• 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!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

No, I was not attempting to nor did I ever equate next of kin with spouse. You did not ask what document establishes "the full range of spousal benefits" one would get via a marriage license. You asked what document establishes "a legal next of kin relationship." And the correct answer to something that could possibly do that is a simple contract, such as those that exist in the UK. If anyone was conflating next of kin with a spouse, it was you.


No, I asked "I'm asking what other documents establish a legal next of kin relationship with the same scope currently existing for a $35.00 marriage license that is recognized and enforceable in all 50 states?" and your response was "A simple contract establishing next of kin would suffice."

Would you like me (in the morning since I'm going to bed) link to the post where I asked the question exactly as shown above an where you said "A simple contract establishing next of kin would suffice"?



>>>>
 
But not without the government still getting involved.
Yes, in enforcement, like all private contracts. I have stated this numerous times already, and I really don't understand why you keep bringing that up as if it changes anything. There is nothing to figure out; it seems like you are trying to read between the lines to find something to argue against. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. That's all there is to it. Spousal privileges do not equal legal kinship.
 
No, I asked "I'm asking what other documents establish a legal next of kin relationship with the same scope currently existing for a $35.00 marriage license that is recognized and enforceable in all 50 states?" and your response was "A simple contract establishing next of kin would suffice."

Would you like me (in the morning since I'm going to bed) link to the post where I asked the question exactly as shown above an where you said "A simple contract establishing next of kin would suffice"?



>>>>
Very good, that is what you asked. Let me link you to your own post. Post #455 is where you said this:
"What other document establishes legal kinship for the myriad of laws that exist and do so for the $35.00 of a Civil Marriage license?"

And your quote comes form #460.

You did not ask what document establishes "the full range of spousal benefits" one would get via a marriage license. Period. You asked what document could establish next of kin one would get via a marriage license. The next of kin portion of the marriage license simply puts the spouse at the top of the next of kin hierarchy. The same effect can be achieved with a simple contract. I am not sure what the confusion is on your part.
 
Yes, in enforcement, like all private contracts. I have stated this numerous times already, and I really don't understand why you keep bringing that up as if it changes anything. There is nothing to figure out; it seems like you are trying to read between the lines to find something to argue against. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. That's all there is to it. Spousal privileges do not equal legal kinship.

No. Not just in enforcement. The government sets up an hierarchy for next of kin. Being considered someone's legal next of kin grants certain legal benefits, such as being covered for under Family Leave Act and even being restricted when it comes to certain circumstances (such as when asked about during a job if anyone you are related to works there or in a certain area, actually know this to be true, since my mother in law and I could not work at the same place, but my sister and my mother in law could because legally, they are not kin, but I am legal kin to both of them).
 
It is necessary to ensure that people are not trying to a) defraud the government or others that may give compensation of some sort for being a certain level of next of kin or to ensure b) that someone is not wrongfully trying to set themselves up as someone else's next of kin through fraud or by taking advantage of that person.

It is not that easy. You definitely do not understand how complicated and full of loopholes American law is.
Should every private contract require a court case before it is signed and valid? I you believe so, then business as we know it would come to a halt. If someone pays me to make them my next of kin, so what? That is my choice to make. No fraud is necessarily involved with that. You don't need preemptive court cases to protect against fraud, either.
 
No. Not just in enforcement. The government sets up an hierarchy for next of kin. Being considered someone's legal next of kin grants certain legal benefits, such as being covered for under Family Leave Act and even being restricted when it comes to certain circumstances (such as when asked about during a job if anyone you are related to works there or in a certain area, actually know this to be true, since my mother in law and I could not work at the same place, but my sister and my mother in law could because legally, they are not kin, but I am legal kin to both of them).
Yes, just in enforcement. When the government provides coverage under the Family Leave Act, they are enforcing the next of kin contract by ensuring the next of kin is given the agreed to privileges (or as you say, restrictions in some cases).
 
Should every private contract require a court case before it is signed and valid? I you believe so, then business as we know it would come to a halt. If someone pays me to make them my next of kin, so what? That is my choice to make. No fraud is necessarily involved with that. You don't need preemptive court cases to protect against fraud, either.

We are not talking about merely a private contract here. This is an agreement to be a certain level of next of kin.

Again, you really need to get some knowledge about how our next of kin laws work, and in general how our legal system works. It is very complicated, due mainly to avoid having people being taken advantage of. It simply isn't as simple as you would like it to be.
 
Yes, just in enforcement. When the government provides coverage under the Family Leave Act, they are enforcing the next of kin contract by ensuring the next of kin is given the agreed to privileges (or as you say, restrictions in some cases).

They are given that privilege. It isn't in the contract. It is merely a law.

In fact, tell us exactly what form of next of kin this document you wish to establish would make people? Where do they fit in? How should laws change to reflect this? Why?
 
We are not talking about merely a private contract here. This is an agreement to be a certain level of next of kin.

Again, you really need to get some knowledge about how our next of kin laws work, and in general how our legal system works. It is very complicated, due mainly to avoid having people being taken advantage of. It simply isn't as simple as you would like it to be.
You're not getting my point. I am talking about a better way of doing things, and used the UK as an example. Establishing the next of kin with a simple contract gives people the most free choice in selecting people they trust to look out for their best interest. U.S. law assumes closest relatives are best suited for this, but the reality is that this is not necessarily the case. There is nothing wrong with having laws that establish a default next of kin in the absence of a written contract stating otherwise, but establishing a next of kin that overrides the default can be as simple as a private contract.

For example, the government would ask this question: Does this individual have a next of kin contract? If yes, enforce that. If not, enforce the government-defined next of kin hierarchy.

They are given that privilege. It isn't in the contract. It is merely a law.

In fact, tell us exactly what form of next of kin this document you wish to establish would make people? Where do they fit in? How should laws change to reflect this? Why?
That's right. And who gets the privilege is defined by who the next of kin is, which can easily be established with a private contract if allowed by the government (as in the UK). Any law that references "next of kin" would look to the person established by the private contract as "next of kin."
 
You're not getting my point. I am talking about a better way of doing things, and used the UK as an example. Establishing the next of kin with a simple contract gives people the most free choice in selecting people they trust to look out for their best interest. U.S. law assumes closest relatives are best suited for this, but the reality is that this is not necessarily the case. There is nothing wrong with having laws that establish a default next of kin in the absence of a written contract stating otherwise, but establishing a next of kin that overrides the default can be as simple as a private contract.

For example, the government would ask this question: Does this individual have a next of kin contract? If yes, enforce that. If not, enforce the government-defined next of kin hierarchy.

That's right. And who gets the privilege is defined by who the next of kin is, which can easily be established with a private contract if allowed by the government (as in the UK). Any law that references "next of kin" would look to the person established by the private contract as "next of kin."

Why would you think it was "better" just because the government isn't involved in the actual paperwork? There is no proof that the UK does it that much differently than we do. Show exactly how they do it that is "better". They still have marriage, still have birth certificates, right? Issued by or at least kept by the government? So then they really just added something else that is very similar to our adoption of adults.

No, they just cannot be easily established by a private contract, not as easily as we currently establish our legal kinships via the government, and you have yet to prove or even give evidence otherwise. So far, you have really only shown that the UK has different laws than the US when it comes to next of kin, although in reality, that is only partially true.

Now, I think I may know where the confusion lies here (although it could be something else). I know that I say that legal marriage establishes a legal kinship, legal relationship, which it does, of spouses. It isn't a generic legal kinship relationship though. It establishes a specific legal kinship that comes with specific rights, responsibilities, benefits, and privileges. It is just like birth certificates, adoption records, and in some limited cases court orders/rulings establish the specific kinships of parent and child for people. These too come with specific benefits, privileges, and some responsibilities. Those specific kinships are best established via the government since the government is where those specific benefits, privileges, rights, and responsibilities come from. By law, those kinships have to be recognized in at least some cases, particularly in cases like employment and anti-discrimination laws or insurance and anti-discrimination laws. For example, if an employee has someone listed as their child in their employment records, and gets insurance through their company, then the company/insurance company must give benefits to that child if they give family benefits, so long as the child is legally the child of the employee. However, a person cannot simply claim someone as their child. An uncle cannot claim that their nephew or niece is their child, despite being legally kin to them, just to get employee health benefits for the child, unless the uncle is the legal guardian of the child (although that is a different claim). A neighbor cannot simply write down a child's name on a card or in a private contract and expect to have that other person's child covered under their health benefits just because they are claiming them as "kin".

Next of kin in the UK isn't even used as you seem to think it is. It is for those specific situations when there isn't someone else a person has that they want to have as their specific next of kin. And it is only really for medical purposes. It isn't legal recognition. It is very much like me listing who I wish to have notified on my medical paperwork, which is something I choose and can be someone besides my husband (in fact, the paperwork I just recently filled out at my doctor's office asked specifically if I wanted to inform my spouse of the results, then asked if there was anyone else I would like informed, nothing says that the spouse has to be the next of kin for medical reasons nor that it can't be someone else).
 
Ok, seriously, I hate to be that Godwin guy, but holy ****ing **** dude. Get yourself some help. This sort of language is straight out of every precursor to genocide in history.

Just want to defend freedom and the Constitution from her kind.
 
After the "Loving" case, was there some consensus that now gay marriage was also unquestioned? I missed it. And before "Loving" marriage was only between a man and a woman. After "Loving", it was between... a man... and... a woman. Oh, no change. So that applies to gays how again?

Jeez, what happened? I'll tell you what happened. "Loving" did not change marriage at all. It just enforced the Constitution and amendments that forbid racial discrimination. You know what it said about gays? Nothing.

So, why don't we just make this gay marriage thing ironclad? Why isn't there even the slightest push for a Constitutional amendment? I would support it 100% if that was done. So, why not? Why beat around the bush with all these court cases and votes? I'd really like to hear an answer on that one.

Where's the amendment? When is it coming?
 
Well Alaska was granted equal rights today!!!

Well that makes THIRTY!!!!!
I remember people saying it will never be more than 12? Well its more than double that now and 5 more will be falling soon do to federal appellate court precedent.

Changes/Updates in RED
10/12/2014 Version 17.0

30 States with Equal Rights 5falling soon due to federal court precedent and 10 Stayed/Appealed/Pending

30 States with Equal Rights

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Oregon May 19, 2014
Pennsylvania May 20, 2014
Utah Oct. 6, 2014
Oklahoma Oct. 6, 2014
Virginia Oct. 6, 2014
Wisconsin Oct 6,. 2014
Indiana Oct 6, 2014
Colorado Oct 7, 2014
Nevada Oct. 9, 2014
West Virginia Oct. 9, 2014
North Carolina Oct. 10, 2014
Idaho - May Oct 10, 2014
Alaska – Oct 13, 2014

5Will fall soon due to federal appellate court precedent.
Arizona
Kansas
Montana
South Carolina
Wyoming

7 Stayed/Appealed/Pending
Arkansas - May 5, 2014 (Stayed)
Florida - July 17th, 2014
Kentucky - February 14, 2014 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages which will lead to their ban being defeated)
Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed)
Ohio - April, 2014 Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.
Tennessee March, 2014 (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
Texas - February 26, 2014 (Stayed)

8 States Working Towards Equal Rights

7 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alabama
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

1 States with Court Cases and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Missouri


thats 50 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - ruled for equal rights, states to fall shortly
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- ruled for equal rights, states to fall shortly
8th- nothing pending, talks of two cases
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")
10th - ruled for equal rights, states to fall shortly
11th - pending



State Attorney Generals no longer defending the bans due to their unconstitutionality
California (Has equal rights now)
Illinois (Has Equal rights now)
Kentucky
Nevada
Oregon (has equal rights now)
Pennsylvania(has equal rights now)
Virginia(stayed)

THERE ARE NO STATES LEFT NOT FIGHTING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!

also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks

 
My claim is that legal kinship can be provided through private contract without any significant expense, and a marriage license is not required. None of the above refutes that.

And I told you to do it. Start a business specializing in that contract. Offer all the same rights and benefits with less hassle and less cost. You'll run the government out of the marriage business with your superior product. Free market at work, right? Do it, if you think it's superior to what we have now. Cheaper and easier, that's what will get people to flock to you.

It's possible, right?
 
Just want to defend freedom and the Constitution from her kind.

Defend your freedom to suppress the freedom of others. Defend the freedom for the government to restrict the choices of the individual. Yeah, I'm sure that's what the constitution is about.
 
Defend your freedom to suppress the freedom of others. Defend the freedom for the government to restrict the choices of the individual. Yeah, I'm sure that's what the constitution is about.

If you think that being against another person demanding handouts from the rest of us is suppressing their freedom, well that's just a complete disconnect from reality.
You have a serious lack of understanding of what freedom and Constitution mean.
 
Where's the amendment? When is it coming?

We didnt need one for marriage as it stands now....why do we need one for SSM? Esp if they are the same institutions? One we are attempting to open up to end discrimination of gays.

Are you suggesting expanding the govt? Bigger govt? NO! It cant be!
 
We didnt need one for marriage as it stands now....why do we need one for SSM? Esp if they are the same institutions? One we are attempting to open up to end discrimination of gays.

Are you suggesting expanding the govt? Bigger govt? NO! It cant be!

I don't see any way that expands government. It restricts what it can do with marriage, by clearly spelling it out. That's just a glaring lack of understanding. We have amendments that increase government power, but this would not be one. We certainly need a few amendments to reel government back in.
 
I don't see any way that expands government. It restricts what it can do with marriage, by clearly spelling it out. That's just a glaring lack of understanding. We have amendments that increase government power, but this would not be one. We certainly need a few amendments to reel government back in.

An amendment, expanding the definition of marriage, would 'reel' the govt back in?
 
An amendment, expanding the definition of marriage, would 'reel' the govt back in?

yep thats what was said, try to hold a straight face.
somehow more RULES, more RESTRICTIONS, less FREEDOM and LESS rights is magically less government lol
 
Well, it was spelled out quite simply. Not that hard to understand, unless of course, you don't want to.

LOL you should really read what you write. I even reposted it.
 
Well, it was spelled out quite simply. Not that hard to understand, unless of course, you don't want to.

Correct and we got it just fine, you want an amendment that gives the people more RULES, more RESTRICTIONS, less FREEDOM and LESS rights and more government.

no thanks, that be a complete waste since its not needed and would give us less rights and freedoms
 
LOL you should really read what you write. I even reposted it.

No, you mashed it up to say something I didn't say, so your misunderstanding would fit better. Don't play that game with me. If you can't figure out how some amendments increase government power, and other's restrict it, it's not my problem to educate you. Most libs don't look beyond what's in front of their faces anyway, so they don't care what the effect is down the road, as long as they get what they want right now.
 
No, you mashed it up to say something I didn't say, so your misunderstanding would fit better. Don't play that game with me. If you can't figure out how some amendments increase government power, and other's restrict it, it's not my problem to educate you. Most libs don't look beyond what's in front of their faces anyway, so they don't care what the effect is down the road, as long as they get what they want right now.

no he got it right and we all see you want MORE government and less freedom, your post proves that fact, Let us know when that fat changes.
 
Back
Top Bottom