Asymmetrical Information

Thanks for posting the link to her blog. Seldom does a blog go on my very limited blogroll so quick. Keep up the good work Myria!

This is a total non-issue. So what if there's a court challenge? The courts will just establish some legal definition of male and female, and that definition will be used in the enforcement of laws that are sensitive to gender. This kind of issue has already been dealt with in other contexts, like athletics (is that Russian shot-put champion really a woman?) The fact, if it is a fact, that there is no definitive method of establishing gender free from all scientific ambiguity will not prevent lawmakers and judges from establishing rules or tests that are good enough for the practical purposes of the law.

I dont have a dog in the gay marriage fight, but Im against ammending the Constitution only to deprive a group of financial equality. I think who can get married should be up to each particular religion, but there should be civil unions that allow gays to reap the same benefits that married heterosexuals are eligible for(to tell you the truth I think all volume discounts as to insurance and such be removed).

I dont think its a slippery slope as to gender determination. For example, for health insurance purposes theres a physical required, once the MD certifies your gender and health, its not a point I think can be challenged legally after the fact. The technology for gender identification is sophisticated, and from my understanding human beings that exhibit both male and female characteristics at birth are surgically adjusted to be female, and if hormones are imbalenced at maturity they are treated with estrogen. Im sure there are other considerations and genetic flaws that result in an indeterminite gender, but I think those numbers are negligible.

I just read the link, Im glad I wasnt to inaccurate with my previous comments.

Don P the sports testing is state of the art. But one thing I do know is Austrailian bodybuilder Bev Francis never failed a steroids test, had normal menstration(sp), but was somehow genetically male when tested, despite not having testes. Pretty freaky. But I do agree the courts wouldnt have alot of difficulty defining gender for legal purposes, and I think legal challenges would be rare.

Check out this story:

"Sex-Change Operation Tests Marriage Law"

Last year, Spina went to Thailand and underwent a sex-change operation. He returned with a new name: Paula Spina.

Spina's wife reacted by trying to get their marriage annulled. Among her legal arguments is the claim that Paul Spina was always psychologically a woman and, therefore, violated Kentucky's law prohibiting same-sex marriages when they said their "I do's.

Spina's attorneys have argued that their client was obviously a man when the couple wed. After all, he fathered two children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26429-2004Jul3.html

The only way to write a law allowing same sex marriage is to allow anyone to marry anyone else.

This is a solution to anyone worried about estate tax. The tax law allows transfer of estates to spouses tax-free.

A widow can marry her sons and daughters and thereby transfer her estate tax-free from generation to generation.

There have been plenty of cases about transsexual marriage that have already addressed this issue. State courts are perfectly capable of defining gender, and none of them would deny that a woman born with XY chromosomes is a woman. Some states even recognize the new gender of people who undergo sex change operations. There is no obvious standard to use and states will differ, but it's not a serious problem for anyone but transsexuals.

I'm a law student, and just last year I worked on a class project about transsexual marriage and argued the case in moot court.

> The only way to write a law allowing same sex
> marriage is to allow anyone to marry anyone
> else.

I assume there would still be a range of situations where two individuals will not be able to marry. For example, where one or both parties is not of sufficient age to give consent.

I think it would be pretty easy to write a law that allowed gay marriage, but still prohibited incest and multiples beyond 2 people. I think all the 'anything could happen if we allowed gay marriage' is just more fear mongering.

Indeed, there is not a legal slippery slope as the courts could easily draw and enforce distinctions between incest or bigamy and same sex marriage. Myria's points are more subtle.

However, as I noted before, subsidies and entitlements are discriminatory and some would eventually complain that they were denied certain rights (by the government or private sector) based on the government's not defining them as a spouse.

I suggested in an earlier post that the government allow everyone to designate one person to receive the privileges or entitlements of "legal spouse" and let the rest of marriage be defined by societal actors outside of government. I still think it's the only way out here.

Mindles D I think your single designation solution is very good. Id like to see the elimination of peoples benefits being able to 'cover' other people, but that isnt going to happen, and what you suggest should be acceptable to most.

Myria's site sure went away fast after this post. And google isn'tg caching her either.

Sure did. I wonder why.

That's really sad. Find a good blog and it just packs up and leaves. Granted there may have been security issues. Some folks don't like too much attention. I think a lot of folks started sending her traffic and she may have re-evaluated the contents of her blog. She didn't really have a good pseudonym either and perhaps the lack on anonymity concerned her or it may also be she was doing it out of concern for her patients. There's always doctor/patient confidentiality issues and she had touched upon several things in the thread you highlighted, defining yourself by what you hate.

Of course this is all speculation.

Did anyone check out her photo album? She had some beautiful nature shots in there.

Let's hope she returns to blogging or that her server just overloaded.

;-)

Indeed, there is not a legal slippery slope as the courts could easily draw and enforce distinctions between incest or bigamy and same sex marriage. Myria's points are more subtle.

She and you are saying that there could be lawsuits challenging current legal definitions of male and female, and the rest of us are saying, "Yeah, so what? It's not a big deal. The lawsuits will just be resolved in court."

However, as I noted before, subsidies and entitlements are discriminatory and some would eventually complain that they were denied certain rights (by the government or private sector) based on the government's not defining them as a spouse.

No one except a tiny band of hardcore libertarians seriously believes that subsidies and entitlements are inherently discriminatory (in the sense of "invidious discrimination" or "unfair discrimination," like racial discrimination). Even our largest government programs, like Social Security and Medicare, "discriminate" (as you would have it) based on age, income and other factors. Yet they enjoy overwhelming popular support. This is true not only in the United States, but in all the industrialized democracies.

Several critics seem to have missed the fact that Myria used her argument against the Defense of Marriage act or legislation mandating particular types of gender combinations(otherwise what basis would there be for such lawsuits?).

At any rate, I said nothing about invidious discrimination, I merely said they do discriminate and someone eventually objects to discrimination, regardless of what the majority happens to think of them. Even now there are those who object to the fact that social security won't be nearly the deal it was for prior generations. We endorse or allow certain types of discrimination and not others. It's still discrimination.

What is popular, here or elsewhere, isn't really germaine to the discussion. As has been pointed out earlier in fallacious support of the DMA, most of the U.S. appears to oppose allowing gays to marry. That isn't shaping my opinion either.

At any rate, I said nothing about invidious discrimination, I merely said they do discriminate and someone eventually objects to discrimination, regardless of what the majority happens to think of them.

Well, so what? Virtually every law "discriminates" in the sense that you are using that word. And someone may (and usually does) object to a law whether it "discriminates" or not. So I don't see how the possibility, or even probability, that someone may object to a law is a meaningful critique of it. That's the nature of democracy.

Even now there are those who object to the fact that social security won't be nearly the deal it was for prior generations. We endorse or allow certain types of discrimination and not others. It's still discrimination.

Again, so what? Our society couldn't function without such "discrimination." We wouldn't want it to function without "discrimination." It's a good thing.

What is popular, here or elsewhere, isn't really germaine to the discussion. As has been pointed out earlier in fallacious support of the DMA, most of the U.S. appears to oppose allowing gays to marry. That isn't shaping my opinion either.

Well, there are positions that are in play, such as gay marriage, and then there are positions that are so utterly beyond the pale that virtually no one takes them seriously, such as most of what the Libertarian Party advocates.

> The only way to write a law allowing same sex
> marriage is to allow anyone to marry anyone
> else. This is a solution to anyone worried about
> estate tax. The tax law allows transfer of
> estates to spouses tax-free. A widow can marry
> her sons and daughters and thereby transfer her
> estate tax-free from generation to generation.

This is just silly. If this was possible, then why aren't fathers marrying their daughters right now to avoid estate tax? Why aren't mothers marrying their sons to avoid estate tax? Do you think that by extending civil marriage to include same-sex couples, all the rules will somehow be thrown out the window?

>Well, so what? Virtually every law
>"discriminates" in the sense that you are using
>that word. And someone may (and usually does)
>object to a law whether it "discriminates" or
>not. So I don't see how the possibility, or even
>probability, that someone may object to a law is
>a meaningful critique of it. That's the nature of
>democracy.

How about a couple that lives together, raises children, etc. but does not want to marry for ideological or religious reasons. They are deprived of the >400 (on average) state and >1000 federal benefits associated with marriage. If they want those benefits, they must marry. So attaching these benefits to marriage is a way of coercing people into entering a certain lifestyle. The government can be seen as promoting a certain lifestyle (marriage) over other lifestyles (living together). Does the government have a right to do that in this particular situation? What are the benefits to the state in doing this? I would like to see a heterosexual couple test this issue in the courts.

Until today, I actually believed that this site wanted a legitimate discussion of this issue. I no longer believe that. The discrimination theory has been ordained and accepted as the starting point. Thus, this is now a party meeting for the sake of constructing an ideological arugment for the sake of attack against the "bigots" who oppose you. Go ahead.

A cautionary note. I discussed the AIDS epidemic at some length for a reason. I meant to pose this dilemma: In the early 70s, the gay press trumpetted the bathhouse phenomenon as a political advance. It was purported to be the opening of a new chapter in the liberation of humans. Straights were numbskulls for not seeing this. And, of course, anybody who expressed reservations was either a bigot, or a confused and malevant moralist determined to spoil everybody's fun and enlightment.

Give how wrong the gay press and the gay activist community were in this instance, I am confounded that in a very short time the gay community has simply stepped forward with a new set of demands supported by exactly the same arguments. The AIDS epidemic could, I think, be seen as a cautionary tale about a community that made a very serious mistake. The response could (and maybe ought) to have been: "Let's lay low for a while until we figure out what went wrong. Maybe the people we thought were bigots actually had a point."

Instead, the entire cycle has started again. I won't comment again. It's pointless. As I said, this has now devolved into a party meeting for the sake of developing a strategy. Go ahead and wage war against the nasty "bigots."

Since marriage benefits are based on the possibility of having children together, why not only allow people to marry who can actually have children together - whether they do or not? Perhaps one can stretch that definition to allow conventionally infertile male-female matches if there is any chance that scientific advances can enable their genetic material to combine to produce a child. After all, that's what marriage has always been about - producing children to continue the race. This is the reason for incest prohibition.
"Gays" are overwhelmingly leftist. Their whole viewpoint has condemned marriage as oppressive, until they saw the possibility of getting government benefits. The issue stinks of hypocrisy and self-pity.

What strategy did we develop? Could someone fill me in?

If this is 'the party' I don't have much hope for party unity.

"Since marriage benefits are based on the possibility of having children together, why not only allow people to marry who can actually have children together - whether they do or not?"

If that's what you think, why not restrict marriage to couples who _have_ produced children? Or at the very least, the bride to be has to be knocked-up. That's a position I can respect, your "whether they do or not" seems like a hypocritical weasel clause. If marriage is about producing crotch fruit, then let's demand that couples do so before they get married.

"If marriage is about producing crotch fruit..."

What a godawful statement.

"Indeed, there is not a legal slippery slope as the courts could easily draw and enforce distinctions between incest or bigamy and same sex marriage. "

Based on what? Are you suggesting that the courts draw those distinctions all by their lonesome, without any guidance from existing statute (since, presumably, existing statute allows only one male/one female marriages, and the court is explicitly overturning it)?

If you invalidate state laws calling for one male/one female marriage and none other, based on a concept of a Constitutional right that (a) does not explicitly appear anywhere in the document and therefore (b) offers no evidence of whether or not this right extends to this group or that group or that other group to do X, Y, and Z.

In short, you have only the court's word for it that people have a substantive right to marry one person of the same gender, but not the right to marry two people of any gender. And, based on existing text and precedent, the court is perfectly free to decide that the other way without any contradiction, with exactly the same justification. Obviously, the court can draw and enforce distictions of that kind, but there's no reason for us to be confident that it will - there's nothing in the existing Constitution or law that requires or even suggests that it do so.

How about a couple that lives together, raises children, etc. but does not want to marry for ideological or religious reasons. They are deprived of the >400 (on average) state and >1000 federal benefits associated with marriage.

Yes. They are also relieved of the responsibilities that accompany legal marriage. It is presumably their reluctance to assume those responsibilities that causes them to not want to marry.

I mean, do you also think it's unfair that those who do not want to join the military are deprived of the legal rights that accompany that choice (free health care, free college education, preference for civil service jobs, etc.)?

If they want those benefits, they must marry. So attaching these benefits to marriage is a way of coercing people into entering a certain lifestyle. The government can be seen as promoting a certain lifestyle (marriage) over other lifestyles (living together). Does the government have a right to do that in this particular situation?

Yes.

"Spina's wife reacted by trying to get their marriage annulled. Among her legal arguments is the claim that Paul Spina was always psychologically a woman and, therefore, violated Kentucky's law prohibiting same-sex marriages when they said their "I do's."

FWIK about the Catholic Church's canon law on annulments, I've seen annulments granted on much shakier facts-on-the-ground. Regardless of your views on gay marriage, if you marry someone thinking they're Gender A, but really they want to be Gender B, then the marriage wasn't entered into with full understanding, committment & consent.

Comments are Closed.