Marriage and Divorce Entitlements

Political Philosophy
41

But we have agreed to eliminate government, i.e. civil rights… My question to you is, what specific ethical/moral standard (other than one imposed by government in the form of civil rights) are you using to support the premise that a contract between two genders who agree to live together till death do they part, must carry the same legal weight as a contract between the same gender, or no contract at all?

It’s my understanding that an Oist society would praise and uphold civil rights. Rand, specifically, had only good things to say about civil rights, which she called the “fight against government-enforced discrimination.”

42

It’s my understanding that an Oist society would praise and uphold civil rights. Rand, specifically, had only good things to say about civil rights, which she called the “fight against government-enforced discrimination.”

I’m more familiar with Ayn Rand’s views on individual rights… Can you cite any specific comments made by Ayn Rand endorsing the goals and objectives of the civil rights movement as practiced? Specifically that a marriage between a man and a woman ought to carry the same legal weight as a civil union (or marriage) between two men (or two women)??

43

Would you apply this to the topic? (I don’t think Rand wrote about gay marriage, only homosexuality in general. I know she was against the idea of ‘special privileges’ for any group of people, but marriage could hardly be called a ‘special privilege.’)

For reference, here is the atlas society’s political view on gay marriage.

44

The problem I have with your assertion that government shouldn’t be involved in consensual relationships, but marital relationships ought to be held to some standard of civil rights, is that we both know who enforces any standard of civil rights, don’t we? I agree with you initial claim that government shouldn’t be involved; can you provide some standard of civil rights that doesn’t rely on government regulation??

I’m interested to see if your claim doesn’t in fact attempt to qualify marriage as a right to life issue, i.e. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (or property). Do you think that all unions between individuals ought to be secured equally, i.e. equal individual rights imply equal marital rights?

45

Basically, the government should not be involved in providing any special privilege over any type of contract. There should only be regulation to the extent of contract enforcement. And there shouldn’t be an implicit legal protection (or assumptions) for romantic relationships. But the way government works now, marriage is treated as special, and given special privileges that the government grants (can someone more familiar list some privileges for me?). Having privileges at all granted by the government is related to a right to life issue because there are barriers to action some individuals aren’t allowed to have even if they voluntarily agreed. That’s why I lean towards opposing marriage in practice entirely (which is different from my opposition in principle).

46

Legally, marriage or any other long term intimate relationship is a chosen contractual relationship and the law provides a certain context for that (example, what happens if one partner dies).

As for the standard of value, as always it is your life but politically it is right to Free Association. The laws should not be picking standards of association that will be treated better or worse from each other and it certainly should not reward or punish any kind of association. The only thing the Government should do is protect a person’s rights, not dictate privileges under specific circumstances.

47

While I agree in principle that government shouldn’t act as an interloper in consensual relationships, I’m not convinced that legal recognition of historically task specific marital roles (breadwinner, homemaker) isn’t justified. Until recently marital tasks were gender specific, according to biological and financial (albeit culturally biased) necessity. The introduction of surrogate mothers combined with today’s financial necessity for double incomes has altered the historical dynamic in many cases, but not all cases; specifically those pairings who choose to marry according to the historical model. The legal needs of DINKs are objectively different than those of biological parents relying on a single income (SIWKs?), and I believe the law ought to reflect those differences for the security of pregnant spouses who remain unemployed to bear, deliver and raise children by agreement. Civil unions are better suited for DINKs, and marriage for SIWKs, and there remain legitimate differences of entitlement for these two forms of contract.

48

Devil’s Advocate, I don’t understand your acronyms. Could you please clarify them?

49

Devil’s Advocate, I don’t understand your acronyms. Could you please clarify them?

Not without dating myself…

DINK = Double Income No Kids

SIWK = Single Income With Kids (I made this one up as a play on DINK)

From around the same time period ('80s), a ‘yuppy’ was a young urban professional

mdegges used FMS, which I interpreted to mean, Free Moral Society… was that correct??

50

Let me know if I’ve got this right. You’re arguing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because:

1a) historically, women have been homemakers, and men have been breadwinners.

1b) this is because there’s been some sort of financial and biological need for this.

  1. single income families need more benefits than double income families, so they should be legally entitled to more benefits.

I’ll give you 1a for free. :wink:

Now onto #1b. I don’t know what you’re referring to when you say “financial and biological need.” (I agree that if a woman is pregnant and not in a position to go on maternity leave, she’ll most likely be supported by her husband until she’s able to go back to work. Is that the “financial need” you’re talking about, for the man to be the breadwinner? If so, that is only be true for 9 months.) Other than that, I don’t see any other financial/biological need for the woman to be the homemaker, and the man to be the breadwinner.

As for #2.. The premise here is that same-sex couples are double income, childless families. But same-sex couples may be, and often are, single income, +children families. This may be for a variety of reasons: they have adopted children, they have other children from previous relationships, or one (or both) of them have been artifically inseminated. So the premise that same-sex couples are DINKs does not hold. (But the most important point here is that the needs of one family over another should not entitle them to any extra legal benefits. Family needs should to be taken care of by the family.)

Also, FMS = free market society.

51

I’ll give you 1a for free. :wink:

Thanks for the lagniappe :thumbsup:

Now onto #1b. I don’t know what you’re referring to when you say “financial and biological need.” (I agree that if a woman is pregnant and not in a position to go on maternity leave, she’ll most likely be supported by her husband until she’s able to go back to work. Is that the “financial need” you’re talking about, for the man to be the breadwinner? If so, that is only be true for 9 months.) Other than that, I don’t see any other financial/biological need for the woman to be the homemaker, and the man to be the breadwinner.

Yes, that’s what I mean; the financial/biological pairing required for spouses to produce a child. Prior to WWII, women were actively discouraged from competing in the workplace, and let’s face it, men are biologically exempt from being pregnant. The presumption was (and still remains) that men and women marry to create a secure nest for raising children. By agreement, a woman’s work was to keep house, and a man’s was to pay for it, so it makes sense that legally the woman was at greater risk of getting left out in the cold due to being financially dependent on her working partner. Marital law reflects the historical legal precedents created by financial/biological pairing.

As for #2.. The premise here is that same-sex couples are double income, childless families. But same-sex couples may be, and often are, single income, +children families. This may be for a variety of reasons: they have adopted children, they have other children from previous relationships, or one (or both) of them have been artifically inseminated. So the premise that same-sex couples are DINKs does not hold. (But the most important point here is that the needs of one family over another should not entitle them to any extra legal benefits. Family needs should to be taken care of by the family.)

Yes, times have changed but the greater percentage of marital pairings today still follow the historical model, so existing marriage and divorce entitlements remain justified in that context, i.e. the context of providing financial security for those (and their children) who by agreement, rely on a breadwinner to raise a family. Civil unions accommodate the legal needs of other marital pairings resulting from today’s economy and biological alternatives to personally becoming pregnant, thus avoiding the financial necessity of a relying on a breadwinner. So, marital law is necessarily different than civil union law, verbal agreement, etc, and therefore justifies different legal benefits.

Please note that I’m not claiming that current law, as it applies to marriage, civil unions, etc, is perfectly just; it’s a work in progress, and progress towards better law that reflects today’s realities needs to be made. And there’s the tax issue, which no one believes is just to begin with… however, if married couples get better restitution from an unjust tax code, are we not to some degree claiming sour grapes? My main point is, the legal reality of a breadwinner and his pregnant spouse is necessarily different than that of two breadwinners living together with an adopted child, so claiming that all families ought to be constrained by the same contract doesn’t reflect the reality of diverse family situations.

Also, FMS = free market society.

Ah, that makes sense… thanks for the clarification.

52

I understand your point, but I disagree. Same-sex couples are not allowed to marry because religious fanatics believe that homosexuality is a (chosen, and entirely preventable) sin, and that giving them the right to marry would be an affront to god and his ‘holy union’ of marriage. So as a way of appeasing gay people, civil unions were created to give them a separate-but-sorta-equal way of formalizing their relationship. But even that was a battle: note that civil unions are only recognized in 13/50 states, a whopping 26%.

Your argument that straight couples are entitled to more legal benefits because they may be starting a family and may be living on one income, isn’t valid.. Especially since same-sex couples may also have children, and may also be living on one income. I think that as long as marriage exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of relationships: interracial, intergalactical :alien: , same-sex, etc. The government shouldn’t be giving any special privileges to any group of people, especially if that privilege is determined based on sexual orientation of all things.

53

I understand your point, but I disagree. Same-sex couples are not allowed to marry because religious fanatics believe that homosexuality is a (chosen, and entirely preventable) sin, and that giving them the right to marry would be an affront to god and his ‘holy union’ of marriage. So as a way of appeasing gay people, civil unions were created to give them a separate-but-sorta-equal way of formalizing their relationship. But even that was a battle: note that civil unions are only recognized in 13/50 states, a whopping 26%.

The separation of church and state delimits the political reach of religious fanatics. Whatever political maladies occur are the result of constitutional abuses not fairly attributed to a defense of marriage. The goal of civil unions as an alternative for alternative lifestyles is worth pursuing, but the expectation that civil unions are the same thing as marriages needs to be checked; A=A.

Your argument that straight couples are entitled to more legal benefits because they may be starting a family and may be living on one income, isn’t valid.. Especially since same-sex couples may also have children, and may also be living on one income. I think that as long as marriage exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of relationships: interracial, intergalactical :alien: , same-sex, etc. The government shouldn’t be giving any special privileges to any group of people, especially if that privilege is determined based on sexual orientation of all things.

The government shouldn’t giveth nor taketh away from the practice of marriage, except to secure the individual rights of spouses and their children. However to say that, “as long as marriage exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of relationships”, is equivalent to saying, “as long as Objectivism exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of philosophy.” Why should Paul Ryan be discriminated against just because he practices Objectivism differently than Ayn Rand? :whistle:

54

However to say that, “as long as marriage exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of relationships”, is equivalent to saying, “as long as Objectivism exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of [people, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, etc].”

Fixed.

The opposite would be, “Gay people can practice Objectivism, but they can’t be called Objectivists.”

1 Like
55

“as long as Objectivism exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of [people, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, etc.”

… including people, regardless of their faith?

56

No.. but I don’t know see what faith has to do with it. I was specifically mentioning attributes that a person doesn’t have the power to change.

57

No.. but I don’t know see what faith has to do with it. I was specifically mentioning attributes that a person doesn’t have the power to change.

LOL, I was pressing to see how liberal a view you’d be willing to endorse… :wink:

58

Advocates for gay marriage primarily endorse the view that equivalent consensual relationships ought to receive the same legal recognition and benefits, and for the most part I agree with the goal, but not the tactics. I think the push for equivalency via marriage vs civil union unnecessarily provokes a hostile response from people like myself, who being married, find themselves caught between two very different generational value systems. Most people who oppose gay marriage have no problem with gay civil unions, and generally aren’t aware of the legal disparities that currently exist between the two. It’s the same kind of knee jerk emotional response you get from efforts to rename Christmas to Winter Festival, and doubly ironic because the reality is that Christmas was derived from Winter Festivals…

Legalities aside, for me personally, marriage celebrates a man and woman being able to overcome gender biases in order to work together towards long term, mutually shared goals, in a way that two men, or two women, never address. Maintaining an intimate relationship with the opposite sex is no small feat I can assure you. Whatever personality differences gay couples may have to overcome, they understand how their own gender works. I love my spouse, but it took me years to understand the perspective of my spouse’s gender. Heterosexual marriage will remain distinct from gay marriage because of gender, and to marginalize historical custom and physical reality for legal expedience, as opposed to promoting civil unions on the merits of legal rights, is a tactical blunder that creates adversaries who otherwise would be allies.

59

"However to say that, “as long as marriage exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of relationships”, is equivalent to saying, “as long as Objectivism exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of [people, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, etc].”

Fixed.

The opposite would be, “Gay people can practice Objectivism, but they can’t be called Objectivists.”

^This.

60

How did we get derailed into gay marriage?

It’s very simple - The purpose of Government is to protect rights. Two people getting married doesn’t violate my rights and I certainly don’t need Obama to protect me from the happy couple. That makes who gets married a non-issue.