"Get the government out of the marriage business" - Another lie by the liberals.

Namely - How on earth do those who mindlessly bleat this slogan propose to GET government out of marriage?

A good start would be a flat tax and the revamping of social security. But hey, who am I other than a weak minded person who pales to your intelligence Tom.

A good start would be a flat tax and the revamping of social security.

That's fine, but if we get rid of traditional marriage, can you PROMISE we will get those thing?

Or is it another bait-and-switch?

Shades of.....oh, well.

I am obviously reading very different blogs because the plaintive cries I read are from conservatives who want to get "government out of the marriage business!" They appear to think that marriage is simply a religious practice. If that were so, the words "By the power vested in me by the state of ----" would never be heard during a church wedding ceremony and Justices of the Peace would not be permitted to perform marriages.

The reality is that marriage is completely a civil contract between two people. The religious part is extraneous, although important to those who observe it.

Tom, there are over a dozen churches in the Portland area that will perform same sex marriages, right now, today. Same sex marriage is not illegal. The fight is about government recognition for the sake of benefits.

Adam and Eve get married, they are entitled to government benefits. Adam and Steve get married in the same church, same ceremony, why aren't they entitled to the same government benefits?

I don't condone homosexuality, that will be handled by a higher power than I. I have also never once heard the homosexual lobby say that want the government out of the marriage business. After all, that would defeat what they are fighting for.

Adam and Eve get married, they are entitled to government benefits. Adam and Steve get married in the same church, same ceremony, why aren't they entitled to the same government benefits?

Are you suggesting that the nature of government is to apply benefits equally? And that all who wish those benefits should be treated equally? What have you been smoking all these years?

Or is your view of "equal" bounded and limited by some set of principles that you can state clearly?

Extra credit question: Mary and Mark go to government schools. Mary gets free breakfast and free lunch; Mark gets neither. Where's the justice?

Are you suggesting that the nature of government is to apply benefits equally?

What do you think Melvin? Take your time answering.

I don't need any time.

I do agree with Tom on if the proponets of this bill are using that line of arguement to get it passed, they are indeed hypocrites, since they seem not to mind having the government involved in everything else when it comes to the socially and economically engineering of all of our individual lives.
However, I still believe marriage is a religious ceremony, and I'd rather have the churches decide on this. Bob S has stated there are churches in Portland that will officiate same-sex couples, and I'm going to assume that there are other communites and cities where churches will do the same.
If 2 people want to marry, whether it's Adam and Eve or Adam and Allen, they can agree to a contract in which all of the assets can be taken care of in a legal and efficient manner as well as any other legal matters , and the only role for the government in this arrangement is the enforcement of the contract.
This issue also makes another great arguement once and for all for abolishing the income tax.

Tom, have you considered that your flimsy argument would equally apply to ANY sort of libertarian reform that might be put forward. Oops.

"Those proposing the government “get out of marriage” oddly enough, don’t suggest getting rid of those benefits at the same time." This is objectively false. Though many liberals want to extend the financial and other benefits of marriage, most or all of those on the libertarian front -- that is, the one you are actually criticizing -- suggest exactly that. This is simply a false statement, and a straw man argument.

The natural response to a straw man argument is to invite folks to spend a moment hearing from one those you claim doesn't exist -- http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/rieth2.1.1.html

Nancy, I think you have have confused a discussion of whether a law should exist for a discussion of whether it does. The fact that the State has taken over marriage from the Churches, some time ago, does not seem to be under debate here. Although note the wonderful effects that has had on our society... the average duration of a marriage is now less than 8 years, and even lower for women.

Such a grand secular institution! However, divorcees are quick to enter into a new lifelong contract... gotta get those tax breaks after all. We single persons are so thrilled about subsidizing that for you. Of course, it will be the rare recipient of such a subsidy that has the moral fortitude to speak out against it despite benefiting personally from it.

3PP, my argument is neither flimsy, false nor a straw man.

To allow gay marriage BEFORE eliminating the "rights and benefits of marriage" greatly expands government. That, sir, is a plain fact. There should be no talk of "getting the government out of marriage" without eliminating the "rights and benefits" first.

The "getting government out of marriage" blather came from the liberal side to try to make their demands for gay marriage appeal to some of those who call themselves conservatives, to split the opposition with a fallacy.

It's a sucker's game, a bait and switch.

If you think that by allowing gay marriage NOW will lead to eliminating government marriage benefts later, then I would suggest you are a fool.

On the other hand, if you elimintae the "rights and benefits" of marriage FIRST, then liberals will rapidly lose interest in the thing.

"To allow gay marriage BEFORE eliminating the 'rights and benefits of marriage' greatly expands government. That, sir, is a plain fact. There should be no talk of 'getting the government out of marriage' without eliminating the 'rights and benefits' first."

Tom, insert the words "talk of" before "eliminating" in the above (which may have been your intended meaning in the first place), and I agree with it. The problem is the rest of your argument. The strongest argument you could make is that some liberals have disingenuously latched onto the libertarian argument. Instead you seem to confuse the origin of this argument and the separation between the libertarian and liberal arguments, as well the feasibility of the libertarian approach.

Such a claim should be tempered by the observation that some liberals would NOT lose interest. Whom do you think brought us hippie weddings? I suspect more liberals than you think would be in this category, although probably still a small minority. We are talking about restoring power to the Church and removing it from the altar of the State, after all.

To clarify your position, you are for eliminating any financial incentives/subsidies to marriage and for ensuring that any special arrangements for estate, trust etc. are open to all are easily accessible to all individuals regardless of their relationship? These are the things that would have to happen in order for unmarried couples (regardless of orientation) to have the same legal benefits as married couples, which you have so eloquently argued should be eliminated before talk of getting the government out of marriage. Right?

Speading the idea that we should support gay marriage because we want to "get the government out of the marriage business" is foolish and misguided.

Those promoting that idea should be called on their fallacy.

I can support my other assertions, but I am not going to get dragged into a urinating contest. My argument stands.

I see, you could defend your other assertions, but you won't. And therefore you win. Witness the logic of one who cannot conceive of marriage without government recognition, approval and administration.

Let's just remember how effective the current system is. Marriage is a joke in this country. Suicide rates are twice as high for divorced men (http://bit.ly/MYJ8X1). 44% of women fall into poverty after divorce ,with "divorcing or separating mothers are 2.83 times more likely to be in poverty" (http://bit.ly/N8WGgU). Is it possible that secularization of marriage is responsible? If so, perhaps demonizing all those who are suspicious of using the State to further "protect" marriage isn't such a good idea.

Talk about straw men! You've got a cornfield of them! You offer no useful solution, no realistic consideration.

Minutia is minutia. My original statement about "some weak-minded libertarian-types" pretty much covers it.

I hear from time to time the plaintive cry in support of gay marriage: “Get the government out of the marriage business!”

True.

While this has immediate appeal to some weak-minded libertarian-types,

True.

the thoughtful person recognizes it immediately as the deceitful tactic that it is.

Proposal.

Namely - How on earth do those who mindlessly bleat this slogan propose to GET government out of marriage?

Question.

Gay-marriage advocates are happy to point to 1,138 federal benefits of marriage.

True.

These benefits cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars a year.

True.

Those proposing the government “get out of marriage” oddly enough, don’t suggest getting rid of those benefits at the same time.

Perhaps I could have said "Almost all" rather than "those". However, the statement including "those" is a true statement. Had I written "There are those" it would have been obvious. The listener can not all "All" to the beginning of the statement, because it doesn't exist. To attempt to do so is the basest form of rhetorical deception.

What they are proposing greatly INCREASES government.

True.

I suppose if pressed on it they would say “Well, maybe we should get rid of those benefits ... someday...

And true - because the responses provide it!

but for now, just allow gay marriage."

Supported by facts, there is NO referendum or proposed legislation offering to remove the government sponsored "rights and benefits" of marriage. It is purely hypothetical, and not based in reality, because it is polically unfeasable.

To claim we should "get government out of marriage" because a blog writer somewhere has suggested we also eliminate government benfits of marriage, regardless of the quality of his argument, is a poor rationale, indeed, to support a current position on this matter.

Now there would be a bait and switch for you!

Conclusion, and supported.

So, the next time someone tell you they want to “get the government out of marriage” understand exactly the lie they are presenting you with.

Conclusion, and adequately supported!

Let's get government out of the family business. Gosh, I can think of all sorts of things we could propose and argue for on that basis.

The mind reels.

Tom, there seems to be no point in arguing with you.. Do you know what a straw man is? And repeating your points and stating "True" after them does not constitute argument.

I have suggested an alternative system.. the church. Whom do you think performed marriages before the State co-opted this role?

No doubt the idea of a society where gays could find liberal churches to marry them, despite it differing from the current system in no substantive way other than building a massive support system to promote monogamy over promiscuity among gays, terrifies you to the point that you will continue to reject the mere consideration returning to a system that simultaneously allows for real protection of traditional marriage in exactly the way we have lost: by giving traditional churches the freedom to enforce an idea of marriage that isn't toothless -- marriage that is primarily a holy, rather than a legal act.

People often find freedom terrifying, but fortunately many do cherish it. Getting government out of marriage is exactly what would give churches the freedom to solve the problems to the satisfaction of the most people. Rather than "holy" marriage being bestowed by the all-Powerful State, a marriage is defined by the Church. A Catholic will be perfectly free to regard, say, a gay marriage performed by an Episcopal church, as meaningless. But the Catholic Church could could actually adjudicate every marriage issue, including disputes between couples, the way it sees fit, as it has historically done and still has the infrastructure to do, despite having been somewhat neutered by aspects of government marriage.

Other churches may opt to have couples sign legal agreements to determine how property disputes would be handled in the event of any divorce, separation, or annulment. Why is the idea of a system where your local church can actually resolve marriage problems and promote marriage the way they see fit unacceptable to you? Can you maintain with a straight face that such a system would not have a huge positive impact on families, by allowing churches to get involved in divorces and sidestepping the horrendous court system by allowing churches to get involved in resolving the aftermath when this does occur? You prefer this power to go to the State because it is doing such a fine job?

Tom, there seems to be no point in arguing with you.. Do you know what a straw man is?

I do, all I have to do is read your posts to point them out.

My point is gay marriage will not "get government out of marriage." You respond with:

Let's just remember how effective the current system is.

Straw man.

Marriage is a joke in this country.

Straw man.

Suicide rates are twice as high for divorced men (http://bit.ly/MYJ8X1).

Straw man.

44% of women fall into poverty after divorce ,

Straw man.

with "divorcing or separating mothers are 2.83 times more likely to be in poverty" (http://bit.ly/N8WGgU).

Straw man.

Is it possible that secularization of marriage is responsible?

Straw man.

If so, perhaps demonizing all those who are suspicious of using the State to further "protect" marriage isn't such a good idea.

Unsupported.

--------------------

And repeating your points and stating "True" after them does not constitute argument.

No, the argument was the original post. My examination was support of the argument.

Come on Sherlock, you can do better than this. Make it worth my while.

Tom, you have changed your argument substantially. Stating a tautology such as "gay marriage will not 'get government out of marriage.'" does not change the fact that your original argument accused all those who want to "get government out of marriage" as being liars.

Beyond the obvious fact that any liberal who uses such a phrase is obviously misusing it, all that is necessary to refute such a claim is a counterexample, which I myself provide. Or will you you actually maintain that I and other libertarians who actually support getting government out of marriage are lying, on top of being "weak-minded"?

You still do not seem to understand what a "straw man" argument is. For the portions of my argument you have labeled as such to be considered "straw man", they would have to falsely characterize your position in some way. The best I can make of this is that you feel my citation of the dismal state of marriage is not relevant... but it is certainly relevant when the clear trend is that as marriage has been increasingly secularized, the institution has been degraded in every measurable sense and social trauma has followed. Given that the secularization of marriage has clearly not worked, one would think the burden of defending the dismal results would be on those who defend government's role in marriage.

your original argument accused all those who want to "get government out of marriage" as being liars.

Unreal.

Ok, you can argue with yourself now.

"So, the next time someone tell you they want to 'get the government out of marriage' understand exactly the lie they are presenting you with."

What is unreal about taking offense at being called a liar by someone who makes unsupportable claims? You have falsely painted gay marriage supporters with a broad brush, as using libertarian arguments as a "bait and switch", while, just in case there are any sincere libertarians out there, you throw in "weak minded", lumping them in the same category as the "lying liberals" you refer to. That is a text book example of a straw man argument. Instead of simply admitting that your use of insults went too far, in mischaracterizing the views of libertarians, you have simply made additional, less controversial claims and then pretended that they were really "your point". Why not take responsibility for the claims I've been arguing against, or let them go?

You're right. Your responses that raised irrelevant points were not "straw men". They were just pointless.

I'm sick of the "Get government out of marriage" argument. It's phoney baloney, and deceitful. I'll call anyone on it.

I'll stick with my original post, thanks.

"Adam and Eve get married, they are entitled to government benefits. Adam and Steve get married in the same church, same ceremony, why aren't they entitled to the same government benefits?"

1. without regard to the "benefits", Adam and Steve cannot get married because whatever their partnership is, by definition it is not marriage.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
State reconition does not add something new to marriage, it redefines it. And when it is redefined, it is redefined for everyone.
It will no longer have the same meaning.

2. with regard to benefits, everyone who chooses to be married already gets the same benefits. If they want to have the same benefits bestowed on some other union they should say that.

I think you better check the dictionary Bob E.

By the way, who defines the meaning to the word marriage?

I checked, Bob. Found out that I was right. :)

A societies have always defined it as the union of a man and a woman. The exceptions and attempted Redefinitions have always been rejected by all but the few. It is why bigamy and polygamy are generally rejected by civilized societies. Of course, if we change the meaning in November, who knows what is next?

My stance is get the government out of marriage. Three Pipe posted some very intelligent posts on the subject. I agree with him. But who am I? Just a weak minded hypocrite.

I just got to ask...
What would Bush do?

Were tired of voting on it.
Most everybody I know doesn't really care , until our kids come home.
Wearing guy pride crap because their school encouraged them to.
Get out of our schools!
We parents shouldn't have to repeat our beliefs to our children.
No god in the schools, fine.
Keep the the opposite out.
Don't push the thoughts of less than 1% of the population on my kid or me.

It's an assault on Christianity.
Not on the government.

Burdock Farm, are you actively involved in the schools? Do you attend school board meetings?

No, just a parent.
I lack the time and responsibly to to attend.
Very ashamed of it.
But, how does that change the fact that they do this and we working folk have to deprogram our kids?
What, do I have to pay taxes for a school and then pay for tuition to another school too?
Maybe you know another way.

Burdock, people need to start working at the local levels. Recruit candidates for city council seats and school board seats. Recruit people and make time to work to get them elected.

I pay taxes and help pay for my grandsons private education. I am paying twice.