Riverwind Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Riverview, August, you should see from the discussion above that the whole concept of government defining marriage leads to a legal morass. The fact that two different government departments would have different views on if a a couple are married or not further underlines the absurdity. The complexity demonstrates why the gov't must have a standard definition of 'marriage' that all depts use as a starting point. Allowing each dept to create completely independent definitions would be a legal and bureaucratic nightmare. You're right. The fact that someone would have to walk a legal minefield in order to not take on obligations he doesn't actually want, is in my mind, an absurd situation which government has brought upon itself. Why? Allowing people to avoid their social obligations because there is no written contract is even more absurd. The concept of a written contract is a recent invention. Human society has been built with unwritten contracts for thousands of years. If you live with someone and pool your economic resources then you have agreed to an unwritten contract. If you do want to to agree to that contract then there are steps that you can take. There are so few people in the situation you describe that it makes most sense for the 'default' contract to be the unwritten contract that society expects. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 The complexity demonstrates why the gov't must have a standard definition of 'marriage' that all depts use as a starting point. Allowing each dept to create completely independent definitions would be a legal and bureaucratic nightmare. I disagree. Different departments do not need to use marital status as a means of discrimmination. They need to use whatever criteria is valid for the situation they are qualifying. Allowing people to avoid their social obligations because there is no written contract is even more absurd. The concept of a written contract is a recent invention. Human society has been built with unwritten contracts for thousands of years. If you live with someone and pool your economic resources then you have agreed to an unwritten contract. If you do want to to agree to that contract then there are steps that you can take. There are so few people in the situation you describe that it makes most sense for the 'default' contract to be the unwritten contract that society expects. Enforcing maritial contracts are also a recent invention. While they may have been unwritten marital contracts prior, there was no real enforcement except social expectation. Personally I don't see that they have taken on an unwritten contract beyond there terms they verbally agree to, should people choose to live together, but I can see how you would view that differently. In any case, I could live with the situation you describe, if it were clear on the steps you could take to opt out. In my view those steps are far from clear and it is very easy to unintentionally default into obligations you did not intend. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 In 1920s ......... 1920s!!! ....... Sergei Diaghilev wrote: "Tchaikovsky thought of committing suicide for fear of being discovered as a homosexual, but today, if you are a composer and not homosexual, you might as well put a bullet through your head." Quote When a true Genius appears in the World, you may know him by this Sign, that the Dunces are all in confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift GO IGGY GO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 In 1920s ......... 1920s!!! ....... Sergei Diaghilev wrote:"Tchaikovsky thought of committing suicide for fear of being discovered as a homosexual, but today, if you are a composer and not homosexual, you might as well put a bullet through your head." Sorry .... wrong thread! Quote When a true Genius appears in the World, you may know him by this Sign, that the Dunces are all in confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift GO IGGY GO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 I disagree. Different departments do not need to use marital status as a means of discrimmination. They need to use whatever criteria is valid for the situation they are qualifying.Scenario A: Couples sign a single marriage contract defined by the gov't. Every gov't dept will refer to that standard contract when writing policies.Scenario B: Couples must sign different 'marriage contracts' for each gov't department. Scenario A requries a lot less paperwork and bureaucracy. In any case, I could live with the situation you describe, if it were clear on the steps you could take to opt out. In my view those steps are far from clear and it is very easy to unintentionally default into obligations you did not intend.There are clear steps: don't live with someone you have sex with. I know many couples that maintain two addresses for exactly this reason. In some cases, they negotiate a cheaper rent because they are a phantom roommate. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 I disagree. Different departments do not need to use marital status as a means of discrimmination. They need to use whatever criteria is valid for the situation they are qualifying.Scenario A: Couples sign a single marriage contract defined by the gov't. Every gov't dept will refer to that standard contract when writing policies.Scenario B: Couples must sign different 'marriage contracts' for each gov't department. Scenario A requries a lot less paperwork and bureaucracy. I don't think you understood what I meant. For example the CCRA should define the terms of what qualifies one to claim another as a deduction. This is completely separated from the construct of marriage. The immigration department should define under what conditions you can sponsor someone. Again, independant of the construct or marriage. Neither case requires couples to sign different marriage contracts for each govt department. BTW, as an aside I can't think of any good reason any government department should be discrimminating on the basis of marital status. There are clear steps: don't live with someone you have sex with. I know many couples that maintain two addresses for exactly this reason. In some cases, they negotiate a cheaper rent because they are a phantom roommate. In my view that is an unreasonable ask in many cases. We don't require that married couples live together, why should we require that singles live apart. The fact that people have to do this at all, to me shows how muddled the situation is. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 For example the CCRA should define the terms of what qualifies one to claim another as a deduction. This is completely separated from the construct of marriage.The CCRA would then have to define its own marriage contract that people would have to sign. This contract would have to be sufficiently binding to ensure that people don't abuse it (i.e. it must take some effort to get out of the contract). The CCRA could not simply base its definition on who you are living with because many spouses live apart. No matter how you want to spin it - most gov't deparments need the concept of a legal marriage contract to implement the policies they have in place. BTW, as an aside I can't think of any good reason any government department should be discrimminating on the basis of marital status.Social benefit programs cost a lot of money. Using family income as a basis for determining who qualifies means more money goes to the people that need it. In my view that is an unreasonable ask in many cases. We don't require that married couples live together, why should we require that singles live apart.The gov't has to decide what the 'default' contract is. Whatever 'default' is choosen will be unfair to people who don't want the 'default' to apply. The current rules meet the needs of most people. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 The CCRA would then have to define its own marriage contract that people would have to sign. This contract would have to be sufficiently binding to ensure that people don't abuse it (i.e. it must take some effort to get out of the contract). The CCRA could not simply base its definition on who you are living with because many spouses live apart. The question becomes why. If the reason that individuals get a higher GST rebate than a married couple, is because they live separately and thus spend more, and thus pay higher GST, then that should be sufficient test, not that they are married. So a married couple living apart should be entitled to the same GST credit as two individuals living apart. A deduction available to a married couple because are interdependant should also be available to other individuals who are also interdependant. There is not need to base this upon whether they are married. No matter how you want to spin it - most gov't deparments need the concept of a legal marriage contract to implement the policies they have in place. If the policies are the issue, they should change the policies, not invent or resort to a definition of marriage. Social benefit programs cost a lot of money. Using family income as a basis for determining who qualifies means more money goes to the people that need it. I don't see using family income as any more valid than using an individual's income. The designation of what is a family is somewhat arbitraty and becoming more so as our society becomes more accomodating to different family types. Suppose I, as an adult, make no income and live with my millionaire parents. Am I more entitled to the social benefits than a couple with one rich spouse and one poor one? Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 If the policies are the issue, they should change the policies, not invent or resort to a definition of marriage.Many existing policies require the concept of marriage. It would be extremely complex to re-write gov't policies to remove this requirement. It is very simple to change the definition of marriage to include same sex partners. I see no compelling reason to embark on a radical reform of gov't policy because _some_ people have a problem with gay people getting married. Am I more entitled to the social benefits than a couple with one rich spouse and one poor one?It becomes a question of numbers since no system is perfect. There are a relatively small number of adult children living at home with well off parents so giving out 'undeserved' benefits to these few would not affect the overall financing if the program. There are a large number of zero or low income spouses living with well off partners so the gov't has to exclude them or lower the benefits paid out to each person. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Many existing policies require the concept of marriage. It would be extremely complex to re-write gov't policies to remove this requirement. It is very simple to change the definition of marriage to include same sex partners. I see no compelling reason to embark on a radical reform of gov't policy because _some_ people have a problem with gay people getting married. The discrimmination against gays is only one symptom. The policies promote discrimmination based upon maritial status. That discriminates not only aginst gays but anyone who has a different interpretation of what marriage is. In my view, that discrimmination is wrong, and is justification enough to change government policies. Am I more entitled to the social benefits than a couple with one rich spouse and one poor one?It becomes a question of numbers since no system is perfect. There are a relatively small number of adult children living at home with well off parents so giving out 'undeserved' benefits to these few would not affect the overall financing if the program. There are a large number of zero or low income spouses living with well off partners so the gov't has to exclude them or lower the benefits paid out to each person. Your argument is simply that it is ok to treat some people unfairly if it is a small amount of people relative to the overall population. I disagree with that view. What I have given is simply one example. I'm sure there are many more. Regardless, just because the policy affects only a few doesn't make it right and it should be changed. You could also argue that the opposite-sex marriage definition is suitable for the majority and it discrimminates against only a few (the homosexual population) so why change it? Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted June 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 "You could also argue that the opposite-sex marriage definition is suitable for the majority and it discrimminates against only a few (the homosexual population) so why change it?" Precisely. Now we are approaching full circle... This is the problem with legislation related to behavior that is generally "none-of-anybody-else's-business" and attributing "rights" accordingly. What boggles my mind is that some people see a ridiculously needlessly complicated legislation and instead of simplifying it, their solution is to patch an even more ridiculous and convoluted amendment to it and so on and so on and so on. Eventually, they advocate a motley of contradictions that has sooooo many caveats that none of it is logical and contains soooo many loopholes in its justifications that it is a cluster-(fill-in-the-blank). On top of that, they think they are being fair. I am starting to think that we do have a "slaves" problem: we are turning ourselves into our own slaves! Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Warwick Green Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 "You could also argue that the opposite-sex marriage definition is suitable for the majority and it discrimminates against only a few (the homosexual population) so why change it?"Precisely. Now we are approaching full circle... This is the problem with legislation related to behavior that is generally "none-of-anybody-else's-business" and attributing "rights" accordingly. What boggles my mind is that some people see a ridiculously needlessly complicated legislation and instead of simplifying it, their solution is to patch an even more ridiculous and convoluted amendment to it and so on and so on and so on. Eventually, they advocate a motley of contradictions that has sooooo many caveats that none of it is logical and contains soooo many loopholes in its justifications that it is a cluster-(fill-in-the-blank). On top of that, they think they are being fair. That's why Harper is so anxious that his resolution on SSM does not pass. His "solution" for gays is a "separate-but-equal" category and to grandfather existing SSMs. A recipe to get the whole bundle tossed by SCOC leaving Harper staring at the N/W clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.