The Kentucky Licence discussion II

[ChillyPolly]

 

It's my understanding that a government employee, elected or not, has very different rights than a private citizen.

 

If I understand what you mean, you are quite mistaken.  Government employees, elected or not, also have the protection of the First Amendment.  It does not necessarily protect them from being fired by their boss, or voted out by the electorate, but it should in theory protect them from interference from the Federal Government (especially when the Federal Government is not their boss and has none of the normal rights of an employer, as here).

[TrackerNeil]

To say that the Supreme Court, and not the People, are the final arbiters of what is right and proper, is ultimately to surrender democracy itself.  Without a set of moral principles, based on something OTHER than what Raw Power dictates, the people have no moral ammunition to question the acts of Brute Force and Raw Power.

 

Supreme Court justices are appointed by a democratically elected president and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. If that's not an assertion of democracy, I'm not sure what is. 

[ChillyPolly]

 

Supreme Court justices are appointed by a democratically elected president and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. If that's not an assertion of democracy, I'm not sure what is. 

 

But it is being suggested that we have no right to judge or criticize their actions if we do not like what they do.  Not even when their actions implicate First Amendment rights.  How is that consistent with the idea of democracy?

[Stubby]

CP,

 

 

 

No, that is not my argument at all.

 

My argument is that Miranda was a decision of the Supreme Court that affected rights, just as Obergefell is.  Those affected by the Miranda decision are not free to disregard the legal requirements of the decision due to their personal beliefs.  In the same way, neither is Ms Davis.

 

I applied what I perceived to be your position to the rights situation in Miranda and came to the conclusion that said position would have lead to a different practical outcome following Miranda.  It would make the Miranda decision nugatory.  For that reason, (what I perceived to be) your position was clearly fallacious.

 

You said my interpretation of your position was incorrect.  When i have asked you to elaborate, all you have given me is the "entire thing".

 

If you want me to reconsider your position in light of my comparison of the decisions please clarify it for me. 

 

[Crickets...]

[ChillyPolly]

 

I didn't actually see that one, so no need to accuse me of "dodging" things. And sure they cannot marry, so if they want to campaign to be able to do so, or create a similar non-romantic institution they can do so. Thing is in order to get something, you must have people who want that thing.

 

But semantics aside, if we accept that legally recognized unions are a privilege, then equality is to extend that privilege to all who cannot be legitimately excluded. In that light, I completely agree that some single people should enjoy the same privileges as are currently given to married couples. Single people should absolutely fight for these privileges if they want them. Let them organize, raise money, run campaigns, educate others, work with politicians, and create a cultural change. I will even help when I can.

How many people who want the tax breaks are still likely to marry once they recognize all the obligations that come with marriage?

There is of course precedent with 'green card marriages', even though the government doesn't seem to like those.

And for siblings, at least over here there is a solution. A type of contract one step below marriage and civil union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samenlevingscontract ) open to them and any other comers.

 

Ok.  What I am getting from the lot of you is that you can think of no reason why singles in platonic parnerships should not have access to the same government benefits as "married" couples, regardless of whether they are willing to deceive the public by calling themselves "married".   For instance, Seli offers a 3rd rate option that even he admits is less than the second-rate "civil unions" that gays felt was an inadequate option, but offers no rationale for why such people are being offered less.

 

Now I want to move on to the next question.  What about singles (gay, straight, or celibate) who do NOT want to form any kind of partnership.   Joe and his roommate Mike just want to be taxed individually.  Why should they be taxed at a less-favorable rate than those who form partnerships?  What is the rational basis for this?  And don't say it's because singles are by definition not married.  That's like saying that blacks should be taxed less favorably because they are by definition not white.

 

What about the abolition of all married privileges?  Let any 2 individuals form any contract they want, and have it enforced by the courts according to the terms of the contract.  If the privileges are not justified by some specific rationale that can be articulated, then is that not what all this "equality" rhetoric truly demands?  (Please note, I'm not necessarily advocating this; in part because I do not necessarily believe that a rationale cannot be articulated.  I just want to get people's thoughts).

[all swedes are racist]

I, for one, fully support support these kinds things.

[Sci-2]

And who else is there to be the final arbiter of what is right and proper?  A mythical being?

 

Which one though? Odin? Ra? Thor? Krsna? Allah? Yaweh?

 

Seems like if this woman wants she could deny licenses to Hindus & Muslim too under this idea of freedom to infect government with one's belief in anything from Professor Xavier to Yaweh to UFOs.

[Lord Flashheart]

 
Which one though? Odin? Ra? Thor? Krsna? Allah? Yaweh?

I believe Odin outranks Thor.

[Sci-2]

I believe Odin outranks Thor.

 

Nay my child, I sayeth  the Son is greater than the Father. Same with Jesus and Yawheh, Apollo and Zeus, and so it shall be with Wolverine and Professor Xavier.

 

In fact I think all fans of comics who don't prefer Marvel over DC shouldn't be allowed marriage licenses, so sayeth my god Professor X. You may just think of him as a fictional being but I knoweth him to be from a parallel universe contacting us through his powers and influencing creators to bring us scripture for $3.99 an issue.

[ChillyPolly]

I, for one, fully support support these kinds things.

 

Interesting.  A lot of libertarians would agree with you.

 

I am libertarian enough to wish the government were less involved in "marriage" than it is, but not quite libertarian enough to go all the way.  I think there ARE reasons why government recognition of marriage is a good idea.  But I'll get to that.

 

I just think that the privileges of marriage are like the privileges of combat veterans.  If we do not try to understand why these privileges are justified in the first place (or whether they are justified), it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion as to whether gays should get them too.

[Hayyoth]

 

 

Ok.  What I am getting from the lot of you is that you can think of no reason why singles in platonic parnerships should not have access to the same government benefits as "married" couples, regardless of whether they are willing to deceive the public by calling themselves "married".   For instance, Seli offers a 3rd rate option that even he admits is less than the second-rate "civil unions" that gays felt was an inadequate option, but offers no rationale for why such people are being offered less.

 

Now I want to move on to the next question.  What about singles (gay, straight, or celibate) who do NOT want to form any kind of partnership.   Joe and his roommate Mike just want to be taxed individually.  Why should they be taxed at a less-favorable rate than those who form partnerships?  What is the rational basis for this?  And don't say it's because singles are by definition not married.  That's like saying that blacks should be taxed less favorably because they are by definition not white.

 

What about the abolition of all married privileges?  Let any 2 individuals form any contract they want, and have it enforced by the courts according to the terms of the contract.  If the privileges are not justified by some specific rationale that can be articulated, then is that not what all this "equality" rhetoric truly demands?  (Please note, I'm not necessarily advocating this; in part because I do not necessarily believe that a rationale cannot be articulated.  I just want to get people's thoughts).

There would be nothing stopping two heterosexual men marrying to take advantage of marriage benefits. Marriage has nothing to do with sexual procreation, it's a constitutinally protected right that requires a must issue government license to exercise, it's available to any couple for any reason.

[ChillyPolly]

There would be nothing stopping two heterosexual men marrying to take advantage of marriage benefits

 

Except, as I mentioned, honesty.  Many platonic partners who married for non-sexual purposes might reasonably feel that to call themselves "married" would be a deception.  They, and many other people, might not agree with your definition.  They also might not like the implications, if they are not gay.

 

But it will be interesting to see if many platonic partners start doing this.

[ChillyPolly]

@Hayyoth, Any opinion on whether or why single persons should be required to sacrifice their financial independence by partnering with another person, in order to obtain more-favorable tax status?

[all swedes are racist]

 
Interesting.  A lot of libertarians would agree with you.
 
<snip>.

Why is that interesting?

[ChillyPolly]

Why is that interesting?

 

Hey, relax.  I would not ask the question if I was not interested in the answers.

 

I'm just curious to see if everyone agrees with you, or if someone will try to articulate a rationale as to why married gay couples (or indeed, any married couples) deserve lower taxes than single people; etc.

[Lord Mord]

CP,

But it is being suggested that we have no right to judge or criticize their actions if we do not like what they do.

Is that so? Will you kindly remind me, please, just where this has been suggested? Tell me, please, whose power to issue a critique has been curtailed? And who here has been saying that such a thing would be proper?

[karaddin]

@Hayyoth, Any opinion on whether or why single persons should be required to sacrifice their financial independence by partnering with another person, in order to obtain more-favorable tax status?

Because that's the trade off for why you get any favourable consideration? You partner up and promise to look after each other, in return you get these things. For all your talk of wanting rational, your very question makes no sense.

[ChillyPolly]

Because that's the trade off for why you get any favourable consideration? You partner up and promise to look after each other, in return you get these things. For all your talk of wanting rational, your very question makes no sense.

 

"Because that's the tradeoff?"  If that's an adequate answer, why was it not an adequate answer before?  The tradeoff USED to be that to get these benefits you had to marry a person of the opposite sex, even if that was not quite your thing. 

 

I'm asking if there is a rationale as to why the tradeoff is required.  Without some explanation, then we do not even have a "rational basis" as to why those who refuse to make the tradeoff are not receiving equal protection of the laws.  Why do we want to encourage people to make the tradeoff by granting them special government privileges, like tax breaks?

[Hayyoth]

@Hayyoth, Any opinion on whether or why single persons should be required to sacrifice their financial independence by partnering with another person, in order to obtain more-favorable tax status?

I don't have much of an opinion one way or another except that any two people wishing to do so can apply for a must issue license and once a marriage has been registered they can apply for applicable benefits including social security, employee benefits etc. No one would have any standing to refuse due to the the relationship being platonic and not sexual, in fact even asking that would likely be discrimanatory.

 

 

 

Except, as I mentioned, honesty.  Many platonic partners who married for non-sexual purposes might reasonably feel that to call themselves "married" would be a deception.  They, and many other people, might not agree with your definition.  They also might not like the implications, if they are not gay

But it will be interesting to see if many platonic partners start doing this.

It's got nothing to do with definitions. Two platonic friends of the opposite sex have always had the option to marry, now that's open to two platonic friends of the same sex.

[Kelli Fury]

 
Hey, relax.  I would not ask the question if I was not interested in the answers.
 
I'm just curious to see if everyone agrees with you, or if someone will try to articulate a rationale as to why married gay couples (or indeed, any married couples) deserve lower taxes than single people; etc.

It is because a single financial unit of two people is more stable in all kinds of ways that save collective society money. As a single person I am more likely to have to use the emergency room as a primary care clinic, I am more likely to carry less or no insurance, I am more likely to draw assistance, I am more likely to neglect cheap easily treated illnesses into expensive difficult ones, I am more likely to enter the criminal justice system, I am more likely to cause civil court costs in event of my death. As a single person, I am simply more expensive, whether my spouse would be a man or a woman, pooling financial resources gives greater stability.