• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Look in Canada and Denmark. Denmark actually passed a bill forcing churches to perform the ceremonies.

Denmark is not the USA nor does it have the US constitution :shrug:
thats meaningless

not to mention this could happen now because churches already turn away straight couples but the constitution protects them
 
Sometimes the best way to win a battle is to change the game.

In my opinion that would be a cop out, unfair and a smack in the face to a lot of people
 
In my opinion that would be a cop out, unfair and a smack in the face to a lot of people

When an irresistible force meets an unmovable object, everyone will lose.

a streak of practicality calms things down so everyone doesn't end up pissed off and hating each other.
 
When an irresistible force meets an unmovable object, everyone will lose.

a streak of practicality calms things down so everyone doesn't end up pissed off and hating each other.

I understand but . . . .

well I dont think both are immovable and personally i dont care if the people that are against equal rights get pissed off cause there reasons are all in their mind and not based off of reality.

I think equal rights is what is practical.

apply that to interacial marriage? marriage not involving religion?

why dont the cry in masses about all the marriages granted by people with licenses, singing Elvis, magistrates and at drive through windows in vegas that have nothing to do with religion?

why dont they cry in masses about OTHER religions that already marry gays?

way do the mostly only cry out against equal rights?

to be clear not bashing you! lol or saying you have to answer all these questions lol
im just making a point.


what if when Obama got elected president or if it would have been Hilary we told them

ahhhhh listen, so we dont piss people off we're not going to call you the president. Yes you won and you will have all the rights of president but we cant use that word because people think its sacred and we dont want to make them made. We are going to call you CEO of the USA instead.

Now understand its the same but we just cant call you President because you're black/a women


that would be complete bull**** and giving in IMO

:D just saying

rant over ;)
 
I understand but . . . .

well I dont think both are immovable and personally i dont care if the people that are against equal rights get pissed off cause there reasons are all in their mind and not based off of reality.

I think equal rights is what is practical.

apply that to interacial marriage? marriage not involving religion?

why dont the cry in masses about all the marriages granted by people with licenses, singing Elvis, magistrates and at drive through windows in vegas that have nothing to do with religion?

why dont they cry in masses about OTHER religions that already marry gays?

way do the mostly only cry out against equal rights?

to be clear not bashing you! lol or saying you have to answer all these questions lol
im just making a point.


what if when Obama got elected president or if it would have been Hilary we told them

ahhhhh listen, so we dont piss people off we're not going to call you the president. Yes you won and you will have all the rights of president but we cant use that word because people think its sacred and we dont want to make them made. We are going to call you CEO of the USA instead.

Now understand its the same but we just cant call you President because you're black/a women


that would be complete bull**** and giving in IMO

:D just saying

rant over ;)

marriage is just a word though, pick your battles, its quite easy to have all of those things mentioned if the federal govt used a different word for everyone (and not just gay people)
 
marriage is just a word though, pick your battles, its quite easy to have all of those things mentioned if the federal govt used a different word for everyone (and not just gay people)

well im not gay but its a word I wonldnt give up and i understand why many gays feel the same, why should they, legal marriage is already here why change a word that has nothing to do with religious marriage?

falling short is not equal in my opinion

sorry slave it will make to many people upset to call you a whole man instead of 3/5s a man so from now on we are just all going to be citizens, we still wont call you men.

no thanks, are my examples emotional based, yeah I admit that but thats the point when it comes to civil and equal rights.
 
well im not gay but its a word I wonldnt give up and i understand why many gays feel the same, why should they, legal marriage is already here why change a word that has nothing to do with religious marriage?

falling short is not equal in my opinion

sorry slave it will make to many people upset to call you a whole man instead of 3/5s a man so from now on we are just all going to be citizens, we still wont call you men.

no thanks, are my examples emotional based, yeah I admit that but thats the point when it comes to civil and equal rights.

sorry, I think I have you confused with another user.

Also, I didn't express myself clearly I think. The different word for everyone was me trying to say call straight and gay marriage both civil union or something and just totally abandon that word. Its stupid that there is such a fight over a word, but I have always been a literal person who doesn't respond much to symbolic language, so maybe the problem is me.
 
sorry, I think I have you confused with another user.

Also, I didn't express myself clearly I think. The different word for everyone was me trying to say call straight and gay marriage both civil union or something and just totally abandon that word. Its stupid that there is such a fight over a word, but I have always been a literal person who doesn't respond much to symbolic language, so maybe the problem is me.


LOL i dont think you are the problem and in many situations I agree with you that verbiage is meaningless, like on the abortion front, when people bicker and bicker over being called pro-choice/pro-abortion/anti-baby vs pro-life/anti-choice/anti women etc

those names are meaningless to the core of the subject.


im just saying in civil rights and equal rights cases I think changing the term for the sake of pleasing the bigots is the wrong move and would be a slap in the face to people.

and also no im not calling people that dont "agree" with gay marriage bigots
 
im just saying in civil rights and equal rights cases I think changing the term for the sake of pleasing the bigots is the wrong move and would be a slap in the face to people.

I think you are underestimating the amount of outrage that will occur if you tell the evangelicals that they can't have that word either.
 
That's not true if you wish those marriages to be portable across all state lines or be recognised by the federal government.

Article 4, section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
 
I think you are underestimating the amount of outrage that will occur if you tell the evangelicals that they can't have that word either.

LOL thats funny

but in their realm they already have it, they wont loose it :shrug:

thats my point all religions already have their version of the word as it pertains to them and legal marriage already does NOT ppertain to them as it doesnt even use religion.

if tomorrow equal rights is granted, churches everywhere still get to define religious marriage as anything they want just like to day and just like yesterday. Its only the dishonest loons that act like that will change, have to admit though I think i have only ever encountered 2 here.

many false make the claim about tradition and sanctity though.
 
LOL thats funny

but in their realm they already have it, they wont loose it :shrug:

thats my point all religions already have their version of the word as it pertains to them and legal marriage already does NOT ppertain to them as it doesnt even use religion.

if tomorrow equal rights is granted, churches everywhere still get to define religious marriage as anything they want just like to day and just like yesterday. Its only the dishonest loons that act like that will change, have to admit though I think i have only ever encountered 2 here.

many false make the claim about tradition and sanctity though.

yourstar goes to a church that would perform a gay marriage and often does i think even if not recognized legally.
 
yourstar goes to a church that would perform a gay marriage and often does i think even if not recognized legally.

thats my point

religion already has their own version of the word marriage, its non of their business what the legal word is :)
 
It is difficult to follow some of the 'logic' in this discussion.

IF marriage is just a word why does the anti SSM crowd fight so hard for it?

IF churches can pick and choose who they allow to marry in their church, one church cited 'tradition' for not allowing a black couple to marry in their church and it seems to fly... then why claim it can be forced to do same sex marriage?

IF what Europe does is cited by the liberal side as a good thing, conservatives are quick to point out we are not Europe, but when Europe has a bill PENDING the conservatives leap up to proclaim it could happen here? (FYI, to use a bill PENDING over there is like using a bill PENDING here that gets shot down either in the floor vote or by the courts, not a strong reason)

Now let us be a bit more honest about The Church and Marriage.

Our society and the balance between Church, State, and The People has been evolving over the centuries. Once upon a time a man who was thought to be Gawd's sole representative on this earth sat in Rome and judged the right or wrong of national leaders. Commanded all Christian nations to 'defend' the Holy Lands and they mobilized to do just that. The Church was in many important ways The State when it came to social issues.

Europe fought many wars over the Gawds they made. The State started moving in on The Church's territory, but still local parishes could tax The People to support The Church and it's missions.

Now The State does many of The Churches civil functions. Monetary support of The Church is voluntary, give or take a few 'faith based' welfare funding bills.

Now the man who sits in Rome can proclaim many things and few National leaders do more than lip service, some outright refuse to listen and many other religious leaders think he is the anti-Christ! :shock:

Church 'leaders' can proclaim and demand many things, few national leaders, the better ones, do little more than nod in their collective direction and outright denounce many of them.

The State has taken over what marriage means here on earth and what rights and privileges it carries.

The love of My Life and I got MARRIED in a district judge's office, not CIVIL UNIONED. The Church had NOTHING to do with it, nor defining what legal rights it included.

Some screwball may try and 'force' The Church to do gay marriages, just like some screwball tries to get unconstitutional crap passed and it will get about as far.

I don't see how Ted and Bob getting married takes anything away from what the Mrs and I have had for over a quarter century.

It doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg...
 
Article 4, section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Which the Commerce Clause trumps. You can still be busted for carrying weed across state lines when travelling from Oregon to California despite your having a medical marajuana license that is honored in both states. The courts have upheld this time and again.
 
It is difficult to follow some of the 'logic' in this discussion.

IF marriage is just a word why does the anti SSM crowd fight so hard for it?

IF churches can pick and choose who they allow to marry in their church, one church cited 'tradition' for not allowing a black couple to marry in their church and it seems to fly... then why claim it can be forced to do same sex marriage?

IF what Europe does is cited by the liberal side as a good thing, conservatives are quick to point out we are not Europe, but when Europe has a bill PENDING the conservatives leap up to proclaim it could happen here? (FYI, to use a bill PENDING over there is like using a bill PENDING here that gets shot down either in the floor vote or by the courts, not a strong reason)

Now let us be a bit more honest about The Church and Marriage.

Our society and the balance between Church, State, and The People has been evolving over the centuries. Once upon a time a man who was thought to be Gawd's sole representative on this earth sat in Rome and judged the right or wrong of national leaders. Commanded all Christian nations to 'defend' the Holy Lands and they mobilized to do just that. The Church was in many important ways The State when it came to social issues.

Europe fought many wars over the Gawds they made. The State started moving in on The Church's territory, but still local parishes could tax The People to support The Church and it's missions.

Now The State does many of The Churches civil functions. Monetary support of The Church is voluntary, give or take a few 'faith based' welfare funding bills.

Now the man who sits in Rome can proclaim many things and few National leaders do more than lip service, some outright refuse to listen and many other religious leaders think he is the anti-Christ! :shock:

Church 'leaders' can proclaim and demand many things, few national leaders, the better ones, do little more than nod in their collective direction and outright denounce many of them.

The State has taken over what marriage means here on earth and what rights and privileges it carries.

The love of My Life and I got MARRIED in a district judge's office, not CIVIL UNIONED. The Church had NOTHING to do with it, nor defining what legal rights it included.

Some screwball may try and 'force' The Church to do gay marriages, just like some screwball tries to get unconstitutional crap passed and it will get about as far.

I don't see how Ted and Bob getting married takes anything away from what the Mrs and I have had for over a quarter century.

It doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg...

exactly the fact is, it doesnt in reality and claiming otherwise is just dishonesty
 
Rastafarians smoking pot as their sacrament takes nothing away from any of the sacraments of other religions (including some tribes that are allowed peyote as their sacrament), and yet the courts still uphold the ban.
 
Rastafarians smoking pot as their sacrament takes nothing away from any of the sacraments of other religions (including some tribes that are allowed peyote as their sacrament), and yet the courts still uphold the ban.

That would be a hilarious vector to legalize weed.
 
Which the Commerce Clause trumps. You can still be busted for carrying weed across state lines when travelling from Oregon to California despite your having a medical marajuana license that is honored in both states. The courts have upheld this time and again.
Marriage isn't commerce, so I don't see the relevance of the commerce clause.
 
Well, I don't care about churches. Marriage is a civil not a religious institution, which is why you need a marriage license to be officially married.

To your other point, there anti-SSM people would not be compromising their rights as in this case none of their rights are in danger of being infringed upon.

Unless they are sued for not marrying a same sex couple, because it would go against their religious convictions. At that point, their 1st Amendment rights are being crapped on.

Fishstyx is right on, IMO. Make sure no one can get sued for refusing to perform a same sex marriage, make the **** leagal and let's move on.

This is one issue that I wish the Republicans would just let go, because there are so many more important things to deal with.
 
I've been saying this for years. The solution to this is so simple. Run a bill through Congress that amends every law that references "marriage" and change to "civil union", "state recognized union," "legal union" or whatever (biggest impact would likely be the tax code). Add a stipulation that no institution can be sued to refusing to "marry" anyone and call it a day. Important aspect as where same sex marriage has been legally allowed, litigation against religious institutions exploded.

(bold mine)

Just one problem with this: married people aren't going to want their marriages to now be referred to as civil unions.

Solves the problem. No "separate but equal" and everyone is the same in the eyes of the federal government.

That's right, cause both water fountains work just as well.
 
Last edited:
I've been saying this for years. The solution to this is so simple. Run a bill through Congress that amends every law that references "marriage" and change to "civil union", "state recognized union," "legal union" or whatever (biggest impact would likely be the tax code). Add a stipulation that no institution can be sued to refusing to "marry" anyone and call it a day. Important aspect as where same sex marriage has been legally allowed, litigation against religious institutions exploded.

Solves the problem. No "separate but equal" and everyone is the same in the eyes of the federal government.

Great idea and it would work except for the fact that it is not the word marriage that is really the objection. It's the fact that a same sex union is "accepted" by the laws of the land and given a stamp of approval because of it. It's sad but it always seems a majority likes to control a minority and punish them for being different. That's what makes our "Bill of Rights' so important, it stops that from happening.
 
(bold mine)

Just one problem with this: married people aren't going to want their marriages to now be referred to as civil unions.

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."

Great idea and it would work except for the fact that it is not the word marriage that is really the objection. It's the fact that a same sex union is "accepted" by the laws of the land and given a stamp of approval because of it. It's sad but it always seems a majority likes to control a minority and punish them for being different. That's what makes our "Bill of Rights' so important, it stops that from happening.

Don't know about that. Most polling on the matter has the overwhelming majority support the civil union concept.
 
"Marriage" is a civil and religious institution, to claim otherwise is simply false.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom