• 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

As I said, if the state does not recognize your claim to a child, they will eventually take custody of that child until some legal recognition can be made. You are not allowed to raise a child that you have no legal claim over. Perhaps that claim will be made through a blood test, but even then, it would require paperwork and most likely some sort of ruling by a court to establish.

The fact is that adoption records and birth certificates or some other legal paperwork is how you legally establish a legal kinship to your children or children you are raising/have custody of. That is legally how it works.

I've read in the past about some tribes where inheritance - for example, next in line to throne - was through the king's sister. Because they KNEW who the kids of the sister were; they couldn't be sure if the king's kids were his own....

(kind of an aside, but not like Scatt's paying attention to anything you're saying anyway)
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Except when you don't

Except I do not support state intervention into marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The "I oppose state intervention in marriage" argument is shoddy at best. The only thing that marriage licenses really do is establish a legal contract between two people to set them up under a protection of legal kinship. Without it, anyone can claim to be anyone else's legal spouse, particularly in the world we live in.

Without marriage licenses, a person could come in off the street and claim that they are some dying or ill person's husband or wife. Who would know otherwise? Afterall, there would be no legal paperwork to show otherwise. How do you know they didn't live together in secret? How would the hospital know? And if you say "but that is what contracts, such as POAs, living wills, wills are for", well those are still government recognized documents and basically you are simply saying that it should be simply less efficient to have recognition of a spouse.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The "I oppose state intervention in marriage" argument is shoddy at best. The only thing that marriage licenses really do is establish a legal contract between two people to set them up under a protection of legal kinship. Without it, anyone can claim to be anyone else's legal spouse, particularly in the world we live in.

Without marriage licenses, a person could come in off the street and claim that they are some dying or ill person's husband or wife. Who would know otherwise? Afterall, there would be no legal paperwork to show otherwise. How do you know they didn't live together in secret? How would the hospital know? And if you say "but that is what contracts, such as POAs, living wills, wills are for", well those are still government recognized documents and basically you are simply saying that it should be simply less efficient to have recognition of a spouse.

So they are required within a state?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I've read in the past about some tribes where inheritance - for example, next in line to throne - was through the king's sister. Because they KNEW who the kids of the sister were; they couldn't be sure if the king's kids were his own....

(kind of an aside, but not like Scatt's paying attention to anything you're saying anyway)

That's interesting. Obviously we wouldn't need that anymore, since we have genetic testing available to us.

Although, there have been some cases where mothers have almost lost their children because genetic testing showed the children were not theirs, but more likely to be a sister's kid or someone else related to them. After months of battling, they proved that these mothers were chimeric, meaning they had at least two different sets of DNA in their body. One woman had to have the social worker inside her delivery room with her to prove that she delivered her child, and then the child was tested, and luckily showed up as having the different DNA, so that she could prove the claim that yes there was something different about her genes going to her children to get back her other children. Even genetics aren't foolproof, despite popular belief. I actually started looking into it after watching an episode of CSI and found it was true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna-double-take.html?_r=0

Birth certificates, just like marriage licenses, help to simplify establishing legal kinships for us. Sure there are some problems, such as people using them to deny access to that legal kinship for certain groups, but hopefully we can fix that by opening up marriage without any regard to sex/gender and even possibly finding a way to allow at least a recognition of multiple spouses as kin, even if some changes or legal measures need to be made/taken to allow for this.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Except when you do

You support govt bans on SSM

But I don't.

I do not support state intervention into marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

So they are required within a state?

Why do you keep talking about "within a state"? States, as in governments, require legal paperwork, proof that something is set up. I don't understand why you are so confused about this.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

But I don't.

I do not support state intervention into marriage.

Except when you do support state intervention

Like banning SSM

(My clients are all on vacation. I have all day)
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Why do you keep talking about "within a state"? States, as in governments, require legal paperwork, proof that something is set up. I don't understand why you are so confused about this.

I am aware that when the state is involved the state is involved.

Except when you do support state intervention

Which I don't.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The "I oppose state intervention in marriage" argument is shoddy at best. The only thing that marriage licenses really do is establish a legal contract between two people to set them up under a protection of legal kinship. Without it, anyone can claim to be anyone else's legal spouse, particularly in the world we live in.

Without marriage licenses, a person could come in off the street and claim that they are some dying or ill person's husband or wife. Who would know otherwise? Afterall, there would be no legal paperwork to show otherwise. How do you know they didn't live together in secret? How would the hospital know? And if you say "but that is what contracts, such as POAs, living wills, wills are for", well those are still government recognized documents and basically you are simply saying that it should be simply less efficient to have recognition of a spouse.
So they are required within a state?
Yes. Even in states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.) where you cannot go to a judge and get a civil marriage, one has to register the marriage with the civil authorities for purposes of kinship, death, birth, inheritance, liability, etc.

There is no state that exists in the world today with "no state intervention in marriage." It's not possible to have.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yes. Even in states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.) where you cannot go to a judge and get a civil marriage, one has to register the marriage with the civil authorities for purposes of kinship, death, birth, inheritance, liability, etc.

There is no state that exists in the world today with "no state intervention in marriage." It's not possible to have.

Yes, the state is required for state intervention.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I oppose state intervention, yes.

Except you are wrong.

If you don't support state intervention, then you support the right of SSM without the state. Correct?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Except when you do

Except I don't.

If you don't support state intervention, then you support the right to SSM without the state.

Ignoring that rights do not exist, I do not support state intervention into marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I am aware that when the state is involved the state is involved.

Which I don't.

You continue to post things that are pointless. The state is involved because it is a state issue. Otherwise it is nothing more than a personal relationship, something that exists without the state or any word referring to it as "marriage" at all. You don't get the protections without the state since the state is the one giving you the protections of the relationship. Society is who sets up the state (at least for the US anyway) so society says that it wants protections (and even benefits) available for those who are closest to them in their lives, such as children, parents, siblings, and yes, spouses, especially spouses. We also want protection from our spouses too because a relationship such as marriage almost always involves major financial merging and issues that could harm one of those involved if the other isn't completely truthful or fair.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The state is involved because it is a state issue. Otherwise it is nothing more than a personal relationship, something that exists without the state or any word referring to it as "marriage" at all. You don't get the protections without the state since the state is the one giving you the protections of the relationship. Society is who sets up the state (at least for the US anyway) so society says that it wants protections (and even benefits) available for those who are closest to them in their lives, such as children, parents, siblings, and yes, spouses, especially spouses. We also want protection from our spouses too because a relationship such as marriage almost always involves major financial merging and issues that could harm one of those involved if the other isn't completely truthful or fair.

The state made it a state issue, and then they stay involved.

Protection from the state by the state is really silly.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

You continue to post things that are pointless. The state is involved because it is a state issue. Otherwise it is nothing more than a personal relationship, something that exists without the state or any word referring to it as "marriage" at all. You don't get the protections without the state since the state is the one giving you the protections of the relationship. Society is who sets up the state (at least for the US anyway) so society says that it wants protections (and even benefits) available for those who are closest to them in their lives, such as children, parents, siblings, and yes, spouses, especially spouses. We also want protection from our spouses too because a relationship such as marriage almost always involves major financial merging and issues that could harm one of those involved if the other isn't completely truthful or fair.
I think Scatt is trolling.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The state made it a state issue, and then they stay involved.

Protection from the state by the state is really silly.

The state got involved because people WANTED the state to dictate morality AND get paid doing so. People are what make the state and people are who gave the power to the state to do this. Blame them.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Unless the state is banning SSM

Except I do not support state intervention into marriage.

The state got involved because people WANTED the state to dictate morality AND get paid doing so. People are what make the state and people are who gave the power to the state to do this. Blame them.

Yep, voters are also at fault.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Ignoring that rights do not exist, I do not support state intervention into marriage.

If rights do not exist, than you do not believe in the state AT ALL and as such you are an anarchist.
 
Back
Top Bottom