Lieberman's First Good Idea in a While

[CamEdwards]

I disagree that marriage is non-beneficial to society. There's been a clear link between marriage and poverty, drug use, etc. Basically, if you're the product of a loving marriage, chances are you're going to be better off.

Here's a story for the link nazis out there.

[astralhaze]

Actually, that agrees with my point, although I didn't phrase it very well. I said in and of itself marriage is neither good nor bad. I'm not saying marriage is bad. As long as the couple is loving and provides a supportive environment for the child, among other things, it is beneficial. Statisticaly it is more likely that marriage is more likely to provide this, but that doesn't mean it is because of marriage.

[John Galt]

and (building off what astralhaze said), no study that I have seen compares married couples with non-married commited domestic partnerships (they usually lump all non-married people together). Also, lots of the reasons why non-traditional arrangements hurt children is because of society's prejudices. While those prejudices do exist, they were also used to dejustify interracial marriage.

And ultimately, the legislation in question is just about health benefits. I don't think anyone has explained why married couples should receive health care coverage more than non-married couples. The risk of fraud is no higher than other groups (mostly based on the few number of people that use these benefits at the companies that offer them). And it is the "right" thing to do.

[Fritz]

Can morality be reflected in statistics?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Actually, that agrees with my point, although I didn't phrase it very well. I said in and of itself marriage is neither good nor bad. I'm not saying marriage is bad. As long as the couple is loving and provides a supportive environment for the child, among other things, it is beneficial. Statisticaly it is more likely that marriage is more likely to provide this, but that doesn't mean it is because of marriage.

Aren't most same-sex relationships childless? I know that's not always the case but I'd assume it's a significant majority that don't have children. So therefore, same-sex couples are just not going to have the same impact on children as married couples, or heterosexual partners, and will therefore, from a child rearing standpoint, have significantly less impact on future generations.

Tarkus

[Craptacular]

Astralhaze, I'm not arguing with your statement about whether or not marriage is beneficial. I'm arguing that your example does nothing to support your statement.

"In and of itself, the institution of marriage is not beneficial or non-beneficial."

In the example you gave, the relational status is completely irrelevant. However, this does not prove that the relational status has no effect.

A similar comparison would be:

Blacks are neither more athletic nor less athletic than whites:
A: Deion Sanders
B: Stephen Hawking

There are so many other variables involved in that example that you can't prove or disprove any correlation between race and athleticism. There may very well be one. The only good way to see the effect (or prove that there is no effect) of one variable is to eliminate or reduce the differences in other variables.

[SFL Cat]

Personally, I think the decision on whether benefits should be paid out in these situations should be left to each individual company. The government should stay completely out of the equation.

Personally, I don't think non-traditional relationships (i.e. gay relationships and non-married cohabitation) should carry the same weight in society as a traditional heterosexual marriage.

Despite all the "we're partners for life" comments I see from gay folks, homosexuals, as a group, are notoriously promiscuous, even moreso than most heterosexuals. You can argue if you want, but there are numerous studies that show gays have a much higher number of sexual partners, on average, than heterosexuals. This is one reason why AIDS exploded so rapidly in the homosexual community.

About heterosexual cohabitation...let's face it, most people avoid getting married so that they don't have to deal with messy legal entanglements and obligations when they decide to break off the relationship and move on to the next one. It's especially sad for children who are produced in such relationships. I knew one girl who had three kids, each from a different live-in. The oldest had never even met his father. That's sad, and it also doesn't bode well for future generations.

Despite what people say, if the government gets involved in defining "domestic partnership," I do see the potential for a runaway, ever expanding definition of the term. For example, if same-sex (i.e. gay) relationships are granted equal status to marriage, what's to stop a pair of same-sex friends who live together in a platonic relationship from demanding such rights at a later time? Let me cite an example, I roomed with my best-friend for about five years. He probably knew me better than anyone, my family members included. We basically split the rent, utility bills and groceries. We even helped each other out financially every now and then when one of us came up short. Why wouldn't this kind of arrangement be considered a domestic partnership? Is it just because we weren't sharing body fluids? You might think my example is ridiculous, but 30 years ago, most people would have said the same thing about a homosexual union.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by John Galt
And ultimately, the legislation in question is just about health benefits. I don't think anyone has explained why married couples should receive health care coverage more than non-married couples.

I think that making this a blanket practice of the federal government for all federal employees is wrong. I think I explained that, and it would seem to refute your assertion that no one has explained it, even if you don't like my response.

Originally posted by John Galt
The risk of fraud is no higher than other groups (mostly based on the few number of people that use these benefits at the companies that offer them).

I've seen at least three people call for some sort of support behind your claims here, and you have yet to offer them. Even people who agree with you in principle have stated this claim is unlikely to be true.

Originally posted by John Galt
And it is the "right" thing to do.

Well, if John Galt says it...

[Radii]

Originally posted by SFL Cat
Personally, I think the decision on whether benefits should be paid out in these situations should be left to each individual company. The government should stay completely out of the equation.

Although the discussion has strayed a bit, this really is the crux of the issue I think. The moral and marriage vs non-marriage is certainly interesting but this is the original point.

I think based on the various things we've seen brought up here it's a pretty complicated issue.

Based on lynchjm's comments based on his experience at Aetna(hi, btw, the last three company's I've worked for all had Aetna and/or US Helathcare as major clients! ), it would appear that the liability based on fraud/mis-use of the system would fall to the federal government(the company in this case). I assume that there are signifigant studies on the level of risk here and how confidant people are on the liability should play a major factor I would assume. There's also the cost of simply covering more people from the federal perspective.

The other side of the coin is that apparently many many private corporations have made the decision to provide health benefits for non-married couples. I think if this is becoming more of the norm, then it is the responsibility of the government to at least closely examine providing a similar level of benefits as the private sector.

That's the optimist and pragmatist in me.

The realist and pessimist in me realizes this will become a gay/straight debate on the senate floor very very quickly and I don't think this country is ready to recognize homosexuals a single step beyond what the supreme court would mandate it does yet.

Really the debate we *should* be having IMHO is a financial one. That being said, what its turned into here is certainly interesting, I'm just not convinced it has any bearing on whether such a bill should be passed or not.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Craptacular
Astralhaze, I'm not arguing with your statement about whether or not marriage is beneficial. I'm arguing that your example does nothing to support your statement.

"In and of itself, the institution of marriage is not beneficial or non-beneficial."

In the example you gave, the relational status is completely irrelevant. However, this does not prove that the relational status has no effect.

A similar comparison would be:

Blacks are neither more athletic nor less athletic than whites:
A: Deion Sanders
B: Stephen Hawking

There are so many other variables involved in that example that you can't prove or disprove any correlation between race and athleticism. There may very well be one. The only good way to see the effect (or prove that there is no effect) of one variable is to eliminate or reduce the differences in other variables.

That is not a comparable analogy I don't think. I think one that would fit more closely would be:

In and of itself, skin color does not endow nor not endow athletic ability
A Larry Bird
B Fat Albert

Nevertheless, your point is well taken. I probably overstated my case. The only point I was trying, and failing, to make is that being married does not automaticaly make a couple contribute to society, nor does not being married automaticaly mean that the couple is detrimental to society. I agree completely with you actually. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this subject could ever be studied in a controlled enough manner to make it meaningful.

[Craptacular]

In my original example, I thought of Jason Sehorn as one case, and Fat Albert was the first thing to pop in my head for the other.

[astralhaze]

LOL

Deranged minds think alike I suppose.

[lynchjm24]

Doesn't Joe look like a complete idiot with that box of coffee?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Cuckoo
One of my points was that states only act as ethical radars for the people that inhabit them. Some states are far more progressive (i.e. Vermont, California) than others (i.e. Oklahoma) and should be able to legislate as they see fit to best suit the values of that state. That's they beauty of our system of government (at least the beauty I see). In a world filled with speech such as "If you don't like it, go live in another country", we can say "If you don't like it, go live in another state." We have a system that accomodates SO many different viewpoints. What is the problem with some states resticting their view of marriage and the legal protection it provides, doing so in that light while others may not do so as strictly?

Cuckoo, at the risk of splitting hairs, I think there are a few different issues here.

-At the highest level, there is an issue of "should the government at any level have any role in recognizing the institution of marriage, restricting it in any way, or providing differential treatment under the laws for those who are married?"

-At a second level, there is a matter (largely undiscussed here) of whether government involvement should be at the federal level, or reserved to "the several states"

-And at an even lower level, there is the matter of "if the states have the power to regulate marriages (or at least those they choose to recognize), what should they do with that power?"


I see your argument above (that the states properly act to express the opinions of their residents) as derived from the middle item above - the "structure of government" matter, so to speak. I have no problem with that position, in a vacuum.

But I think a proper discussion of most policy issues needs to address not only what authority should a body be granted, but also what the body ought to do with said authority.


So, while not disagreeing with the content of your argument, I'd just extend it further:

If the states are to be the entities that recognize marriage as a government-recognized institution, then in my judgment they should not place any restrictions on which consenting adults choose to enter into that institution.


As for Fritz... I think the incest case is an interesting one. I'm stilll trying to think through whether there is a sufficiently compelling public interest to prevent kin from marrying. Instinct certainly suggests that there is, but is it really relevant to marriage itself, or to procreation? I'm somewhat stuck there. Seems tough to argue that marrying your sister ought to be legal... but I'm also having some trouble getting comfortable with the converse. Still stuck, I am.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Cuckoo, at the risk of splitting hairs, I think there are a few different issues here.

-At the highest level, there is an issue of "should the government at any level have any role in recognizing the institution of marriage, restricting it in any way, or providing differential treatment under the laws for those who are married?"

-At a second level, there is a matter (largely undiscussed here) of whether government involvement should be at the federal level, or reserved to "the several states"

-And at an even lower level, there is the matter of "if the states have the power to regulate marriages (or at least those they choose to recognize), what should they do with that power?"


I see your argument above (that the states properly act to express the opinions of their residents) as derived from the middle item above - the "structure of government" matter, so to speak. I have no problem with that position, in a vacuum.

But I think a proper discussion of most policy issues needs to address not only what authority should a body be granted, but also what the body ought to do with said authority.


So, while not disagreeing with the content of your argument, I'd just extend it further:

If the states are to be the entities that recognize marriage as a government-recognized institution, then in my judgment they should not place any restrictions on which consenting adults choose to enter into that institution.

I don't think you're necessarily splitting hairs. You're simply further delineated the levels of the issue, which in my opinion has been done, just not in such form.

In regard to your "highest level", I'm not sure how you can answer this question with no. I would assume it's for that reason that this subsection of the issue has not been specifically discussed. I'm not sure many would say no. A government, as I have stated before, is only an agent of its citizens, given the task of recognizing the institutions they place in high regard. This is not even to address the issue that someone else brought up (Cam, I think) that involves immense societal advantages of marriage.

Your "middle level" is one that I attempted to address, although admittedly in but one or two sentences.

The "lower level" is actually where I believe the majority of my argument was centered. If it is taken as a given that states can and should be one such entity (the entity in regards to the federal/state question) to recognize marriage as an institution, then they must place restrictions on it to preserve is sanctity (not in a religious sense, but one of societal value). Our society is one that is largely based on a morals derived from Judeo-Christian teachings, but I believe it goes very, very deeply beyond that. One could argue that as higher-thinking animals, we have the capacity to value things such as monogamy, having logically concluded that it is conducent to the creation of a peaceful and prosperous society. Without going too far into this argument that marriage is beneficial, I would just say that our society, as a whole, has become accepting of that institution and allowed it to be embedded long before the United States government went so far as to legally recognize it. As to defining it to "one man, one woman", I'm not attempting to argue, as others have done and which I have certainly been tempted, whether it is "wrong" or "right".

All I've said, and I maintain this point, is that the government, in this case a local or state, having the need to recognize the institution of marriage legally as beneficial, as an integral part of society's support system, and as an embedded philosophy of valued behavior, must reflect this value system in its definition of the institution as it is the society itself who dictates this definition. (Wow, that was a really long sentence with a lot of commas. )

At this point in time, and in my mind, for the forseeable future, marriage is and should be defined by state or local governments as a union between a man and a woman.

Just to backstep a little bit, Quik: I'm assuming, perhaps you've stated, that you don't believe that the federal government should offer health benefits to domestic partners, but that it should allow these domestic partners to marry, or are you saying that the government shouldn't recognize marriage in any capacity and should offer spousal-type benefits to anyone claiming to cohabitate.

I understand that you are arguing the finer points of the issue, but I was just wondering how you were applying that to the initial discussion of Lieberman's legislation.


*Edited to get that stupid italics to work right.

[stkelly52]

When I was in the US Air Force, I knew two couples who were "married" because you make more money if you are married (housing allowances, extra money for seperation etc). THey lived in the same house and were basically roommates. By allowing this type of plan, these kinds of fraud become 10 times easier. People would start claiming their roommate as their significant other, and there is no way to prove them wrong.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Cuckoo
Just to backstep a little bit, Quik: I'm assuming, perhaps you've stated, that you don't believe that the federal government should offer health benefits to domestic partners, but that it should allow these domestic partners to marry, or are you saying that the government shouldn't recognize marriage in any capacity and should offer spousal-type benefits to anyone claiming to cohabitate.

I realize that matters of principle are easier to argue that matters of practicality. And I confess, in the practical, my view is difficult to hold.

However, I guess what I would say is this-- if the government, at any level, is going to endow certain privileges and benefits upon individuals who enter into a certain type of private contract with one another, then the government ought not discriminate among the types of people who can enter into such an agreement with one another. To have the government simply defer to one or more religious institutions to be the judges on who may and may not enter into such agreements seems inappropriate to me.

I realize that as a matter or practicality, people who are married are different under the law in many ways (treated differently for taxes, for estate purposes, and in legal evidentiary proceedings, to name a few). But what is it that separates these two people who have made a binding commitment to one another from two other people who have also made such a commitment through other means? Is it their faith? Is it the judeo-christian principles that we inherently adopt through our system of moral laws? Are those appropriate foundations for a governmental differentiation?

So, on your direct question - no, I don't like benefits for partners. I think the need for "partnership" agreements is a second-best solution, and belies the fact that the real injustice is in the government not recognizing that consenting adults ought to make their own decisions about whom to love, whom to commit to, and whom to marry. Personally, I think that the most practical way to accomplish this is to leave the various governmental recognitions of marriage in place, but simply adopt a new vision of marriage that does not discriminate by any particular factor (again, among consenting adults). But if it took eliminating the differential treatment under all laws to eliminate the disparity, I would still suggest that's better than the system we have now.

I don't disagree with you as a matter of politcs- clearly this is a minority position. You're absolutely right that the various elected representatives of government at several levels are serving their voters appropriately by upholding the majority view. I don't argue that point whatsoever. At the same time, I can still say that as a private citizen, I can simultaneously hold my opinion (and it's nothing mroe than that) about what a government ought to do, and still recognize that the system works perfectly fine in rejecting my minority opinion.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by stkelly52
When I was in the US Air Force, I knew two couples who were "married" because you make more money if you are married (housing allowances, extra money for seperation etc). THey lived in the same house and were basically roommates. By allowing this type of plan, these kinds of fraud become 10 times easier. People would start claiming their roommate as their significant other, and there is no way to prove them wrong.

No, they won't. Just ask John Galt. They're all honest like him. At least that's what his company told him.

Tarkus

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Cuckoo
I think that making this a blanket practice of the federal government for all federal employees is wrong. I think I explained that, and it would seem to refute your assertion that no one has explained it, even if you don't like my response.



I've seen at least three people call for some sort of support behind your claims here, and you have yet to offer them. Even people who agree with you in principle have stated this claim is unlikely to be true.



Well, if John Galt says it...

I'm sorry - my last post was poorly worded. I meant to say that nobody had applied the anti-marriage arguments to the health care benefit context. As I went on in my next sentence to answer one of the arguments being made, I didn't mean to say that no arguments were being made.

As for your argument, Cuckoo - I don't think it makes sense for this to be a "state or local" issue given these are federal employees. Why you say giving these benefits on the federal level is "wrong" is not entirely clear to me.

As for fraud, I guess I didn't explain my reply well. There aren't studies per se because obviously fraud is an almost impossible subject to gain accurate figures on (because if you knew about the fraud, you would stop it). Rather, I said my firm found the risk of fraud to be low because so few people used the benefits. One would think that fraud would increase the number of people applying over the anticipated amount, but almost every firm/company ours researched found fewer people enrolled than was expected. This could be based on faulty expectations, but it seems to diminish the argument for fraud. It also shows the impact of fraud to be small because so few people are involved.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by stkelly52
When I was in the US Air Force, I knew two couples who were "married" because you make more money if you are married (housing allowances, extra money for seperation etc). THey lived in the same house and were basically roommates. By allowing this type of plan, these kinds of fraud become 10 times easier. People would start claiming their roommate as their significant other, and there is no way to prove them wrong.

Actually your argument proves why fraud is just as likely for married couples. With marriage all you need is a piece of paper (and one that is rarely checked). With domestic partnerships, there is a lot of paperwork proof needed and by signing the documents, you open yourself to all sorts of criminal penalties. I think those penalties are quite severe and the paperwork alone seems to have kept the enrollment down for domestic partnership benefits.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Tarkus
No, they won't. Just ask John Galt. They're all honest like him. At least that's what his company told him.

Tarkus

Stop being a troll - you have been rude to me over and over and over again and your PMs were just nasty. Go away!

[Cuckoo]

Wow, I have a lot to respond to, and I've gotten much deeper into this debate than I originally intended. It's the reason that I usually don't get into these because by the time it's all said and done, you end up clarifying your position a hundred times and arguing points you never originally made. Not to say that is the case here, in fact just the opposite. I've enjoyed this discussion so far. First to Quik:

Originally posted by QuikSand
I realize that matters of principle are easier to argue that matters of practicality. And I confess, in the practical, my view is difficult to hold.

However, I guess what I would say is this-- if the government, at any level, is going to endow certain privileges and benefits upon individuals who enter into a certain type of private contract with one another, then the government ought not discriminate among the types of people who can enter into such an agreement with one another. To have the government simply defer to one or more religious institutions to be the judges on who may and may not enter into such agreements seems inappropriate to me.

Sometimes matters of principle are far more difficult to argue. In this case, for example, several people have different opinions on what the proper decision should be. Matters of practicality can at least be supported and debated. Often times, opinions cannot. We could discuss for hours on end what is practical but discussions of principle usually stop somewhere after both parties have stated their views.

I'm definitely not saying that the government should defer to one or more religious institutions to be the judges on who should be married. I'm only saying that those religious institutions over time have influenced our beliefs on what is proper and have created an atmosphere in which the vast majority of people within the United States don't feel that the benefits of marriage should extend to those who cohabitate, especially if they happen to be of the same sex. One could argue endlessly about whether that is "right" or "wrong", but I simply say that it is the case and that is why the government sets the standards that it does upon the institution of marriage.

Originally posted by QuikSand
I realize that as a matter or practicality, people who are married are different under the law in many ways (treated differently for taxes, for estate purposes, and in legal evidentiary proceedings, to name a few). But what is it that separates these two people who have made a binding commitment to one another from two other people who have also made such a commitment through other means? Is it their faith? Is it the judeo-christian principles that we inherently adopt through our system of moral laws? Are those appropriate foundations for a governmental differentiation?

I think you answered your first question within your question. What separates them is that they have made the commitment through other means. Just as a person can say that they are a teacher, they could not be employed as such without recognition by the state agency that they are licensed as such. I realize the obvious difference in my metaphor. It was used only as a surface comparison.

I would say that it is certainly not their faith that separates them because governments do not require a declaration of anything religious in order to be married. But, it is the principles that we adopt through moral and practical laws. We as a society, noting obviously that everyone may not agree, value a system in which family units make up our communities. Whether you agree or disagree, family units consist of two parents. It is not that this is the only option, but that this is the one sanctioned by our society because it feels it best suited for child rearing and the furtherance of a peaceful and organized nation. Therefore, I don't see it as a negative (discrimination) but more of a positive and certainly a relevant foundation for governmental differentiation.

Originally posted by QuikSand
So, on your direct question - no, I don't like benefits for partners. I think the need for "partnership" agreements is a second-best solution, and belies the fact that the real injustice is in the government not recognizing that consenting adults ought to make their own decisions about whom to love, whom to commit to, and whom to marry. Personally, I think that the most practical way to accomplish this is to leave the various governmental recognitions of marriage in place, but simply adopt a new vision of marriage that does not discriminate by any particular factor (again, among consenting adults). But if it took eliminating the differential treatment under all laws to eliminate the disparity, I would still suggest that's better than the system we have now.

I don't disagree with you as a matter of politcs- clearly this is a minority position. You're absolutely right that the various elected representatives of government at several levels are serving their voters appropriately by upholding the majority view. I don't argue that point whatsoever. At the same time, I can still say that as a private citizen, I can simultaneously hold my opinion (and it's nothing mroe than that) about what a government ought to do, and still recognize that the system works perfectly fine in rejecting my minority opinion.

Well, I don't know if I would say that the system works perfectly fine. One could argue that by rejecting the minority opinion, it absolutely does not work perfectly. Unfortunately, though, it's what we have. I think, overall, we agree that it typically works pretty well. I certainly respect the opinion of anyone who feels that the government should allow a more "open" sytem of marriage. I happen to not agree. I feel that marriage is important in more ways than are just religious and the current system is the correct one. Luckily for me, at this time society agrees with me. In the future, it may not.

I knew from the beginning, Quik, that we likely disagreed on that point. I was only trying to offer the opinion of why Lieberman's proposed legislation was not as John Galt calls it a "good idea". I've enjoyed the discussion nevertheless.



Now, on to the afforementioned Mr. Galt:

Originally posted by John Galt
As for your argument, Cuckoo - I don't think it makes sense for this to be a "state or local" issue given these are federal employees. Why you say giving these benefits on the federal level is "wrong" is not entirely clear to me.

Hmmm... Why not? I'm saying that the government is an agency of the people and should reflect the values of its citizens. On a federal level, the consensus is certainly not there on what is the "right" thing to do in this situation. On a local or state level, it may be. I think it makes tremendous sense for it to be decided on a smaller level where you can more accurately further the beliefs of the residents. You are less likely (see previous comment to Quik) to disregard a minority opinion.

Originally posted by John Galt
As for fraud, I guess I didn't explain my reply well. There aren't studies per se because obviously fraud is an almost impossible subject to gain accurate figures on (because if you knew about the fraud, you would stop it). Rather, I said my firm found the risk of fraud to be low because so few people used the benefits. One would think that fraud would increase the number of people applying over the anticipated amount, but almost every firm/company ours researched found fewer people enrolled than was expected. This could be based on faulty expectations, but it seems to diminish the argument for fraud. It also shows the impact of fraud to be small because so few people are involved.

I agree that when a small number of people use a system, the actual number of abuses will certainly be smaller than one in which a great many utilize it. However, I don't see how one can deny the obviously weaker ability to monitor this system than the one currently in place. And I'm also not completely sure that fraud is an impossible subject to gain accurate figures on. The frauds that have been discovered and stopped could be counted and show a percentage comparison in one system to another. In a slightly less reliable manner, frauds that have been even suspected or investigated could be compared by percentage as well. I'd think that a domestic partner system would allow for a much larger percentage of potential abuse.

[Radii]

Originally posted by Cuckoo
Hmmm... Why not? I'm saying that the government is an agency of the people and should reflect the values of its citizens. On a federal level, the consensus is certainly not there on what is the "right" thing to do in this situation. On a local or state level, it may be. I think it makes tremendous sense for it to be decided on a smaller level where you can more accurately further the beliefs of the residents. You are less likely (see previous comment to Quik) to disregard a minority opinion.

I'm making an assumption here that we're still talking about the benefit plans themselves, if this is in regard to something else just totally ignore me

The benefits would be for federal employees. The benefits plans are thus paid for and maintained by the federal government. Because of this, it must be done at a federal level.

A good example here would be postal workers I believe. They are federal employees. Therefore their benefits cannot be dictated by state and local governments.

[Cuckoo]

Nope, Radii, you're right on. My point was that it shouldn't be done at a federal level. Since there is no other way to do it for federal employees, in my opinion it shouldn't be done because of the reasons I've stated.