@LeeWoofenden Yes. And that's good. Because the state is us. All of us. Other organisations are not us. There's a fundamental difference there.

@TRiG So you think it is fine for the majority to impose its will on the minority by force?

@TRiG Besides, I think you're making a false distinction. A corporation is the people that make it. A community is the people that make it. Every organization is the people that make it.

@LeeWoofenden Confusion of the legal and sacramental aspects is, I think, at the root of much of the hullabaloo around gay marriage, and I'll be talking about it in the blog post that I'm planning on writing on the topic.

@LeeWoofenden And a corporation is not us.

Both corporation and government are groups of people, but their compositions and reasons for existence are fundamentally different.

And I can't vote a corporation out.

@TRiG You (individually) can't vote a government out, either.

@El'endiaStarman Should be interesting.

@TRiG And if you don't want the government's services, that's tough luck.

Whereas you can refuse a corporation's services at any time.

If anything, we have more control over corporations than we do over government.

@LeeWoofenden We are on the same page.

@LeeWoofenden Depending on where you live, such situations should not occur. In Australia the conflict over gay marriage is solely over the label and the social legitimisation it brings. I don't think the government should be involved in either, and that the correct course of action would be to remove all legal recognition of marriages. If the government recognises stable relationships then it shouldn't be involved with labelling them.

@LeeWoofenden You're a Libertarian, aren't you? *sigh*

If I'd realised I was trying to reason with a Libertarian, I'd've given up sooner.

@curiousdannii "Should not happen," yes. Has happened . . . yes.

@curiousdannii I would be in favor of not using the term "marriage" for the contract signed with the state conferring certain legal rights on couples. From my perspective, that is a civil contract, not a marriage. I also, however, have no objection to married couples taking advantage of the legal rights available to them in their society.

@TRiG Not really relevant to whether or not what I'm saying is true. I haven't been politically active for over 20 years now, aside from being a fairly consistent voter.

@LeeWoofenden this is the only workable solution to the problem and has been my point the entire time, there is too little recognition of the fact that intrinsically different things are being talked about by both sides in 95% of cases

sadly, it's also never going to happen given that if anyone was going to be able to make that happen, it would have been the supreme court and they fumbled that one

my ideal world is one where the government doesn't have any laws at all about marriage

just shortcuts to legal contracts between people for purposes of living together with shared assets and such

@TRiG the state is only "us" in a properly functioning democracy

or atleast some other form of representative government

@TRiG sure you can, stop giving them money, if enough people vote them out, they go away

@LeeWoofenden well, unless they are a health insurance carrier

@AJHenderson sorry to jump in -- but if the state is "us" in a properly functioning democracy, and 51% of the population vote to kill an innocent person, does that mean the 49% are guilty of murder?

(though I'm somewhat joking with that one. I don't agree it is wise or effective to force purchasing private health insurance, but at the same time, we've allowed forcing car insurance for a long time, I'm not entirely sure that health insurance is categorically different

@Nathaniel no, I'm not saying each individual is responsible for the decisions of the whole, but in a properly functioning democracy, the government should follow the will of the people because it is chosen by the people. Corruption may prevent that, but allowing corruption to occur is also the fault of the choices of the governed

as long as they are still actually respecting the people's right to representation

@LeeWoofenden Isn't that the system we already have?

the problem is when the right to representation begins to erode because people in government stop caring about respecting votes

@Nathaniel An employee of the justice system can be required to perform a same-sex marriage, but a minister who is licensed but not employed by the court system has no legal requirement to perform any marriage. Ministers in many churches already refuse to marry certain couples for any number of reasons.

@BruceAlderman sadly it is not

@AJHenderson What are you talking about?

@BruceAlderman Do you know if any state-licensed ministers have refused to marry a couple because the man is black and the woman is white? I would have expected that in that case the minister would be wide open to litigation.

@BruceAlderman unless it has changed recently or I was extremely mislead, when I looked in to it before I got married, having a religious marriage ceremony without a marriage license was a no go

I will however admit I took what I was told (by multiple sources however) at face value and didn't dig more specifically for myself on that one

@AJHenderson These people claim to have done it: example 1 example 2

yes, it is possible in some states, but not all

If you don't want a legal marriage, I don't think the state has any say.

that should be the case, but I'm fairly certain it is not in at least some states

What could they possibly do?

similarly, having stronger distinctions between legal marriage and religious marriage also strengthens a lot of freedom of religion defenses as well.

@BruceAlderman as it was explained to me, they restrict churches from performing ceremonies if they also want to be able to perform legal ceramonies

so I guess you could find someone who doesn't want to do any legal ceramonies

but again, this was years ago, may have changed and my memory may be faulty

so take it with a giant grain of salt

and needless to say, it isn't particularly well documented as it isn't something that comes up often

because, as is the strong argument for allowing same sex couples to have the same legal benefits, it does make a big difference in practical life to have the legal side too

@BruceAlderman I answered my own question: you are right; apparently churches do have the freedom to refuse to marry interracial couples and retain their tax exempt status.

so presumably the situation would not be any different for same-sex marriages.

@Nathaniel yeah, as far as actual participation goes, I don't expect we'll have any problems any time soon, the stickier question is that of periphery things that are not directly engaged in the activity someone disagrees with

and I'm not even sure where I personally fall on that one. I know personally, I would have an easier time doing photography for a same sex wedding than attending one as a guest

because to me, photographing a wedding isn't supporting the wedding. I'm photographing an event, for which I am being paid. I'm not endorsing it or supporting it as I am being paid for my time and effort

@AJHenderson it sounds like the main difference is that churches get a lot of leeway, but others (businesses, individuals) do not... Bob Jones apparently lost a court case over its ban of interracial dating.

@AJHenderson I tend to agree with your analysis, but the problem is that a reasonable person could come to a different conclusion, and be forced by the government to serve someone or go out of business. Does a same-sex couple have a "right" to be photographed by you, or do you have a "right" to choose who you will photograph?

attending on the other hand endorses, though that also brings up the question of what I'm endorsing. I don't have a problem endorsing it being good that they found someone they want to spend their life with, but I can't endorse it being a marriage and I can't endorse the sexual activity that it implies as good things

@Nathaniel yeah, and that's where it gets sticky

while I personally feel it shouldn't be a problem, I'm not sure how I feel about the right of someone to refuse an ancilary service

on the one hand, it feels to me like someone shouldn't have to, but on the other hand, where is the line there too.

How do you allow for that without allowing someone to refuse to do a service based on gender or race

I couldn't refuse to take portraits of people because they are black

I could however refuse to take pictures of people engaging in sexual activity

as that would be producing a product which I disagree with

but then it also still gets tricky

because then it becomes a question of "what if someone believes it morally wrong to take pictures of black people"

@AJHenderson You can't, really. I like to believe that if a photographer were legally allowed to discriminate against black people, in any enlightened society he would lose so much business and be rejected as a photographer by both blacks and whites that he would go out of business.

but I do agree it is a very complicated issue

and I don't know what the answer is

I'm just glad that whatever the answer is, it won't personally impact me

since I personally don't see a problem in providing ancillary services, so long as I am free to make it clear why I'm providing the services

@Nathaniel yes, but if society was so enlightened, we would not need any discrimination laws at all

and history has shown that not to be the case

sure, it can go too far to the other side

but that's why finding the balance is hard

it's also why I'm not a strict libertarian. I generally enspouse libertarian ideas, but pure libertarianism is also naive about both the nature of people and the fact that some things of universal interest are more necessarily dependent on controlled monopoly

but such things need to be considered quite carefully and with great oversite

@AJHenderson Exactly. So in the face of discrimination, we have two options -- educate, or coerce.

so in many aspects I'm libertarian, but in others I am nearly communist, though with a capitalist twist generally

@Nathaniel I would argue it isn't an either or

but rather a both

@AJHenderson Yes; that has generally been the approach taken.

the rights of people still need to be protected, and I guess maybe that is the way to look at it is more a matter of if the service is something that is a right or not

certainly in the case of things like segregated schools and segregated transportation, coercion was critically necessary

as meaningful rights were being denied to people

who you get a cake from is likely a less critical right

but that also gets very tricky

@AJHenderson right, because someone somewhere has to be defining which services are "rights," and those definitions can change at any time

I suppose another key indicator could be the presence of alternative services

though not the only one

because if someone wants one person of many possible equally skilled people to do a service for them specifically, it begs the question of why do you want that service from someone who doesn't want to give it

where as it is something else entirely if you simply want a service that nobody will give you

though that can lead to the "separate but equal" way of thinking too, which probably isn't a good thing, though I suppose one could still argue it at least protects rights, provided they are actually equal and provided it isn't an institutional limitation, but rather a personal one

and I think I'd place the institutional restriction at the person providing service level. ie, you couldn't have a corporation or even a small business flat out refuse service, but perhaps individual providers of the service could refuse, as long as equivalent service is attainable elsewhere.

I still don't like the idea, but it's the cleanest balancing point that can be even remotely clearly defined

at least short of forcing people to provide service unless it specifically would go against their moral convictions

@AJHenderson yes; finding a spot in the middle is tough. These are challenging scenarios, regardless of one's position.

I do wish more people would spend the effort to consider these issues from more than their own position too. Sure it's hard, but you can't really have intelligent discourse without doing so, and so few people seem to be willing to do so

@AJHenderson The axioms that each individual uses to derive political positions automatically exclude most other positions, and individuals' axioms don't change easily, for better or worse.

@Nathaniel yes, but is it really so hard to consider what other axioms would imply?

I mean, I can't change how I feel about the morality of homosexuality, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing how things impact a same sex couple and attempting to understand the issues different possible solutions cause them

but then again, I also know I won a scholarship where the primary thing they sited as the reason for giving me the scholarship was how I did in a mock debate with myself where I was able to present impassioned arguments both for and against fetal stem cell research

agreed

so I know it's something I'm particularly good at and maybe other people just aren't able to do so

I really don't know

what I do know, is that facebook has been incredibly frustrating in terms of trying to better explain both sides to the other. Why is communication so hard

a key to maintaining sanity in any debate is "Avoid Facebook at All Costs" :)

The more I spend time in this SE, the more I realize that mainstream Christianity is soooo wrong and against the teaching of Jesus.

For example, Christians like to judge. I'm not saying that Christians should judge, I'm say that in practice, they do

etc etc etc

@LeeWoofenden That's a problem with the medical industry and the over-reaction to the hippa laws. That has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. The problem exists with many other scenarios having nothing to do with marriage. Further, if you aren't dumb, then you arrange for people to speak for you if you are incapacitated if the law affords you no default.

@LeeWoofenden Most corporations, maybe. You know, the small, insignificant ones that don't have the power to lobby congress to get what they want.

But the big ones that actually affect our lives in very big ways are pretty much untouchable. Those would be pharma, insurance, telecommunications, and a few oddities like Monsanto that have made a good living by literally owning the intellectual right to grow food.

I forgot banks. They are probably the most untouchable. But not because they are big, but because the legislation unilaterally affects all of them and disallows any heterogeneity.

@AJHenderson If you plan accordingly, nearly all of those problems go away or are much easier to handle. Everyone should plan the legalities for the death of their loved ones. Specific legal constructs and laws exist exactly for these things. Like I said to Lee above, the law affords a default - marriage. But even then, not all want everything else that comes with marriage. The problem still exists with or without homosexual marriage.

@TRiG Maybe Irish government isn't filled with self-serving liars. US government is. Maybe Irish government has better checks and balances for government officials' wrongdoings. US government is pretty poor in that respect. Maybe Irish government hasn't really screwed over a ton of people for nothing but their own gain. Happens often in US government.

Maybe I should move to Ireland.

@TRiG You can't be empathetic of the poor if you are not poor. That is by definition.

But should we all be reduced to the lowest common denominator?

@fredsbend This. There's very little difference between corporate power and government power in the U.S. today.

@fredsbend Well, the Irish government is better in at least one respect: bribery is illegal. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course, but I do think that the overt way US politicians can be bought and sold is rather sordid. At least ours have the decency to do that sort of thing behind closed doors.

Sordid, indeed.

@BruceAlderman Which is why a lot of dystopian fiction revolves around a corporate owned government. Some people see what might happen if this continues.

@fredsbend Not everyone is sophisticated about the law and their legal rights. In fact, most people aren't . . . until they learn the hard way. There really is no good reason not to extend the same legal rights to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples.

And, of course, we have PR-STV. The more I learn about other country's voting systems, the more I love ours.

No gerrymandering, either.

@TRiG Gerrymandering is illegal in the US, but they are almost never prosecuted for it.

@fredsbend They're "untouchable" for two reasons: 1. Corporations are government creations, and are therefore protected by government. 2. Hundreds of millions, or even billions, of people buy their products, and thus give them very broad support. Sort of like government, in that respect.

@fredsbend Our constituencies just follow county boundaries most of the time.

@LeeWoofenden I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that your reasoning above has nothing to do with marriage. It's a problem with something else that happens to affect unmarried homosexuals, along with many others.

They were laid down by King John, who didn't have democracy in mind at the time.

@DanAndrews does that really come as a surprise though

@fredsbend Would you argue that if heterosexuals were denied legal marriage, the problems that would result for them have nothing to do with marriage?

@LeeWoofenden Corporations do indeed have some government protection, as they should. Everyone has the right to earn a living. However, among the list I gave, people buy the products of these companies because they are a necessity and they are the only offered option, mostly due to lobbying the government to create artificial monopolies, which is somehow legal and distinct from the classic Vanderbilt monopolies from 150 years ago.

@fredsbend Corporations really don't want to run the country. It's expensive, and they don't have the power to tax. They want government to do that for them.

@LeeWoofenden You're still stuck on the wrong side of the problem. Yes, indeed marriage would fix most of the problems .... for homosexuals that choose to be married. The problem still exists for everyone else that doesn't fit in that tiny little box.

@fredsbend All persistent monopolies are government-created. Maybe not directly, but through law and regulation that favors large corporations over small businesses. Contrary to popular belief, large corporations like a lot of regulation. They just like the kind that they can deal with and small businesses can't. That's how they maintain their quasi-monopoly status.

For this issue, that's like vacuuming the living room with a straw.

@fredsbend What problems are you talking about? And why do you think marriage laws should solve all problems?

Just because a law doesn't solve all problems, that doesn't mean it's not worth having.

@LeeWoofenden Specifically, the medical problems that you brought up as an answer to me saying that marriage resolves inconveniences, not real problems.

@fredsbend I don't disagree with you it is a much broader problem, but the fact that it is a broader platform doesn't serve as an argument against allowing the same legal shortcut to same sex couples

All legalizing same-sex marriage does is to extend to same-sex couples legal rights and privileges that have a long, well-established history for opposite-sex couples. Legally, it's really not that big a deal.

It's also not a very big "burden" on society, since homosexuals make up only somewhere between 1.5% and 3.5% of the population.

@AJHenderson I neither arguing for nor against allowing legal same-sex marriage. I'm merely saying that the whole thing doesn't really solve any real problems for society. Only inconveniences. And we've spent decades of effort on it too.

@LeeWoofenden And certainly not all will marry. That's my point about your medical objection. It's a tiny little box.

@fredsbend I think you're not realizing the full meaning for gays and lesbians of being able to legally marry.

@fredsbend But for that small percentage of the population, it is an important box. And there is little or no legal downside to giving them those rights.

@fredsbend ok, that's fair

@fredsbend Would you argue that allowing interracial marriages doesn't solve any real problems for society?

@LeeWoofenden I wouldn't allow a silly hypothetical to derail my argument.

@fredsbend It's not a silly hypothetical. Interracial marriages were, in fact, illegal in a number of states until more recently than many people think.

I would say that if different groups of people are being treated differently by the law, that is a real problem for society.

@LeeWoofenden Minors and seniors exempt. And so also non-citizens. And felons. And residents of different states.

@fredsbend The main body of law applies to self-responsible adults. Minors are not adults, and are treated differently by the law. Seniors are treated differently only if they become incapable of caring for themselves, and thus are no longer self-responsible adults.

Non-citizens do have many of the same rights under the law.

Felons . . . that's a whole different issue.

@LeeWoofenden "Have" vs. afforded.

@LeeWoofenden Not really.

And yes, residents of different states have different rights under their state governments. But they have the same rights as one another under federal law.

@fredsbend By which I mean, it's a complicated one, and not one I've really formed a very strong opinion about. Except that many people classified as felons should not be so classified because the laws under which they were convicted are bad and wrong laws.

@LeeWoofenden Not always so. Even different cities are treated differently.

@fredsbend Well of course, I'm talking about how it's supposed to work. Which I admit often bears little resemblance to how it actually works. In actuality, all of those governments are very corrupt, and do not abide by their own controlling documents in practice.

@LeeWoofenden Sorry, gtg now.

@fredsbend Need to get work done anyway. Nice chatting.

@AJHenderson Surprise, no. Disappointed? Yes.

@AJHenderson Consider perhaps another medium. Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo, et. al. are replete with society's lowest, the imbecilic morons that barely pass as having real human thoughts.

@DanAndrews You'll have to explain what you mean. "Do not judge lest you be judged" is one of the most misused verses!