My perspective on gay marriage

[Gman]

There are three basic kinds of businesses: Sole Proprietorship, Joint Partnership and Incorporation. How we conduct our personal business whether we are a single adult or a married couple is very similar to how businesses are run in many respects except in the case of two married people being a type of joint partnership.

When you file to go into business by yourself as a sole proprietorship you conduct business under an assumed name (Joe Blow Appliance Repair) and you are that business. Similarly, when you personally have your own checking account, pay your own bills, and work for someone for pay you are like a personal sole prop.

Filing with the state as a joint partnership gives you, as a business, the ability to share assets and liabilities, income and expenses with your partner(s) in the business. The business pays taxes on your joint behalf. Jointly, you run the business and do what you want however you want as long, of course, as it's legal. The state doesn't care one iota about the sexual orientation of any partner in the business.

Just as in a joint partnership business, when two people get a marriage license, get married, and the license is signed and filed with the county, the state grants those two people the right to conduct business jointly. They have joint checking accounts, file joint tax returns, pay bills together, etc. However, the big difference is that the state willfully discriminates and will not allow personal business transactions to be conducted jointly as a joint partnership through marriage if the two people are of the same sex.

The state doesn't care one iota about the sexual orientation of people who file to do business together. But the state will discriminate against two people who want to do personal business together if they are of the same sex. It's legally discriminatory since the state also gives recognition and the same status to incorporated businesses as it does to people per federal constitutional court rulings. So I would think the equal protection clause applies here and is being violated. Granted there are some basic legal differences between what's known as the "corporate veil" through incorporation and sole props and joint partnerships. But I think that is only an obstacle to be overcome in argument.

The institution of marriage should be left to religion and the churches since the origins of marriage as we know it today has its origins in religion. If two people of the same sex want to get married, then do it at a church. Maybe the church will allow it, maybe not. If not, find one that does allow same sex marriage. The state should only have an interest in how people choose to conduct business. If you get "married" in front of a J.P., there is nothing religious about that. You've only filed to do business as a joint partnership after some kind of ceremony. There's nothing religious about getting married in front of a J.P. There's nothing religious about filing to do business as a joint partnership in front of a J.P.

I realize all this goes to the heart of the argument in favor of civil unions. But some people want nothing less than a "marriage" recognized as a marriage by the state and they consider a civil union something of less value. I feel that as far as the state is concerned, there is no difference between a joint partnership and a civil union and/or a marriage because marriage is primarily a religious rite performed in a church. Marriage between two people of same or opposite sex is in fact a civil union to the state.

If the state is going to refuse to allow two people of the same sex to conduct personal business, it should also disallow people of the same sex to form a joint partnership business.

Has anyone else thought of this? Has anyone ever thought of challenging the prohibitions on gay marriage on this basis? Thoughts, please.

Gman

------------------
edited for the usual typos and errors you don't see when you proof read but see immediately once you post it.

[AllegroRondo]

1. At the very least, its gender discrimination

and a violation of the equal protection clause.

A man can enter into a legal contract called marriage with any woman he chooses, but a woman cannot do the same, simply because of her gender.

[sui generis]

2. well in some cases two people of the same sex

can't hold joint residential mortgages already . . .

I'm for civil marriage, when "marriage" is recognized by the government as conveying the rights of kinship, parental rights, property, and mutual financial liability, including taxation.

The very fact that a meaningful "civil union" (as differentiated from one man / one woman marriage) would require language that bars people of the opposite sex from being in a civil union is absurd, and the fact that the federal government and other states aren't required to recognize civil unions makes it a moot point.

The "tradition" of marriage requires nothing except that it be one man and one woman.

Not that they be in love with each other, not that the marriage not exist only to preserve wealth, or that both parties are confirmed heterosexuals willing to produce children for the purposes of the state, including serving in a peacetime draft or paying into social security for 74 years or longer before being able to benefit from it.

Today, traditional marriage, when defined as ONLY between a man and a woman implies that traditional marriage is interested only in procreation, and when the government takes that stand it sinks to the level of animal husbandry.

Civil marriage is NOT about love. It is about fiscal commitment and designation of heirs. At the end of the day civil marriage is the only rational direction to take.

It has absolutely no impact on traditional marriage which will continue to take place in churches everywhere as it always has, and it has no impact on gay people. No gay person is going to run out and marry someone of the opposite sex just because they want to be married so badly, and no straight person is going to run out and marry someone of the same sex thereby causing the end of civilization, so allowing same sex civil marriage is not going to impact western civilization one way or another, and the subjective "morality" arguments and civil marriage do not even belong in the same arena.

Gay people will continue to have gay lives and gay families with or without the protections of marriage; it's just as utterly absurd that the government would single someone out to not be married because they're gay, or because they have green eyes, or because they prefer italian food.

[Brian_Expat]

3. I give the present ban on gay relationships in the federal government. . .

5 years, perhaps 10 TOPS.

Think of all the tax revenue they're missing out on, and the expenditures they're making which would disappear if gays were legally married and more responsible for each other's health and well-being under the law.

Not to mention the fact that the immigration regime for foreign same-sex partners would be simplified dramatically -- saving even further money in a budget which is broken.

[moose65]

4. You're right

And I think the equal-protection angle is the way to go! Forget about discrimination.... the anti-gays KNOW it's discrimination and they don't care. But, clearly we don't have the same protection under the law that straight married couples have. Any court that examines this from the equal-protection standpoint can only come to one conclusion. Hasn't every court that has ever ruled on the issue ruled in favor of gay marriage (or at least civil unions)?

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Folks are confused about marriage . . . . What is marriage?

.
Folks are confused about marriage. Its definition. In other words, what is marriage? Most folks cannot define it, or when they try, it tumbles about confused. As a long time family law attorney, this hits directly in my professional field.

I strongly urge you and others to read the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Massachusetts highest court) Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) opinion.

Seriously!

Why do I recommend this? Because it acknowledges the origins of marriage, it defines marriage, it educates and fully informs what marriage really is . . . then it interprets the definition of marriage as to state laws and the Massachusetts constitution.

Once thoroughly read and analyzed, I am sure that you will have a better understanding of the "Institution of Marriage" (legal words, btw).

So, take some time, pull up a comfy chair; the SJC's opinion is here (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).

I will leave you with a few additional words. Marriage in America is a construct of law, not of religion. Our (state) governments, through our state legislative bodies, pass laws authorizing who has the power to marry couples, who may be married, under what circumstances marriage occurs, and other terms and conditions of marriage. No religion has that authority (power), unless a state, through its laws, grants a religion such authority, i.e., says that priests or rabbis or whomever may perform the marriage ceremony. It has NEVER been the reverse in America. NEVER.

Similarly, only states through their legislative bodies have the authority to dissolve marriage. No religion has that authority (power) to do so, and never has had that authority in America. In short, marriage is wholly a state legal entity, period.

A couple may choose to be married u/ the state laws in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. Either marriage ceremony becomes legal and binding marriage contract ONLY if it complies with the state laws of that state in which the couple were married, period.

When you read Goodridge it will give you a deep and clear understanding of "what is marriage." And, you will have an understanding that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court analyzed legislative-made laws to the Massachusetts constitution, thus ruling that same-sex couples had to be included in marriage, not a lesser defined entity such as "civil unions." Of course, the Court's opinion cannot (and did not) force marriage ceremonies upon the religious clergy that have been granted the authority to perform marriages u/ Massachusetts laws. Instead, religions may refuse to perform such ceremonies due to the state (and federal) freedom of religion protections.

One last word, as you are reading Goodridge, note that courts interpret laws including the constitution. And, that our constitutions (both state and federal) are written to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.



______________
edited to include graphic