The Church's Changing Position on the Legalization Same-Sex Marriage

[UtahDan]

We could also get a list going on the benefits on protection that other members of society get from marriage. How about the doctrine of necessaries for example?

[cowboy]

Well, here's a pretty good list:

This is a good list, and I think answers the question well. I think creekster has the right answer in divorcing the contractual arrangement of civil unions from marriage altogether.

Unlike many people here, I think there is some merit to both sides of this issue. I think there is a pretty sound argument that these rights should be available to all, regardless of their orientation. On the other hand, there is clearly the potential with this issue to infringe upon religious rights in legalizing gay marriage. Whether you agree with them or not, many people still believe that gay sex (and marriage) is wrong, and what's more, they have a right to believe it.

The problem with this issue, and many others, is that nobody is willing to compromise. Religion would make great strides if it agreed to the logical extension of marriage rights to all people. Gay advocates, on the other hand, knowing that marriage has always meant an implied contract between two people and God, would do well to abandon the insistence that civil unions with equal rights be called marriages.

[Jacob]

The only one on that list you can contract around is intestacy. The problem with arguing that things can be contracted around anyway, is that this argument necessarily applies to everyone. Since everyone has the ability to make a will, let's just get rid of intestacy laws right? Since anyone can execute a medical power of attorney, let's just get rid of power of attorneys all together and let doctors make life and death decisions instead of family members.

Also, tenancy by the entirety is only available in a few states.

The second half of the quoted paragraph makes no sense. Why would you want to get rid of the default intestacy laws? I don't want the property of everyone without a will escheating to the state. Yes, anybody can create a will to change the default rules of probate. Why should the default rules go away?
And aren't there many instances of other interpersonal relationships where a given man would want his property to go to a good friend or a cousin, or an aunt upon his death rather than, under the default intestacy rules, to his immediate family? Yet nobody has ever claimed that intestacy or marriage laws need to be changed to accommodate his exception.

[Jacob]

Unlike many people here, I think there is some merit to both sides of this issue.

You and me both. What's wrong with the rest of these people?

[cowboy]

You and me both. What's wrong with the rest of these people?

To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that I consider myself more logical than everyone else. Everybody has an opinion, and for most this is clearly a black and white issue. My opinion is that there is merit to both sides of this debate. Maybe I'm the one who is mistaken in thinking that one side or the other has any leg to stand on. As I have admitted before, I'm often wrong.

[Jacob]

To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that I consider myself more logical than everyone else. Everybody has an opinion, and for most this is clearly a black and white issue. My opinion is that there is merit to both sides of this debate. Maybe I'm the one who is mistaken in thinking that one side or the other has any leg to stand on. As I have admitted before, I'm often wrong.

I think thoughtful people should be able to see both sides of the issue. I commend you for it. It does make you better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You and me both. What's wrong with the rest of these people?

So this entire time you have been carefully considering and empathizing with both sides of the issue, while the rest of us ("these people") have been blindly clinging to one viewpoint?

Bravo.

[Jacob]

So this entire time you have been carefully considering and empathizing with both sides of the issue, while the rest of us ("these people") have been blindly clinging to one viewpoint?

Bravo.

Seems that way sometimes. Have I ever said that your side is without merit or that you are unenlightened, unintelligent, or uninformed for having reached your conclusions? I don't think so. That you are irrational, unreasonable or a bigot? Again, no.

Why have I heard time and time again how people here on your side can't understand the traditional marriage side of this issue? That they can't imagine a rational reason for anyone supporting traditional marriage? Or is this just you pretending I've said something I didn't again? I haven't said I am arguing both sides of the issue. I do see the points and the reasoning on both sides. I can understand why the minority of Americans feels the way you do, thinking gay-marriage is a good idea or even the only just outcome. I just don't agree with it.

[UtahDan]

Also, tenancy by the entirety is only available in a few states.

The second half of the quoted paragraph makes no sense. Why would you want to get rid of the default intestacy laws? I don't want the property of everyone without a will escheating to the state. Yes, anybody can create a will to change the default rules of probate. Why should the default rules go away?
And aren't there many instances of other interpersonal relationships where a given man would want his property to go to a good friend or a cousin, or an aunt upon his death rather than, under the default intestacy rules, to his immediate family? Yet nobody has ever claimed that intestacy or marriage laws need to be changed to accommodate his exception.

Your first sentence there is incorrect.

The remainder of what I said is a response to your argument that a right that can be contracted for is not something that needs to be given by law. If that is true, then what need have any of us of intestacy laws?

Finally, go look up what a marital or elective share is.

[UtahDan]

And I will say it again. Having access to family courts and divorce laws is a huge benefit both to gay couples and to society. Sadly it does not exist in my state.

[old_gregg]

Seems that way sometimes. Have I ever said that your side is without merit or that you are unenlightened, unintelligent, or uninformed for having reached your conclusions?

http://cougaruteforum.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=56

[Jacob]

Your first sentence there is incorrect.

The remainder of what I said is a response to your argument that a right that can be contracted for is not something that needs to be given by law. If that is true, then what need have any of us of intestacy laws?

Finally, go look up what a marital or elective share is.

A minority of jurisdictions have tenancy by the entirety, and they are by election only in many of those states. How am I wrong? Tenancy by entirety is not an important legal incident of marriage.

I never made the argument you have articulated in your second paragraph. I think you can figure out why intestacy laws are a good idea. I've already said why.

I am familiar with marital or elective share. But I am unfamiliar with why you are bringing it up here.

http://cougaruteforum.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=56

Is that a link to a post where I said that I was sure a guy was not dumb to prove that I have been a name-caller? Speaks volumes.

[UtahDan]

A minority of jurisdictions have tenancy by the entirety, and they are by election only in many of those states. How am I wrong? Tenancy by entirety is not an important legal incident of marriage.

It is available in a majority of states. If you don't think it is important, then you have never practiced law. By the way, you completely ignored all of the other points on my list.

I never made the argument you have articulated in your second paragraph. I think you can figure out why intestacy laws are a good idea. I've already said why.

Oh good. Then you agree with me that gay people wanting to blend their lives together would desire the benefit of those kinds of laws. And you would further agree with me that the fact that gay people can make wills does not make that protection any less desirable.

I am familiar with marital or elective share. But I am unfamiliar with why you are bringing it up here.

Because you seem not to understand why it would be desirable for a spouse to be protected from being completely disinherited.

Are you still sticking to your argument that this is over trivial rights for gay people? Or are you ready to assert that you never said that and move on to something else?

[Jacob]

Are you still sticking to your argument that this is over trivial rights for gay people? Or are you ready to assert that you never said that and move on to something else?

To your first question, that was never my argument. I've said that gay people can get most, if not all, desired benefits from a simple document or contract no more complex than applying for a marriage certificate. Though you are right that many of the desired benefits are trivial and many others are not benefits at all to most people.

As to you second questions. I guess the answer is yes, I never said that. But I don't feel like moving on to something else. I remain unconvinced that a good reason exists to change the institution of marriage, which I think is a good institution.

[creekster]

What is tenancy in the entirety? I am licensed in multiple states and am unfamiliar with it. I dont really do real estate, but still . . .