re: kim davis -- what does marriage legally have to do with sex, anyway?

[unblock]

from a legal perspective, marriage doesn't have much to do with sexual activity of any sort.

consensual sexual activity between adults is legal prior to marriage and outside of marriage, and it's not a requirement in marriage.

from a legal perspective, marriage is just a contract between two consenting adults that confers certain rights, pretty much just as any contract between two consenting adults. there are just a few differences, such as that the government recognizes such arrangements and treats married couples a little differently, e.g., in the tax code.

denying a couple a marriage license doesn't stop them from having sex, nor does granting them a marriage license legitimize anything that married couple might do (whether sex or anything else, for that matter).


historically, and practically, yes, marriage and sex are intertwined in our brains, but legally, there's not much to tie the two together.


the bottom line is that what kim davis is doing isn't opposing homosexuality, or homosexual activity -- the thing that certain religious homophobes claim to oppose.

what she's opposing is two consenting adults choosing to legally pool their financial assets, grant each other hospital visitation rights, and so on. from a legal perspective, this has nothing to do with any sexual activity they may or may not be having.


in short, like most bigots, she sees some people she thinks might be engaging in homosexual activity, and is simply finding a way to be cruel to them because she can. her method of cruelty has little to nothing to do with homosexual activity, only her choice of victims of her cruelty does.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Marriage is basically the official recognition of paternity...

going back to times before science when paternity was unknowable. Of course it became far more complicated than that over the years and now affects every part of our lives.

I believe the French have a useful alternative for people who don't want to marry, but still need someone to sign things at the hospital and do a lot of the other legal things married couples do. Gender is entirely irrelevant, since procreation is not involved, and sex is entirely optional.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Every marriage in France is a marriage. It's not much different than here. You go get the secular

paperwork then if you want to, you can do a ceremony. Each of these unions is a marriage, and that is what it is called. LGBT couples want to get married. Procreation is not a requirement for straight marriages as 'The Church' happily marries those past child bearing years and those incapable of bearing children, they make no test of fertility, they just marry the two for asking to be married.
They also do not ask nor follow up on the sexual activity of those who they marry. It's optional, very obviously, in all cases. Procreation is often not involved no matter what the genders are.

What was your point?

[TreasonousBastard]

5. My point is that marriage is obsolete...

every union should be a civil union, and then you can make it what you want it to be.

[erronis]

8. And civil unions should not affect the tax code or property/child ownership

We should do away with the separate tax treatment of individuals whether they are in a "civil union" or "marriage". You pay your taxes based on your income. Not filing jointly/separately/divorced/etc. Everybody is responsible for themselves.

Property brought into a union belongs to the original owner (unless deeded otherwise.) Property obtained during a union belongs to whoever paid for it (receipts, etc.)

If a partner within the union will not be making sufficient income to contribute fairly to the union then a simple contract of expectations and implicit recompense should be used.

Children born to a group of people (and yes, this does happen) need to have protection and coverage by each responsible person. Not based on marriage (since many children are "love" kids), but based on who are the biological parents.

As everyone can tell, IANAL...

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Some PBS show years ago mentioned a stone age tribe somewhere...

where there was no marriage, although partnerships quite naturally happened.

Everyone happily screwed around and since no one knew who the father was, all males were responsible for all the children.

[RKP5637]

2. Well said!!! n/t

[riderinthestorm]

3. K&R nt

[yodermon]

6. homophobic bigots always reduce love to sex.

it's only about the sex for the. It's like they're obsessed.

[Helen Borg]

7. Not just homophobic bigots...

Most people, generally...

[malthaussen]

9. Depends on the state.

Some jurisdictions still have old laws on the books designed to regulate sexual behavior among adults. And we won't even talk about fundamentalist Islamic states.

-- Mal

[Geronimoe]

10. Logic and reasoniing is not on the table

Had Kim sat down with a decent lawyer and a real Christian pastor, she probably would have done her job and not be in prison today.

Homosexual relationships were common during Jesus's time and he never spoke on this. Jesus's main concern was promiscuity, sex outside of marriage.

That Kim only selected one issue and disregards all the other things written in the Bible, proves she is not following the teaching of her religion, rather she is just a bigot.

We no longer live in 4000 BC.

[LittleGirl]

12. same with couples

that are too old to have children as well. I married my spouse at 47 and could not have children because I had surgery to remove those parts long before that time. Same thing with a same sex couple that can't have children as a pair. They can adopt if they want and we chose not to. She's a bigot. She belongs in jail for not upholding her oath as a public servant.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. even if it was about sex - gay sex, straight sex, who fucking cares?

sorry, you can't stop the couplin', dumplin'.

[aidbo]

18. The way she's looking at the camera in this image.

I'm just cynical enough to imagine this is the moment she decided that if she just plays this juuuust right she could make some money off of a bunch of suckers.

[leftieNanner]

14. Get out of other people's bedrooms, Kim!

And besides, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in the same kind of "nasty" behaviors as homosexual couples. Just sayin'...... Of course, I'm sure SHE never has.

[JDPriestly]

15. Thanks. Excellent post.

[Flying Squirrel]

16. Not to mention the obvious....

Once they get married, the sex is gonna eventually drop down to about once a year (so sayeth all the comedians) So really, if she opposes gay marriage because she opposes the sex, she ought to be marrying them right up!

[unblock]

17. i was waiting for that joke ;)

there's more -- if she really just wants to be mean to gay people, what better way than to set the stage for gay divorce?