Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 112

Thread: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    I said its both, point is simple as the polls for civil unions prove. If you scrub "marriage" from government's lawbooks books and change to civil union, does anything really change? All rights and benefits would be the same, would it not? Its putting the meaning of marriage back where it belongs, between the two individuals.
    I really don't have a problem with that. The problem is BOTH sides are so entrenched in marriage, it won't happen. Those that are married don't want to give up that status and those without it, want it.

    It should have been done decades ago, however, as you see both sides don't want to push the issue at all in that regard.

  2. #52
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    Think you'd be surprised. The church would still refer to as marriage. The state license would say civil unions. I could care less whats on my "marriage license."
    I'm not concerned with what the church would refer to it as since marriage doesn't belong to the church. To say that it is is not only inaccurate but just wishful thinking.

  3. #53
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    I said its both, point is simple as the polls for civil unions prove. If you scrub "marriage" from government's lawbooks books and change to civil union, does anything really change? All rights and benefits would be the same, would it not? Its putting the meaning of marriage back where it belongs, between the two individuals.
    Let me ask you something. Despite your belief that marriage is a religious institution, why do you suppose everybody else wants to take part in it?

  4. #54
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-16 @ 07:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,526

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Let me ask you something. Despite your belief that marriage is a religious institution, why do you suppose everybody else wants to take part in it?
    The history of marriage is either a religious or private contractual agreement between two families. The only reason this is debate is because, at least in the US, the government stepped in and begun to "license" marriage in the mid-1800s.

    Why do people take part of it? Well, guess its to have a committed relationship recognized. Further supports my proposal. Scrub "marriage" out of federal law, replace it with "civil union" and that accomplishes that desire for recognition for everyone, regardless of their sexuality will be recognized equally under the law and receive the same benefits. Let the institutions who conduct "marriage ceremonies" decide on their requirements to perform them.

  5. #55
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    The history of marriage is either a religious or private contractual agreement between two families. The only reason this is debate is because, at least in the US, the government stepped in and begun to "license" marriage in the mid-1800s.
    So now historically it's a state and federal contractual agreement. If you're going to use the historical fallacy then you have to use all of the history, not cherry pick the parts that are convenient to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    Why do people take part of it? Well, guess its to have a committed relationship recognized. Further supports my proposal. Scrub "marriage" out of federal law, replace it with "civil union" and that accomplishes that desire for recognition for everyone, regardless of their sexuality will be recognized equally under the law and receive the same benefits. Let the institutions who conduct "marriage ceremonies" decide on their requirements to perform them.
    Intriguing offer, but I don't see how that does me any good, so...no. The water fountain the white people are using is a lot nicer and cleaner looking.

  6. #56
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-16 @ 07:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,526

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    So now historically it's a state and federal contractual agreement. If you're going to use the historical fallacy then you have to use all of the history, not cherry pick the parts that are convenient to you.
    Ummm, its not. The lines blurred when the church was heavily intertwined with government. There's no fallacy in what I claimed. It was either a private agreement (as in no government involvement) or church sanctioned. It really didn't become a federal issue until the mid 1900s that the federal government got involved. You probably look up what "fallacy" means as you clearly misused it here. Look it up marriage license history and when the federal government got involved in its recognition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Intriguing offer, but I don't see how that does me any good, so...no. The water fountain the white people are using is a lot nicer and cleaner looking.
    Yup, because the entrenchment you display here has progressed this issue how far now?

  7. #57
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    Ummm, its not. The lines blurred when the church was heavily intertwined with government. There's no fallacy in what I claimed. It was either a private agreement (as in no government involvement) or church sanctioned. It really didn't become a federal issue until the mid 1900s that the federal government got involved. You probably look up what "fallacy" means as you clearly misused it here. Look it up marriage license history and when the federal government got involved in its recognition.
    Are you or are you not using history as a basis for what legitimate marriage is? If you're using the argument that marriage is a religious institution because it has historically been that way, then you are using the historical fallacy. And if you're allowed to use that historical fallacy, then I'm allowed to say that marriage is also a government sanctioned institution because it has historically been that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    Yup, because the entrenchment you display here has progressed this issue how far now?
    Huh. You say this as if civil unions are going to be the law of the land any minute now and I'm just spitting into a hurricane. Do you actually believe this will happen?

  8. #58
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-16 @ 07:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,526

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Are you or are you not using history as a basis for what legitimate marriage is? If you're using the argument that marriage is a religious institution because it has historically been that way, then you are using the historical fallacy. And if you're allowed to use that historical fallacy, then I'm allowed to say that marriage is also a government sanctioned institution because it has historically been that way.
    I not using the argument either way. Just using the history of the recognition of marriage via government, religious and society at large to consider a path forward that would be acceptable to all or more so supporting the compromise I originally proposed.

    And you're obviously selectively reading my posts as I clearly stated that its currently both, but historically wasn't always. Clear?

    So then, what is legitimate marriage? Government recognition? Religious? Societal?

    If your position is governmental recognition, then what I proposed would meet your position, would it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Huh. You say this as if civil unions are going to be the law of the land any minute now and I'm just spitting into a hurricane. Do you actually believe this will happen?
    I never said "any minute now." Again, go back and read my posts as you're clearly trying to paint my position on this issue into something its not. Just like any idea, it would take time to garner support. But as I mentioned, current polling would indicate the idea I proposed would gain momentum much faster than the current entrenched positions of both sides.

  9. #59
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    I not using the argument either way. Just using the history of the recognition of marriage via government, religious and society at large to consider a path forward that would be acceptable to all or more so supporting the compromise I originally proposed.

    And you're obviously selectively reading my posts as I clearly stated that its currently both, but historically wasn't always. Clear?
    No, you just made a mangled mess out of that. Would you like to try again? Because it sounds like you just said that you're using history as a basis for determining which marriage is legitimate, which is exactly what I said you were doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    So then, what is legitimate marriage? Government recognition? Religious? Societal?
    Historically? All of them, including personal claims of marriage. It's been pretty flexible and diverse throughout the years.

    If your position is governmental recognition, then what I proposed would meet your position, would it not?
    No, because civil unions are not the same as marriages, in that they do not carry the same symbolic breadth of unions as life-long and society-recognized bonds. If you are so sure that they are the same, how about churches get civil unions and the rest of us get marriages. Fair?

    I never said "any minute now." Again, go back and read my posts as you're clearly trying to paint my position on this issue into something its not. Just like any idea, it would take time to garner support. But as I mentioned, current polling would indicate the idea I proposed would gain momentum much faster than the current entrenched positions of both sides.
    Except that churches wanting to monopolize marriages for themselves is absolutely entrenched and in no way a compromise, no matter how much you may want to package it as that. You're not the only one who is aware of the symbolic and historic weight that a marriage conveys, so your "compromise" is transparent to everyone else.

  10. #60
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    I am married and it is LEGALLY recognized in every state and I am not of a religious institution. YOU may treat yours as religious, but marriage is a civil institution.
    Did you have a minister/priest/rabbi/pastor/justice of the peace administer the vows and sign your "marriage License"? That's the problem right there, in all but an exceptionally small number of cases "marriage" is a two step process involving both civil and religious elements. For civil rights and portability, only the first part of the process (licensing with the state) is needed. The second part (the marriage ceremony) is unnecessary (for the terms of this discussion) and done as a matter of tradition and custom alone.

    That's why the state should be in the civil union business and leave the marriage ceremonies to the religions.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •