would not. Any term that violates the law or is a right violation would be null and void in the eyes of the law.

    It is not only the possible injustice but it would make the whole process more costly for the state as they would have to study each individual marital contract in detail.
    Terms of many other contracts are studied by courts all the time. This is no different.


    I don't want the state going too far in defining who may marry. Their involvement should be limited as as possible, but they must be involved in some way or we end marriage entirely.
    Marriage is personal arrangement between people. Making it more personal and less government run is not ending marriage entirely. Jesus Christ..

    If anything this entire business of contracts with the state just puts up a level of complexity that doesn't need to be there. I would rather we not involve ourselves in this at all, but since people want to it I will defend it even if I think it is bad for relationships and marriage.


    So then, you DO oppose or withhold support for any advancement of marriage equality and do so by hiding behind some half baked fairy tale that you pretend is libertarian?
    I don't see anything here half-baked.

    It is not about federal benefits. The courts are not ruling that any one has a right to benefits. Congress can end them and the courts would/could not interfere. But Congress and States can not favor some over others and we should not want them to do so. The courts will and should interfere if they do.

    Now let me ask, why is it okay for you to assume/invent what the "liberal" argument is about while decrying when I do that to you? I think it is important to listen to everyone's postion and try to understand it in the best light possible. I welcome your correction if I am misrepresenting your views, but I don't count them as libertarian in this regard.
    I don't assume anything. I have been involved in these debates plenty and talked with them in length over the issue. What I'm saying is what they told me about the issue. Believe me, they will fight for these benefits and they will treat them as rights if congress ever touches them. I'm well aware of what the benefits are and what they are not, but I assure you, it doesn't change how people are treating them.
    Last edited by Henrin; 10-20-12 at 02:19 AM.

  5. #115
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Yes.

    Well then we have that understood. Good.

    Yes.

    There should be no default contract, so yes.

    A prenup has nothing to do with this if I'm not mistaken.

    They would not. Any term that violates the law or is a right violation would be null and void in the eyes of the law.

    Terms of many other contracts are studied by courts all the time. This is no different.
    Then your position is about creating some sort of convoluted system of marital contracts and has nothing at all to with getting the state of marriage.

    Marriage is personal arrangement between people. Making it more personal and less government run is not ending marriage entirely. Jesus Christ.

    If anything this entire business of contracts with the state just puts up a level of complexity that doesn't need to be there. I would rather we not involve ourselves in this at all, but since people want to it I will defend it even if I think it is bad for relationships and marriage.

    I don't see anything here half-baked.
    Again, the obligations are meaningless if there is no arbiter to enforce them. If you remove the state's involvement then you are just living together. You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Your position seems to be nothing but a complicated lie to oppose marriage equality.

    I don't assume anything. I have been involved in these debates plenty and talked with them in length over the issue. What I'm saying is what they told me about the issue. Believe me, they will fight for these benefits and they will treat them as rights if congress ever touches them. I'm well aware of what they are and what they are not, but I assure you, it doesn't change how people are treating them.
    They will not be able to fight for it through the courts. The issue is not about benefits. Few are going to join in a same sex marriage and the effect on various "benefits" will be small. Apparently, this is just your knee jerk way of maintaining your non libertarian opposition to marriage equality.

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by BayToBay View Post
    Then your position is about creating some sort of convoluted system of marital contracts and has nothing at all to with getting the state of marriage.
    Enforcing private contracts in relation to the law is not anything new. Do you honestly think it is?

    Again, the obligations are meaningless if there is no arbiter to enforce them. If you remove the state's involvement then you are just living together. You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Your position seems to be nothing but a complicated lie to oppose marriage equality.
    Marriage can easy be just between two people and while you may consider that meaningless it is not to them.

    They will not be able to fight for it through the courts. The issue is not about benefits.
    You are telling this to the wrong person. Hang around these threads a bit more and when a liberal comes along talking only of the benefits question them on it and before long you will can tell them this truth. Telling it to me is entirely pointless.

    Few are going to join in a same sex marriage and the effect on various "benefits" will be small. Apparently, this is just your knee jerk way of maintaining your non libertarian opposition to marriage equality.
    Limited government involvement in contracts while maintaining contract enforcement is a libertarian view. My position is in line with it. Your view on the hand is entirely not.

  7. #117
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by BayToBay View Post
    Still trying to figure out what his position is.

    Any that claim it while supporting DOMA or federal bans has gone astray somewhere.
    From what I've read, Henrin does not support DOMA... however, his reasoning for not supporting it are not due to discrimination. HIS reasoning, as a TRUE libertarian, are because he believes that government should get out of the marriage business, completely. At least that's how I see his position.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    The TRUE libertarian position then seems simply to be turning "marriage" into "going steady".

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    The TRUE libertarian position then seems simply to be turning "marriage" into "going steady".
    Marriage is still more than just "going steady". You don't need government to make it what it is.

  10. #120
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Marriage is still more than just "going steady". You don't need government to make it what it is.
    You need some sort of government/arbiter for the contract to have meaning. Without it there is only your personal commitment, that is, going steady. Marriage has greater meaning because of society's recognition of the commitment.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •