Alternatives to civil marriage

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Again, I am not an attorney, but your argument does not make any sense to me. First, homosexual acts are no longer illegal as far as I know, although I think they should be. Second, how would one know if one were homosexual in these contractual transactions?

A simple contract cannot be assumed to be illegal. If there is proof of some sort than the matter can be investigated. The concept here is public recognition of homosexual unions, not property rights. Property may be passed on as one directs that does not mean one is homosexual.

Hi fix!

I thought we were talking about ideals. Civil unions and even marriage are no longer illegal in some states just as sodomy is no longer illegal. How does the fact that sodomy is no longer illegal now effect the ideal prohibitive scenario we mean to construct? If sodomy becomes illegal along with any formal recognition of a same-sex relationship, then the legal scenario I sketched out could be engaged.

If the same-sex couple were reticent about the true nature of their relationship, that might be a way for them to get around any prohibition that we could construct. This, however is only likely to happen in extremely rare circumstances. Prudent silence does not seem to be a characteristic that the gay community has been blessed with. Indeed, part of the problem is that we can’t get them to shut up about it. Even without the rainbow flag on the lawn or the membership in GLAAD, people in the neighborhood will all know darn well what is going on between the two guys down the street.

The true nature of the relationship thus exposed, their contracts would have to be held invalid. Of course, this puts us right back where we were before. Once someone is known to be a homosexual, he no longer retains right of contract, exclusive right to the use of his property or freedom of association. Those are special rights that must be denied to him.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

The true nature of the relationship thus exposed, their contracts would have to be held invalid. Of course, this puts us right back where we were before. Once someone is known to be a homosexual, he no longer retains right of contract, exclusive right to the use of his property or freedom of association. Those are special rights that must be denied to him.

I do not understand your position? Why would a self professed active homosexual need to be denied property rights? How does passing property from one person to another foster something illegal or immoral? Presenting two homosexuals as being married should be illegal and is definitely immoral.

Laws against homosexual conduct do not include property issues, do they?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

I do not understand your position? Why would a self professed active homosexual need to be denied property rights? How does passing property from one person to another foster something illegal or immoral? Presenting two homosexuals as being married should be illegal and is definitely immoral.

Laws against homosexual conduct do not include property issues, do they?

Hi fix!

Rights of inheritance are an incident of marriage. Power of attorney is an incident of marriage. These sorts of arrangements are not illegal in an of themselves. They become illegal when used to subvert or get around a prohibition on gay marriage.

The basic issue that you continually seem to miss is that any contract is a legal relationship between two individuals or two parties that the law is obliged to enforce the terms of. If we do not want the law to recognize any type of same-sex relationship, than it cannot be called upon to enforce the provisions of a contract that are meant to confer incidents of marriage such as inheritance upon a same-sex partner. This renders the homosexual incapable of designating an heir or a healthcare surrogate with the force of law behind his decision. It calls into question any type of contract that the homosexual could draw up.

Once the homosexual cannot designate an heir to his property he cannot be said to own it in the same way as a man who could. He can only be said to be borrowing it from the government because it is soul right of the law to decide, through probate, who will inherit the property.

If this is not the scenario that you mean to construct, then you’ll need to be a little more careful then saying that all forms of a same-sex relationship should have no legal standing. You’ll have to articulate what inheritance and healthcare provisions they are allowed to make and why.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

Rights of inheritance are an incident of marriage. Power of attorney is an incident of marriage. These sorts of arrangements are not illegal in an of themselves. They become illegal when used to subvert or get around a prohibition on gay marriage.

How is it getting around a marriage to pass on property?

The basic issue that you continually seem to miss is that any contract is a legal relationship between two individuals or two parties that the law is obliged to enforce the terms of. If we do not want the law to recognize any type of same-sex relationship, than it cannot be called upon to enforce the provisions of a contract that are meant to confer incidents of marriage such as inheritance upon a same-sex partner.

But, they are not married or in a civil union. Just two people with a contract.

If this is not the scenario that you mean to construct, then you’ll need to be a little more careful then saying that all forms of a same-sex relationship should have no legal standing. You’ll have to articulate what inheritance and healthcare provisions they are allowed to make and why.

Nope, that is your position which seems to have no merit. If two people want to pass on property or the equivalent it is done now and has been done for years. I do not see why you are try to insinuate a marriage when none exists in the law.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

How is it getting around a marriage to pass on property?

But, they are not married or in a civil union. Just two people with a contract.

Nope, that is your position which seems to have no merit. If two people want to pass on property or the equivalent it is done now and has been done for years. I do not see why you are try to insinuate a marriage when none exists in the law.

Hi fix!

You said no legal relationship at all. That means no private contract because that is in itself a legal relationship. If marriage confers things such as inheritance rights and power of attorney and a private contract attempts to do the same thing, then the private contract is a de facto marriage and must therefore be void.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

You said no legal relationship at all. That means no private contract because that is in itself a legal relationship. If marriage confers things such as inheritance rights and power of attorney and a private contract attempts to do the same thing, then the private contract is a de facto marriage and must therefore be void.

I said no legal (civil) recognition of same-sex couples at all. A contract is not recognizing their faux union. It is a legal device to pass on property.

If two brothers have a contract does that make it a marriage?

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

Get the state out of marriage and make it all civil unions. What business does the state have “sanctifying” anything at all? Marriage is a sacrament; for civil contracts, I’m fine with letting the standards be decided by the democratic process.

The state is not sanctifying marriage. It is supposed to be providing special benefit to married couples for the benefit of society as a whole. It is good that the state does this. To not apply special benefits to marriage and raising a family leads to, well, a society like the one we are creating… bad news.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

I said no legal (civil) recognition of same-sex couples at all. A contract is not recognizing their faux union. It is a legal device to pass on property.

If two brothers have a contract does that make it a marriage?

Hi fix!

I am not saying that just any contract is equal to marriage. I am saying that contracts designed to mimic marriage are. If you allow these contracts to exist any prohibition you construct on gay marriage becomes toothless.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

I am not saying that just any contract is equal to marriage. I am saying that contracts designed to mimic marriage are. If you allow these contracts to exist any prohibition you construct on gay marriage becomes toothless.

I do not see why? Contracts do not intend a marriage. They are not getting any special treatment from the government as authentically married couples would. It is no different than any other person having a contract.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

I do not see why? Contracts do not intend a marriage. They are not getting any special treatment from the government as authentically married couples would. It is no different than any other person having a contract.

Hi fix!

What special treatment from the government do you believe there is that cannot be conferred by private contract?

 

[marcadam]

Well, #1 of course, but what will happen…?

 

[marcadam]

Ani Ibi:

If you can’t catch the Rochester Ferry…

Ouch.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

What special treatment from the government do you believe there is that cannot be conferred by private contract?

I see no relevance to this question.

The point is the government is not recognizing a private contract as a public union. The private contract is not a civil union, it is not a marriage, it is not intending to be a marriage or give the appearance of marriage. All the contract does is what a contract is intended to do which is transfer property, or money, or other such reasonable things.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

I see no relevance to this question.

The point is the government is not recognizing a private contract as a public union. The private contract is not a civil union, it is not a marriage, it is not intending to be a marriage or give the appearance of marriage. All the contract does is what a contract is intended to do which is transfer property, or money, or other such reasonable things.

Hi fix!

But if the expressed intention of a contract is to mimic the effects of marriage, what else could it be? You seem to be suffering from the delusion that if something looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, that it isn’t a duck.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

But if the expressed intention of a contract is to mimic the effects of marriage, what else could it be? You seem to be suffering from the delusion that if something looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, that it isn’t a duck.

Again, you seem to want to say that any two people may not enter into a contract based on…what? Property may not be transferred based on what? Healthcare proxies may not be named based on what?

A marriage or a civil union specifically intends that two people are joined in a public way with the appearance of a legitimate union. That ought not to be done. Two private people who decide how they want to exchange property or any other legal issue have such rights currently. Would you take those away? Does the law now indicate one may only pass on property to another that is one’s spouse?

Should two brothers be prohibited from entering into a contract because they may be having an incestuous relationship?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Again, you seem to want to say that any two people may not enter into a contract based on…what? Property may not be transferred based on what? Healthcare proxies may not be named based on what?

A marriage or a civil union specifically intends that two people are joined in a public way with the appearance of a legitimate union. That ought not to be done. Two private people who decide how they want to exchange property or any other legal issue have such rights currently. Would you take those away? Does the law now indicate one may only pass on property to another that is one’s spouse?

Should two brothers be prohibited from entering into a contract because they may be having an incestuous relationship?

Hi fix!

I am saying that two people of the same sex may not enter into a contract if the intention or effect of theat contract is one that attempts to confer the incidents of marriage on each other.

The appearance of a legitimate union is not one that is going to be found on a marriage license or in any settled marriage law. The union in marriage always comes from the way that the couple present themselves. A married couple, living apart, perhaps seeing other individuals, cannot be said to have the same union as the married couple who has lived together faithfully for 50 years. Because a same-sex couple can present themselves to the people around them in this same way, their relationship approaches the legitimacy of the 50-years-faithful couple, at least in the minds of their neighbors. This is the bedrock of the principle of social disarray that undergirds arguments against same-sex marriage.

You are correct. People do have the right to transfer property and designate healthcare proxies at will. If we are serious about denying any legal recognition to a same-sex couple, those rights must be rescinded. We cannot allow gay marriage to masquerade as a private contract.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

I am saying that two people of the same sex may not enter into a contract if the intention or effect of theat contract is one that attempts to confer the incidents of marriage on each other.

If the contract specifically states it is for a homosexual union, then I would agree it is wrong.

The appearance of a legitimate union is not one that is going to be found on a marriage license or in any settled marriage law.

This is the crux of the issue. The “gay” people want that “piece of paper” precisely because it would be validation.

The union in marriage always comes from the way that the couple present themselves. A married couple, living apart, perhaps seeing other individuals, cannot be said to have the same union as the married couple who has lived together faithfully for 50 years.

A couple is married no matter how they act. A couple is not married no matter how they act.

Because a same-sex couple can present themselves to the people around them in this same way, their relationship approaches the legitimacy of the 50-years-faithful couple, at least in the minds of their neighbors. This is the bedrock of the principle of social disarray that undergirds arguments against same-sex marriage.

The argument is about the government legitimizing the “union”.

You are correct. People do have the right to transfer property and designate healthcare proxies at will. If we are serious about denying any legal recognition to a same-sex couple, those rights must be rescinded. We cannot allow gay marriage to masquerade as a private contract.

I do not see what property rights have to do with it? Why should anyone be denied an authentic right? The issue is the state giving validation to a fake union, not separate parties passing over property.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

If the contract specifically states it is for a homosexual union, then I would agree it is wrong.

This is the crux of the issue. The “gay” people want that “piece of paper” precisely because it would be validation.

A couple is married no matter how they act. A couple is not married no matter how they act.

The argument is about the government legitimizing the “union”.

I do not see what property rights have to do with it? Why should anyone be denied an authentic right? The issue is the state giving validation to a fake union, not separate parties passing over property.

Hi fix!

What you don’t seem to understand is that the minute that the state enforces the provisions of a contract entered into by a same-sex couple, in contradiction of the wishes of the deceased’s family, the state is put into the position of formalizing the relationship implied in the contract against those who would have otherwise received the property through probate. Even if the sexual nature of the relationship is never mentioned or the words “union” or “marriage” are never used, the private contract functions in the way a marriage would and therefore must be void. If we can’t tolerate gay marriage at all, we must resist it if it calls itself marriage, civil union or private contract. Thus, the homosexual cannot have the right to private contract, and by extension, does not have the absolute right to his own property.

I honestly don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this basic concept.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

What you don’t seem to understand is that the minute that the state enforces the provisions of a contract entered into by a same-sex couple, in contradiction of the wishes of the deceased’s family, the state is put into the position of formalizing the relationship implied in the contract against those who would have otherwise received the property through probate. Even if the sexual nature of the relationship is never mentioned or the words “union” or “marriage” are never used, the private contract functions in the way a marriage would and therefore must be void. If we can’t tolerate gay marriage at all, we must resist it if it calls itself marriage, civil union or private contract. Thus, the homosexual cannot have the right to private contract, and by extension, does not have the absolute right to his own property.

I honestly don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this basic concept.

Not every case would be as you state. Each case must be considered in context. There are many people, non homosexual, that make contracts to transfer property. How will you decide who is homosexual?

Even in the case you mention I see know reason why the owner of property can’t choose who he deems to receive it after he dies. How will you decide whose rights to terminate?

Your entire argument rests on property law and not the natural law.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Not every case would be as you state. Each case must be considered in context. There are many people, non homosexual, that make contracts to transfer property. How will you decide who is homosexual?

Even in the case you mention I see know reason why the owner of property can’t choose who he deems to receive it after he dies. How will you decide whose rights to terminate?

Your entire argument rests on property law and not the natural law.

Hi fix!

No, not every case would be as I state. In some instances the family may have approved of the illicit relationship. In those cases it would be their right and nobody else’s to bestow portions of the property on the same-sex survivor. I think a homosexual relationship can be discovered by preponderance of the evidence. Did the couple live together? Did they belong to any organizations known to be sympathetic to gay rights? Did the house contain any pornography of a homosexual nature? Did they write any letters or make any statements anywhere that they were, in fact, homosexual? The answers to questions such as these should render the illicit contracts we mean to void pretty apparent.

This is how we will know whose rights to terminate. The alternative is to gamble on our children’s future as a means of providing ill-deserved comfort to a same-sex couple.