The Gathering Storm

Just a warning: the following video was made by morons, for morons, but we watched it anyway. What does that say about us?



The One, the Only, the Infamous: i didn't know you could embed youtube in gtalk
that's awesome
WTF
I am not ok with this
this ad is a serious problem for me.
it really bothers me
this misinformation just has no place in this public debate, and to claim that keeping others from being treated equally is somehow an infringement on your own rights is taking this to a horribly new low
stuff like that just really upsets me

Zart Cosgrove: oh me too
"I'm being forced to change!"
BS

TOTOTI: how dare you teach my children to be tolerant and accepting of all people

ZC: i love how there's a moving target about who they're tolerant of
"we've got a rainbow coalition of people who hate gays"

TOTOTI: exactly. next it's:
blacks
whites
hispanics
men
women

ZC: muslims

TOTOTI: trannies
jews for jesus
sorry, that was the only way I could get myself to chuckle after seeing that

ZC: religion can't exist in it's current form in western civilization without a boogie man
it's inherent to all of the western religions....the moment there's no outside evil, it's back to the garden of eden, and everybody has a good time, and there's no need for priests

TOTOTI: just don't understand how this hasn't been directly challenged on equal protection grounds
I don't get it.
states' rights is one thing, but if it stands in direct violation of constitutional protections...

ZC: well gay people are equally protected.
they are equally entitled to get married to someone of the opposite sex

TOTOTI: but they are not equally protected in the tax code, and there is an inherent bias to a religiously-defined institution

ZC: sure they are. if a gay person is married to a person of the opposite sex, then they get the same benefits as a straight person married to someone of the opposite sex
and marriage is a civilly defined state....that's why you can get married by a courthouse

TOTOTI: but the definition of marriage is state sanction of a religious institution
ZC: hmmm... not necessarily. That's why so many courts have found that gay marriage is legal; because marriage ISN'T defined as between a man and a woman
and that's why there's been a rush to pass laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman....
so that the civil institution will match up with the religious definition.
but is there a reason that marriage SHOULDN'T be defined as a union of a man and a woman, if the people choose to have it defined that way?

TOTOTI: I disagree
the problem here lies with the federal tax code reflecting only the priorities defined by a religious institution, which inherently excludes a lot of folks
I would argue that the tax code in its claims to promote families are actually doing the opposite
I would actually favor eliminating joint filings altogether if they refuse to allow all "couples" to enjoy the benefits contained therein. What do they care if folks are actually "married" or not?

ZC: i feel like there's a disconnect in your reasoning. If marriage, and the unfairness thereof vis-a-vis homosexuality, is really all about tax benefits, then there is nothing stopping gay people from getting married...they would just have to get married to someone of the opposite sex. There's nothing in the tax code, or in the civil code, that prevents them from getting married solely for the tax benefits
is there anything in marriage law that requires the married couple to cohabitate?
or to be monogamous?
or even to have sexual relations at all?
what level of interaction is legally required to validate a marriage?
marriage has been such a ubiquitous thing throughout history that I think the laws on it are lacking. Sure, there's a HUGE amount of "case law" that makes up the "common sense" definition of marriage, but it's a mercurial body of law made up by Child Protective Services, Immigration and Naturalization Services, the bishop of every religion, and divorce lawyers

TOTOTI: I disagree that "marriage" as a sanctioned institution has been so ubiquitous throughout history - it used to be a transactional/financial relationship
it was about property, not about cohabitation or attempting to provide benefit to those who were procreating
this law has its roots in the premise that families provide a more stable upbringing for children, but that has been turned on its head, at least in recent years, and spun into some belief that marriage is intended solely for procreation
Honestly, the idea of government incentivizing the marital relationship is one that should expire. People will do it regardless of whether/not there are financial benefits.
But this extends well beyond the tax code. There are people who have cohabitated with partners (same- or opposite-sex) but have decided not to wed.
Given that you can grant power of attorney to whomever you want, the practical implications of making life decisions (life-ending, altering or otherwise) is still one that is legally in the hands only of a spouse in many states
The ability for someone to live their life peacefully, leave their belongings to their life partner int he event of death without having to formalize an agreement... these things are taken for granted in heterosexual marital relationships
there is no equal relationship in the eyes of the law for those that do not partake of that legal construct
unless you take formal legal steps to define those relationships, e.g. power of attorney, etc.

ZC: So allow me to sum up for you, just to ensure I understand you correctly:

TOTOTI: not just tax, but legal benefits
marriage as an institution is an easy way for people to formalize those legal relationships
howz that

ZC: you believe that marriage consists of a bundle of rights and powers pertaining to another person, that are bundled together under the umbrella term of "matrimony". These rights and powers include tax incentives, legal powers, and often (I'm including this since you missed it) benefits conveyed by private institutions in our society. You think that the choice of persons bound in this bundle of rights and powers should be agnostic of gender. Am I right?
i wonder...should this bundle of rights and powers be restricted to a number of people? what if I happen to be in a committed love triangle?

TOTOTI: good question - is that an argument to change the definition, or abolish the institution altogether?
but yes, you have fairly summarized my points
benefits bestowed by any institution should be agnostic of sex, age, sexual orientation... how about we make these laws consistent with federal law pertaining to discrimination, which is fairly rooted in the premise of equal protection

ZC: At think at root my question is whether the bundle of benefits, rights, and powers conferred by marriage are really something that are there as a convenience pack, like a combo meal, or is there some benefit to society as well? And if it's just a combo meal, then shouldn't it be available in different configurations?

TOTOTI: but therein lies the rub
If this institution and package of benefits are intended to promote some social benefit, shouldn't that be communicated?
supported by research?

TOTOTI: because if the party line is that they are trying to promote families, why is that not gender-neutral?


ZC: Okay, so we should write our marriage laws to clearly convey what marriage is, what it's supposed to be, and its purpose
but religions don't want us to do that, because they deal in ambiguity and making people rely on priests and preachers for guidance. lawyers don't want us to do that, because they make too much money off of it. politicians don't want to do it because it will upset the status quo...and for 90% of the population it's just not a big deal....they can get married if they want

Hey... we should start a blog with our ramblings. I'll bet someone would care.