patrick.net

zzyzzx says

I also suspect that the real reason gay marriage isn’t legal in very many places is because the judges won’t know who to give the house to when lesbians get divorced.

Now that's funny.

zzyzzx says

I also suspect that the real reason gay marriage isn’t legal in very many places is because the judges won’t know who to give the house to when lesbians get divorced.

Great joke. You made the point better with the joke than I did by trying to be serious.

I'm all for gay marriage. It will be a boon for men, because the inequities of hetero marriage will be exposed. And that is ONE of the reasons so many people are against it.

elliemae says

I was merely pointing out your rather ludicrous homophobic comment that linked incest and gay marriage

When in doubt, call the other person homophobic. Nice.

elliemae says

I’m not trying to win anyone over and have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you want to end discrimination, you can't just force it - you need to get people to accept it. Repeatedly saying "You are just homophobic" isn't very effective.

Kevin says

I have absolutely no issue with polygamy being legal. There are some tricky tax issues to sort out, but if everyone is consensually married (and, really, you can’t be if you’re too young to even vote…), sounds good to me.

Incest is a difficult issue. If everyone involved is of a sound mind on the issue, and nobody has been coerced, sure, why not? After all, there’s nothing preventing these people from having their *relationship*. You can be a mother fucker if you want to be a mother fucker.

Really, what we should have is not “marriage”, but rather a generic formal way of declaring legal status between two people, for a variety of reasons. People with particular religious beliefs are free to do whatever they want in that regard, but it should have no real bearing on what the state recognizes.

Someone with a consistent philosophical belief - nice!

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/melissa-etheridge-ex-t-live-23k-month-170820392.html

Melissa Etheridge’s Ex: I Can’t Live On $23K A Month

Twenty grand a month or so probably sounds like a nice payout to most average divorcees out there. However, Melissa Etheridge's ex-partner, Tammy Lynn Michaels, isn't one of them. The 37-year-old former actress has filed documents claiming she cannot survive on the $23,000 Etheridge is granting her monthly in child and spousal support.

Michaels also noted that she "has limited income and virtually no savings," while Etheridge "has extensive resources at her disposal and a tremendous earning capacity."

Multiple studies have found consistently that recognizing gay marriage does in fact help the economy:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gay-marriage-has-boosted-iowas-economy-study-concludes/

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-4167209.html

In 2008, west coast mayors implored California voters to oppose Prop h8 because coastal city economies were benefiting from gay weddings. Alas the inland voters ignored them, frightened by the terribly dishonest h8 campaign (see the movie "8: The Mormon Proposition").

In reply to Nobody's comment about tax revenues, the net effect remains favorable because married people are less likely to become wards of the state. The income tax brackets reflect the legal sharing of income between two persons. Melissa's ex might complain that her alimony isn't enough to sustain the budget she had become accustomed to, but it's plenty to keep her off welfare and SSI.

So if the marriage tax penalty goes away, then politicians will all of a sudden be against gay marriage? I'm inclined to think at least a few would flip flop on that.

curious2 says

Multiple studies have found consistently that recognizing gay marriage does in fact help the economy:

Gives new meaning to the term "stimulus package."

It creates jobs for divorce lawyers at least. Not sure how much wealth that actually creates for the economy though.

wthrfrk80 says

It creates jobs for divorce lawyers at least.

On the other hand, it means less money on medical care:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/755834

Bullying and discrimination cause significant costs, with no clear benefit.

CrowsAreSmart says

Thoughts?

Gay marriage isn't going fill the coffers. Now gay divorce will certainly fill the coffers of lawyers and divorce courts.

Legalizing and taxing pot would be a far more effective revenue strategy. The reason prohibition was ended was for the alcohol tax revenue.

EightBall says

Being the devil's advocate here:

If we let gays marry, why not let a brother marry their sister? Or a son their mother? Or marry multiple people simultaneiously? Are we going to let gay people have incestuous marriages? After all...

The only justification for laws against incest, if there is any, is that the offspring would be much more likely to be genetically deformed. And over generations, incestual relations cause many chronic, genetic diseases. The justification for state interference is simply that the state is preventing the parents committing incest from inflicting harm on a child by giving it deformed genes.

However, one could argue that this implies the state has the right to prevent anyone with a "serious" genetic defect from reproducing. The criteria for serious being up to the state. This is a very dangerous power to give to the state, and it almost calls for abuse. It also requires that you accept that people do not have the right to reproduce. And that is a seriously dangerous proposition.

In any case, the justification for prohibition of incest and incestual marriages has no bearing on the issue of gay marriages. Nor do other issues such as polygamy or bestial marriages.

As far as the state is concerned, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. As such, both gay marriage and polygamy should be allowed. You can enter a contract with a person of the same sex. You can also enter a contract with multiple other people.

The problem is that the state is doing something that it should neither have the power nor the responsibility to do: decide which intimate relationships are valid. The state should not be in the bedroom in the first place.

The solution to the marriage controversy is simply to remove the state from the issue of marriage all together. Marriage is a social institution and a religious institution. It should not be a state institution. There should be no laws regarding marriage, and the word marriage itself should not have any legal definition.

Laws involving joint property should be written agnostic to the issue of marriage, as should laws involving parental rights and guardianship of children. After all, many children are born out of wedlock anyway.

If you take the state out of marriage and divorce health care from employment, then the whole issue of gay marriage becomes merely a social one and as such utterly unimportant like the question "Is golf a sport?".