• 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!

Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
And it will soon most likely be two same sex people. But it isn't yet.
Click to expand...

Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Feel free to contribute to it instead of spamming the same thing over and over.
Click to expand...

Maybe Scatt is a net-bot and can only type "Marriage is between opposite sex" over and over and over?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


Thanks, Winston, but Scatt just ignores definitions. We posted it before.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Maybe Scatt is a net-bot and can only type "Marriage is between opposite sex" over and over and over?
Click to expand...


argument: definition of argument in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)

noun
1 an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one:

2 a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong:
Click to expand...

There are two types of argument. Some people are incapable of going beyond the first definition
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
didn't say
Click to expand...

I do not support state intervention into any marriage.

Deuce said:
"important state interest"
Click to expand...

Link?

winston53660 said:
Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...

When was it changed?

paddymcdougall said:
Maybe Scatt is a net-bot and can only type "Marriage is between opposite sex" over and over and over?
Click to expand...

Maybe you are a net-bot and can only type "Marriage is between opposite or same sex" over and over and over?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
For political reasons.....
Click to expand...

Or maybe the lexicographers decided since gay people are getting married it is a vAlid definition.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
Or maybe the lexicographers decided since gay people are getting married it is a vAlid definition.
Click to expand...

Or they are politically motivated.

It is like trying to pretend there is only one definition for capitalism.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
Or maybe the lexicographers decided since gay people are getting married it is a vAlid definition.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't care who has what politics, but I know many people in same sex marriages; marriage is no longer only between opposite sex couples in many places.

Just because Russia was communist didn't mean capitalism didn't exist in other places. Just because some states, some countries (or even many) define legal marriage as between opposite sex couples doesn't stop the fact that marriage now applies to same sex couples as well.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
I do not support state intervention into any marriage.
Click to expand...


Can we have some specifics?

1. Do you not support the transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no such thing as "spouse" under the law. As such the surviving spouse would be subject to a tax liability upon the transfer of property between people not recognized as legally married)?

2. Do you not support the exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that? (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

3. Do you not support spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution?

4. Do you not support a spouse be able to be bured in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States?

5. Do you not support the legal recognition of "spouse", without which there would not be automatic conveyance of parenthood upon the birth of a child (in other words fathers would have to adopt their own children)?

6. Do you not support the establish of a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency?

7. Do you not support employer health insurance for "spouses", since there would be no "spouse", employees could not insure their "spouse" under employer health insurance?

8. Do you not support the idea that a couple that builds a life together, where one either does not work or places their career in a secondary position to the other and having no "spouse" means no family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own?

9. Do you not support the idea that no "spouse" means no established a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes?

and to just round it out to 10...

10. Do you support that there should be no "spouse" for military members which means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, no Command sponsorship for overseas assignments, etc... If there is no Civil Marriage (i.e. that recognized by the law), there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​



>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

>

Just a general comment...

I'm in my mid-50's and have been a political observer for decades. NOT ONCE prior to the same-sex marriage issue did I ever hear people or politicians talking about "getting government out of marriage". That whole meme is something that is new and results from the realization that Same-sex Civil Marriage is (a) here, and (b) will continue to expand in the coming years.

It's the whole, "cut your nose off to spite your face mentality" and in the real world no one things about what "getting government out of marriage really means" and when explained to all of us married heterosexuals what it means - we wouldn't support such a silly idea.

But it makes for a good "sound bite" though.



>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

WorldWatcher said:
Can we have some specifics?

1. Do you not support the transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no such thing as "spouse" under the law. As such the surviving spouse would be subject to a tax liability upon the transfer of property between people not recognized as legally married)?

2. Do you not support the exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that? (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

3. Do you not support spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution?

4. Do you not support a spouse be able to be bured in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States?

5. Do you not support the legal recognition of "spouse", without which there would not be automatic conveyance of parenthood upon the birth of a child (in other words fathers would have to adopt their own children)?

6. Do you not support the establish of a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency?

7. Do you not support employer health insurance for "spouses", since there would be no "spouse", employees could not insure their "spouse" under employer health insurance?

8. Do you not support the idea that a couple that builds a life together, where one either does not work or places their career in a secondary position to the other and having no "spouse" means no family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own?

9. Do you not support the idea that no "spouse" means no established a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes?

and to just round it out to 10...

10. Do you support that there should be no "spouse" for military members which means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, no Command sponsorship for overseas assignments, etc... If there is no Civil Marriage (i.e. that recognized by the law), there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.​
Click to expand...

The state need not exist for property to be transferred to another.

The state need not exist for no taxation to be imposed.

The state need not exist fir a person to not testify.

The state need not exist for a person to be buried.

The state need not exist for parenthood to exist.

The state need not exist for a person to obtain leave from a job.

The state need not exist for insurance to offer policies that include your husband of wife.

The state need not exist for life insurance to exist.

The state need not exist for a person to travel with their husband or wife.

The state need not exist for a person to care for their wife or husband.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The state need not exist for property to be transferred to another.
Click to expand...

Actually it does for the tax free transfer of property. Otherwise it's tax has a gift or as income.

scatt said:
The state need not exist for no taxation to be imposed.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, otherwise upon the death of the "spouse" then the surviving spouse now has twice the tax bill.

scatt said:
The state need not exist fir a person to not testify.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, you don't get to refuse to testify in court for "friends", the exemption applies only to spouses.

scatt said:
The state need not exist for a person to be buried.
Click to expand...

Didn't say "buried", I said that only spouses can be buried next to honorably serving veterans in National Veterans cemeteries. You don't get to ahve "friends" rest next to you.

scatt said:
The state need not exist for parenthood to exist.
Click to expand...

States have what are called "assumed parentage" laws, which means that for a baby born in wedlock - with not other action - both spouses become the legal parents. Without that the only legal parent is the woman giving birth, the father would have to petition the courts through an adoption process to adopt their own child.

scatt said:
The state need not exist for a person to obtain leave from a job.
Click to expand...

Didn't say "take leave from a job". The FMLA provides specific protection to family members (including spouses) to care for them. You don't get FMLA protections for a "friend".

scatt said:
The state need not exist for insurance to offer policies that include your husband of wife.
Click to expand...

Ya, go and tell the 100's of millions of American's that their spouses are getting kicked off of their insurance policies because there is no such think as "spouse" anymore from a legal perspective.

That will be a real popular position.

scatt said:
The state need not exist for life insurance to exist.
Click to expand...

Didn't say anything about "life insurance". Social Security pays benefits to spouses, with no legal spouses, there are no benefits.

scatt said:
The state need not exist for a person to travel with their husband or wife.
Click to expand...

Didn't say anything about "travel", the bullet was about sponsorship for immigration.

scatt said:
The state need not exist for a person to care for their wife or husband.
Click to expand...

That bullet wasn't about "caring", it's about the military and families. Obviously you don't know much about what having a spouse means from a military perspective.


>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

WorldWatcher said:
Actually it does for the tax free transfer of property. Otherwise it's tax has a gift or as income.

Actually it does, otherwise upon the death of the "spouse" then the surviving spouse now has twice the tax bill.

Actually it does, you don't get to refuse to testify in court for "friends", the exemption applies only to spouses.

Didn't say "buried", I said that only spouses can be buried next to honorably serving veterans in National Veterans cemeteries. You don't get to ahve "friends" rest next to you.

States have what are called "assumed parentage" laws, which means that for a baby born in wedlock - with not other action - both spouses become the legal parents. Without that the only legal parent is the woman giving birth, the father would have to petition the courts through an adoption process to adopt their own child.

Didn't say "take leave from a job". The FMLA provides specific protection to family members (including spouses) to care for them. You don't get FMLA protections for a "friend".

Ya, go and tell the 100's of millions of American's that their spouses are getting kicked off of their insurance policies because there is no such think as "spouse" anymore from a legal perspective.

That will be a real popular position.

Didn't say anything about "life insurance". Social Security pays benefits to spouses, with no legal spouses, there are no benefits.

Didn't say anything about "travel", the bullet was about sponsorship for immigration.

That bullet wasn't about "caring", it's about the military and families. Obviously you don't know much about what having a spouse means from a military perspective.
Click to expand...

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Literally, which one of these problems you have presented are not because of state intervention?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Because of the state intervention?

Literally, which one of these problems you have presented are not because of state intervention?
Click to expand...


I didn't say they were problems.

I said they are things that are part of government recognition of Civil Marriage. Personally I like being able to have my spouse on my employer health insurance, I like being able to transfer property to my wife without it being subject to taxes, I like the fact that when I die if she needs to sell the house she can sell it and take the married exemption ($500,000) verses having only the single exemption ($250,000), I like the fact that when I die we can be buried together in a Veterans cemetery, I like the fact that she is my family next-of-kin by default in case I'm incapacitated and cannot make decisions for myself, and I like the fact that when Uncle Same said "Son, your going to Japan for the next 4 years" that they moved her with me and provided Command Sponsorship under the Status of Forces agreement for an accompanied tour. Since she often put her career on hold for us to be assigned to different places together I like the fact that she will receive part of my Social Security and Military Pension when I die.


>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

WorldWatcher said:
I didn't say they were problems.

I said they are things that are part of government recognition of Civil Marriage. Personally I like being able to have my spouse on my employer health insurance, I like being able to transfer property to my wife without it being subject to taxes, I like the fact that when I die if she needs to sell the house she can sell it and take the married exemption ($500,000) verses having only the single exemption ($250,000), I like the fact that when I die we can be buried together in a Veterans cemetery, I like the fact that she is my family next-of-kin by default in case I'm incapacitated and cannot make decisions for myself, and I like the fact that when Uncle Same said "Son, your going to Japan for the next 4 years" that they moved her with me and provided Command Sponsorship under the Status of Forces agreement for an accompanied tour. Since she often put her career on hold for us to be assigned to different places together I like the fact that she will receive part of my Social Security and Military Pension when I die.
Click to expand...

Those can all be accomplished without a state.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
I do not support state intervention into any marriage.
Click to expand...
An opinion I suspect you never once shared until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen. Wanting to take your ball and go home, and all that. Are you married, by any chance?
Link?
Click to expand...
Under the 14th amendment to the US constitution, equal protection under the law. In an equal protection challenge, the state must demonstrate an "important state interest" in making a gender-based classification, and show that the measure is "substantially related" to that interest.

So, which important state interest is served by defining marriage as between opposite sex as opposed to any sexes?

When was it changed?
Click to expand...
Why is that relevant?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
An opinion I suspect you never once shared until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen. Wanting to take your ball and go home, and all that. Are you married, by any chance?

Under the 14th amendment to the US constitution, equal protection under the law. In an equal protection challenge, the state must demonstrate an "important state interest" in making a gender-based classification, and show that the measure is "substantially related" to that interest.


Why is that relevant?
Click to expand...

You suspect wrongly (like usual).

Never meaning same sex would qualify.

The state is slow.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
You suspect wrongly (like usual).

Never meaning same sex would qualify.

The state is slow.
Click to expand...

Wait, you think "marriage doesn't mean same-sex" is an important state interest? Elaborate.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

What makes this really interesting is that the Federal court which ruled on this also has jurisdiction over places like Wyoming, Colorado, and.........

Wait for it...............

Kansas.

Fred Phelps' head just exploded. LOL.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Wait, you think "marriage doesn't mean same-sex" is an important state interest? Elaborate.
Click to expand...

To "gender-based" clarification, of course.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

danarhea said:
What makes this really interesting is that the Federal court which ruled on this also has jurisdiction over places like Wyoming, Colorado, and.........

Wait for it...............

Kansas.

Fred Phelps' head just exploded. LOL.
Click to expand...

And with the appeals moving this higher up the ladder, the chances of this becoming binding for more than just Utah increase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom