Definitions of Marriage

[phank]

In any case, Justice Kennedy's assertion that the only reason to oppose the civil redefinition of marriage is some sort of "animus" is utterly absurd; if nothing else, it makes actual dialogue on this issue impossible.

After some thought, I admit I don't understand why you say this. Marriage holds different sets of values for different people, based on a wide variety of considerations and backgrounds. What you are calling the "civil redefinition of marriage" serves, as far as I can tell, only to make the LEGAL status of marriage more inclusive. It does not in any way alter the emotional committments couples have already made, nor does it alter the legal status of anyone already legally married.

I can understand pretty well that SOME people marry for reasons OTHER people may not share. But if I should oppose the legal recognition of an emotional commitment of a couple whose status or values differs from mine, even though such legal recognition will not alter my own commitment or legal status in any way, what reason would I have OTHER than animus? To me, denying others the benefits I enjoy even though this has no conceivable influence on my benefits, is at the very least perverse if not outright vicious. Why would I do that?

[Spartacus]

After some thought, I admit I don't understand why you say this. Marriage holds different sets of values for different people, based on a wide variety of considerations and backgrounds. What you are calling the "civil redefinition of marriage" serves, as far as I can tell, only to make the LEGAL status of marriage more inclusive. It does not in any way alter the emotional committments couples have already made, nor does it alter the legal status of anyone already legally married.

I can understand pretty well that SOME people marry for reasons OTHER people may not share. But if I should oppose the legal recognition of an emotional commitment of a couple whose status or values differs from mine, even though such legal recognition will not alter my own commitment or legal status in any way, what reason would I have OTHER than animus? To me, denying others the benefits I enjoy even though this has no conceivable influence on my benefits, is at the very least perverse if not outright vicious. Why would I do that?

Giving people tax breaks always has some effect on the rest of us (this seems to be the only set of tax breaks Democrats want). Marriage benefits are not neutral- not all of them, in any case.

[phank]

Giving people tax breaks always has some effect on the rest of us (this seems to be the only set of tax breaks Democrats want). Marriage benefits are not neutral- not all of them, in any case.

I don't understand this reply. Marital tax status tends to be a close call, because the laws change so often. In the past, there has been a tax "marriage penalty". For some people filing jointly is better, for some filing separately is better. So any broad financial effect is so minor it's lost in the noise.

For me, I know marriage benefits are far from neutral. They mean that in some legal cases, my wife and I wouldn't be expected to testify for or against one another. They mean that even by default it would be difficult for anyone to claim part of our estate should either of us die. They guarantee us a great deal we'd otherwise require interlocking powers of attorney to create, at considerable expense. As I wrote earlier, in these ways legal marriage is only ratifying what married couples would desire anyway, making sensible defaults in most cases.

But the question you raised was why, other than "some sort of animus", would some people wish to deny the legal status of marriage to others. The emotional commitments and bonds, of course, can't be denied regardless. But you said Kennedy's claim of animus was absurd, and I give this some thought and simply could not find any OTHER reason why anyone would wish to deny legal marriage to couples already married by emotional commitment. Far from absurd, Kennedy's observation seems self-evident. What am I missing?

[Spartacus]

I don't understand this reply. Marital tax status tends to be a close call, because the laws change so often. In the past, there has been a tax "marriage penalty". For some people filing jointly is better, for some filing separately is better. So any broad financial effect is so minor it's lost in the noise.

For me, I know marriage benefits are far from neutral. They mean that in some legal cases, my wife and I wouldn't be expected to testify for or against one another. They mean that even by default it would be difficult for anyone to claim part of our estate should either of us die. They guarantee us a great deal we'd otherwise require interlocking powers of attorney to create, at considerable expense. As I wrote earlier, in these ways legal marriage is only ratifying what married couples would desire anyway, making sensible defaults in most cases.

But the question you raised was why, other than "some sort of animus", would some people wish to deny the legal status of marriage to others. The emotional commitments and bonds, of course, can't be denied regardless. But you said Kennedy's claim of animus was absurd, and I give this some thought and simply could not find any OTHER reason why anyone would wish to deny legal marriage to couples already married by emotional commitment. Far from absurd, Kennedy's observation seems self-evident. What am I missing?

The Windsor case was about inheritance and taxes. Technically, any narrow category of tax exemptions could be negligible, but I don't think that's a strong argument.

More importantly, you're assuming that marriage is nothing more than an emotional commitment between adults. Defining the term "marriage" more narrowly hardly implies anything about the value of these other relationships. I've explored this concept in other posts on this forum as well as on the blog to which I linked earlier. In the mean time, midterms are calling my name.

[phank]

The Windsor case was about inheritance and taxes. Technically, any narrow category of tax exemptions could be negligible, but I don't think that's a strong argument.

For most married couples, it's really not that important because most couples aren't that wealthy. Still, you would want your spouse to have all you jointly own in the case of your death, without having to pay taxes to continue owning it. I think this is reasonable.

More importantly, you're assuming that marriage is nothing more than an emotional commitment between adults.

??? I went to some length to distinguish between emotional commitments and legal commitments. Most people desire both, but as I pointed out, there are many who have either one without the other.

Defining the term "marriage" more narrowly hardly implies anything about the value of these other relationships. I've explored this concept in other posts on this forum as well as on the blog to which I linked earlier. In the mean time, midterms are calling my name.

I guess you're not married? Best of results on your midterms. Hopefully when you get through them, you can explain why Kennedy's observation, self-evident to me, is absurd to you.

[Spartacus]

??? I went to some length to distinguish between emotional commitments and legal commitments. Most people desire both, but as I pointed out, there are many who have either one without the other.

And I am speaking of neither category when I speak of marriage.

[Bill the Cat]

For most married couples, it's really not that important because most couples aren't that wealthy. Still, you would want your spouse to have all you jointly own in the case of your death, without having to pay taxes to continue owning it. I think this is reasonable.

I want my kids to have what we have when we die, but Uncle Sam will have none of that without a piece of the pie.

[Bill the Cat]

Huh? I tried to communicate, honest. Let me word it differently. No couple to my knowledge has EVER beeen denied a licence on the grounds of either inability or unwillingness to breed.

Because that question is illegal to ask based on privacy laws.

The question is not even asked. There ARE questions the government asks, with respect to age, relationship, current marital state, length of that state, even blood type.

Those are for verification of identification of the individual, or for compliance with existing law.

But if the State has an interest in breeding, it doesn't show.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

I know a couple who married a couple of months ago. One is 79, the other 76. They weren't asked about breeding. In fact, the licence bureau applauded them!

I bet they weren't asked about any previous cancers, whether they had received the HPV vaccination, or if he had lost a testicle in the war either. Those are private medical matters, and are not allowed to be asked, just like fertility. For all we know, they could have been intimate for decades, and had their embryos frozen for later use. Again, that's a private matter covered by privacy laws that make asking them about such things illegal.

[Spartacus]

Because that question is illegal to ask based on privacy laws.

I bet they weren't asked about any previous cancers, whether they had received the HPV vaccination, or if he had lost a testicle in the war either. Those are private medical matters, and are not allowed to be asked, just like fertility. For all we know, they could have been intimate for decades, and had their embryos frozen for later use. Again, that's a private matter covered by privacy laws that make asking them about such things illegal.

Saying that it's illegal to ask doesn't help your case, Bill, if you don't explain why exactly those laws exist.

[Bill the Cat]

Saying that it's illegal to ask doesn't help your case, Bill, if you don't explain why exactly those laws exist.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with HIPPA laws will know why those laws exist. It's no one's business when a woman menstruates, especially the government.

[phank]

And I am speaking of neither category when I speak of marriage.

This doesn't enlighten me at all. If marriage is neither an emotional bond between two adults, nor a set of legal regulations defining the marriage in the eyes of the state, what is left?

[phank]

I want my kids to have what we have when we die, but Uncle Sam will have none of that without a piece of the pie.

In 2014, the amount of your estate you can leave to your kids without any inheritance declaration, deduction or tax is $5,340,000. Above that amount, they pay taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-...yed/Estate-Tax

[phank]

Because that question is illegal to ask based on privacy laws.

But asking about blood type is NOT an invasion of privacy? I simply disagree here. The State does not ask about ability to procreate because this is nowhere a condition or expectation of marriage in any way. You will notice that in all the states that permit same-sex marriage, no forms had to change, no rules modified, no questions omitted. The state does not care about the ability or intent to procreate.

Those are for verification of identification of the individual, or for compliance with existing law.

Yes. My point was, existing law is indifferent to procreation. It's not at issue anywhere.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Then why have no states added any procreation questions or requirements?

I bet they weren't asked about any previous cancers, whether they had received the HPV vaccination, or if he had lost a testicle in the war either. Those are private medical matters, and are not allowed to be asked, just like fertility. For all we know, they could have been intimate for decades, and had their embryos frozen for later use. Again, that's a private matter covered by privacy laws that make asking them about such things illegal.

They weren't asked about any matters irrelevant to the act of getting married. The state, believe it or not, is not required to ask about every detail not explicitly disallowed by privacy laws. They only ask about things considered relevant. Procreation is not one of them. Sorry.

But I should ask you: Since this elderly couple very obviously would never be able to procreate, SHOULD the state have disallowed their marriage, in your opinion?

[Spartacus]

This doesn't enlighten me at all. If marriage is neither an emotional bond between two adults, nor a set of legal regulations defining the marriage in the eyes of the state, what is left?

It is the institution in which a man and woman, through the exchange of vows, are bound together as husband and wife. That is, it is a consensual and sexual union involving both the body and the will, not simply emotions. To say that one has the right to marry the person one loves is, in my view, to get the process exactly backwards: over the course of a marriage (or, indeed, any relationship), one learns what it means to love the other person, not simply as a set of emotional reactions (which of us, after all, can fully control our emotional state itself and not merely how we express it?), but as a vowed commitment to work for the good of the other person. In a marriage in particular, the conjugal bond is sealed by the conjugal act-- that is, sex. It is that, and not merely mutual affection, that defines a marriage as a marriage, distinct from other varieties (as worthy as they are) of human relationships.

An emotional bond is not necessarily limited to two people. Why can three people not share in a bond of love for one another? Or four? Or seventeen? What's so special about two people? Your definition of marriage as an emotional bond between two people doesn't seem particularly rational in that respect, and one of the goals of this thread is to examine not only the legal structures surrounding marriage, but the internal consistency of any proposed definition. Can you provide a clear reason why marriage should be limited to precisely two people?

[phank]

It is the institution in which a man and woman, through the exchange of vows, are bound together as husband and wife.

That's what I called the emotional bond marriage. For that, no state involvement is necessary, only the vows. Opposite sexes are not required - deeply committed couples of the same sex exchange the same vows with the same determination and fervor.

That is, it is a consensual and sexual union involving both the body and the will, not simply emotions.

We seem to have a semantic issue there. When I spoke of an emotional commitment, I was distinguishing this from a legal commitment. I would certainly include the body and the will as part of the emotional commitment. So we're back where we started - this consensual and sexual union is a bond between individuals independent of state ratification.

To say that one has the right to marry the person one loves is, in my view, to get the process exactly backwards: over the course of a marriage (or, indeed, any relationship), one learns what it means to love the other person, not simply as a set of emotional reactions (which of us, after all, can fully control our emotional state itself and not merely how we express it?), but as a vowed commitment to work for the good of the other person.

Yes, very much so. I don't know how long you've been married, but my wife and I have been happily married for many decades now, and time does bring us closer together, deepens our mutual understanding. And this would surely be true even without government ratification.

In a marriage in particular, the conjugal bond is sealed by the conjugal act-- that is, sex. It is that, and not merely mutual affection, that defines a marriage as a marriage, distinct from other varieties (as worthy as they are) of human relationships.

This seems unnecessarily restrictive. Some people are not capable of having sex for various reasons, yet the strength of the bond they form, and the duration of that bond, is not the less for it. And certainly same-sex couples DO have sex if physical injury doesn't make it impossible.

An emotional bond is not necessarily limited to two people. Why can three people not share in a bond of love for one another? Or four? Or seventeen? What's so special about two people?

Group marriages have been tried often enough, and have generally proved unstable. So here, I'm going to appeal to observed human nature and behavior since at least the advent of recorded history. Unlike many other species (which have their own arrangemets), it seems part of human nature to form 2-person bonds.

Your definition of marriage as an emotional bond between two people doesn't seem particularly rational in that respect, and one of the goals of this thread is to examine not only the legal structures surrounding marriage, but the internal consistency of any proposed definition. Can you provide a clear reason why marriage should be limited to precisely two people?

I have done my best. And I think I can keep trying. I do NOT think marriage should be limited to precisely two people; I have no philosophical objection to group marriages. I recognize that such arrangements would require massive new bodies of law, but that's only a logistical problem.

Look around. What do we see in practice? We see plenty of 2-person bonds, and very very few of more than 2 people, and those are invariably temporary and problematic. Not that I see any compelling reason not to extend them legal recognition, but I don't see any particular demand for this either. Whereas we see thousands and thousands of same-sex 2-person bonds, many of them very long lasting, meeting every requirement you list - the emotional, the physical, the sexual, the body and will, the depth of love and understanding and commitment. Extending legal recognition to these existing relationships helps them in day-to-day interactions (such mundane things as legal testimony, taxes, visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. etc.) but does not change the nature of their marriage, only the application in certain legal ways. And those improvements are meaningful ONLY to the couple able to enjoy them, without influencing anyone else.