TitanTiger 20,472 Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 On 10/27/2019 at 8:53 PM, Grumps said: I don't see why people can't have whatever legal contracts they want to have. I agree with Brad that as long as their contracts don't affect me (this would include via government involvement like entitlement programs) then I don't have a problem with it from a legal or government standpoint. Mostly because we never leave it to just them having legal contracts and those contracts always end up affecting other people - compelling them to materially participate in events and such involving these "contracts" in ways that violate conscience and religious beliefs. I'd love a "live and let live" attitude about most of this stuff, but that attitude only seems to prevail until they get the legal status they desire and they have the power, then it becomes "we'll live this way and legally compel you to use your time and talent to help us celebrate it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: The thing is, it does affect your life eventually. Because the second we make something legal in this country, we bring into it all sorts of other entitlements extracted from private citizens, compelling them to participate in events, ceremonies and such. I know that's always been the tagline - "how does _____ marriage affect you?", but then we see time and again that no one is content to have their newfound official marital status and to interact and do business with those who think it's hunky-dory. They want you to come cater their wedding reception, make custom items celebrating it, utilize your time and artistic talents to memorialize it, use your spaces to hold the events and so on. And that's why people resist. Yes, it's because we don't think marriage is just "anything you want it to be," but it's also because experience tells us that the way this plays out is never, "live and let live." It will be pitched that way to gain acceptance, then weaponized against anyone who dissents once it's gained legal traction. I just don't think it's that complicated, and I'm ok with our definition of marriage being broader than just one man and one woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 49 minutes ago, channonc said: I just don't think it's that complicated, and I'm ok with our definition of marriage being broader than just one man and one woman. But the problem is, it is that complicated. Or at least it's been made to be that complicated by people who aren't content with just being left alone and permitted to make whatever arrangements they wish. It just never stays at that level. It inevitably moves from "live and let live" to forcing people through legal compulsion and threats of fines and losing their livelihoods to materially participate in the promotion and celebration of their life choices. I think you'd see a whole lot less antagonism over these things if the people proclaiming "live and let live" practiced what they preach. But they don't - at least not once they think they've got control of the levers of power in culture and government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 42 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: But the problem is, it is that complicated. Or at least it's been made to be that complicated by people who aren't content with just being left alone and permitted to make whatever arrangements they wish. It just never stays at that level. It inevitably moves from "live and let live" to forcing people through legal compulsion and threats of fines and losing their livelihoods to materially participate in the promotion and celebration of their life choices. I think you'd see a whole lot less antagonism over these things if the people proclaiming "live and let live" practiced what they preach. But they don't - at least not once they think they've got control of the levers of power in culture and government. Very, very seldom happens. It’s news when it does and gets glamorized by people who can’t “live and let live. “. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, alexava said: Very, very seldom happens. It’s news when it does and gets glamorized by people who can’t “live and let live. “. It's been happening frequently ever since 2015. There are multiple court cases working their way up to the SCOTUS about it. They just issued a narrow decision this past year on one of the cases in Colorado. It's not some isolated situation or one that's going away any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 On 10/27/2019 at 8:53 PM, Grumps said: I don't see why people can't have whatever legal contracts they want to have. I agree with Brad that as long as their contracts don't affect me (this would include via government involvement like entitlement programs) then I don't have a problem with it from a legal or government standpoint. Fun fact: In Louisiana, it’s against public policy for persons to contractually waive interim spousal support in a prenuptial agreement - any clauses to that effect are void. In other words married persons cannot enter into an agreement that says “If one of us files for divorce in the future, neither of us will be obligated to pay financial support to the other person during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.” These agreements are void as a matter of law. This is but just one example of how the legal contours of marriage often do take into account public policy and societal concerns. But more importantly, it also illustrates that “freedom of contract” isn’t necessarily free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 53 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Fun fact: In Louisiana, it’s against public policy for persons to contractually waive interim spousal support in a prenuptial agreement - any clauses to that effect are void. In other words married persons cannot enter into an agreement that says “If one of us files for divorce in the future, neither of us will be obligated to pay financial support to the other person during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.” These agreements are void as a matter of law. This is but just one example of how the legal contours of marriage often do take into account public policy and societal concerns. But more importantly, it also illustrates that “freedom of contract” isn’t necessarily free. What is the "societal" benefit in such a case? Depending on circumstances, it seems ripe for abuse. Presumably, depending on the length of that period, a dependent spouse with no income would have to take out a loan to support themselves and their children? I guess if you are a woman in LA, you better arrange for a vocation sufficient to support yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,601 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 On 10/29/2019 at 7:55 AM, channonc said: I'm a live and let live person. As long as it isn't ethically challenged (dating your employee, etc.) or legally out of bounds (children, participating in non-consensual sex-- rape, etc.) then I'm generally ok with it as it doesn't effect my life or my marriage. I have watched the Sister Wives show on TLC ever since it came out, mostly with a fascination of a lifestyle I wouldn't be interested in living, but wanting to better understand why it might appeal to others. So you ARE a Libertarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 43 minutes ago, homersapien said: Presumably, depending on the length of that period, a dependent spouse with no income would have to take out a loan to support themselves and their children? Yes. That is one of the societal concerns underscoring the public policy against such waivers in marriage. It is fine (not against public policy) to waive “final” support though - spousal support after obtaining a judgment of divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said: Yes. That is one of the societal concerns underscoring the public policy against such waivers in marriage. It is fine (not against public policy) to waive “final” support though - spousal support after obtaining a judgment of divorce. Honestly, I think I completely misunderstood the actual meaning of the law. It actually protects the "dependent spouse" by not allowing a prenuptial agreement to waive support for that spouse during the pendency of the divorce. Presumably a judge can still require such support by a ruling. So I was wrong about the potential of abuse. It actually makes a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 38 minutes ago, homersapien said: It actually protects the "dependent spouse" by not allowing a prenuptial agreement to waive support for that spouse during the pendency of the divorce. Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.