• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

Actually there are only certain legal documents that grant kinship recognition, and those are all controlled in some way by the government.

I've noticed that you keep not answering the question. What is the state's purpose in acknowledging a marriage?
 
I've noticed that you keep not answering the question. but what is the state's purpose in acknowledging a marriage?

I've answered it. To make things easier, more efficient under laws. To make things fair and protect those we want viewed as our family legally.
 
What is the state's purpose in acknowledging a marriage?

To facilitate legal relationships as desired by the people. How could someone not know this?
 
I've answered it. To make things easier, more efficient under laws. To make things fair and protect those we want viewed as our family legally.

To make what things more easy and efficient?
 
So you said there were unequivocal differences and you can't name any from a legal perspective. Don't worry, I've been asking that same question for about a decade and not once has anyone been able to provide a sound legal reasoning as to why homosexuals should be discriminated against. Those that even try fall back on religion, tradition, or procreation as you did.





Don't try to put words in my mouth okay? No where did I say that procreation was not a benefit to society.

Allowing gays to Civilly Marry doesn't mean that we as straights are going to stop getting married and/or having kids - if you believe that you're being obtuse.

On the other hand there are a large number of same-sex households (about 25% of them) are raising children (84% of those raising children biologically related to an adult in the household) and that those households deserve the same stability factors that Civil Marriage extends.


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2010 census homosexual parents

>>>>


There is no legal perspective, after all even legal perspective is merely perspective, but I know what you're saying. The main and only difference is that ideally society would prefer to incentivize families with biological mothers and fathers, and provide avenues for families not in this category, adoption, gays, foster children, orphans. That is what these four states have compromised on, relishing mother/father families, and marriages, with the highest potential to achieve that goal as superior to all others... This is rational, and Sutton is saying and I agree, is not to be disturbed or held as skeptical by a unelected judiciary, where the judge or judges are people too, and they are also subject to the same political and moral motivations for their decisions as anyone else. If you're going to disturb the will of the people, he is saying you'd better have a damned good reason to do so, or else. The Plaintiffs in this case did not meet the burden, and as such they decided to reverse the lower courts ruling.



Tim-
 
To facilitate legal relationships as desired by the people. How could someone not know this?

That isn't a valid purpose for the state, and is too absurdly broad to define the purpose of marriage anyway. Power of attorney is easier, and your definition would facilitate any number of relationships as "marriage" that you likely wouldn't want the state to facilitate.
 
To make what things more easy and efficient?

Dealing with end of life decisions, property, especially when it was earned during a longterm relationship, or is so entwined that it would be difficult to separate. Dealing with who gets to make certain decisions when people don't otherwise designate someone to do this (which we're human, it happens). Name a responsible party for your expenses because you agreed to them on paper. Recognize the fact that people in relationships share expenses. So much more. Recognize that there are times when people need help because they agreed to take care of another person. These are all made easier with marriage. In the past, people simply trusted, but that won't work now.
 
That isn't a valid purpose for the state,

Of course it is. People wish to enter into legally binding relationships. It's a matter of contract facilitation.
 
To make what things more easy and efficient?
Absolutely nothing. Marriage in no way helps property, contract or equity and trust law. You're totally right, jmotivator. Since civil marriage does not help define legal relationships between people, we should totally ban gay marriage.

[/sarcasm]

To facilitate legal relationships as desired by the people. How could someone not know this?
Purposefully obtuse.
 
Purposefully obtuse.

Simply factual. The state recognizing a marriage is a matter of contract facilitation, which is clearly a legitimate government function.

Oh, you mean JM? Yeah, I suppose. But trying to explain nonsense is rarely fruitful.
 
Last edited:
Dealing with end of life decisions, property, especially when it was earned during a longterm relationship, or is so entwined that it would be difficult to separate. Dealing with who gets to make certain decisions when people don't otherwise designate someone to do this (which we're human, it happens). Name a responsible party for your expenses because you agreed to them on paper. Recognize the fact that people in relationships share expenses. So much more. Recognize that there are times when people need help because they agreed to take care of another person. These are all made easier with marriage. In the past, people simply trusted, but that won't work now.

As I pointed out before, this is all achieved through a power of attorney, which is far easier to break than a marriage.

Ending a long term relationship is also far easier than ending a marriage, so it doesn't help in that regard, either.

You and Ecofarm are going FAR out of your way to try and justify marriage but all you do is devalue it because you can't admit the one REAL purpose that the state promotes marriage because it also happens to be the one thing a gay couple doesn't have all the parts necessary to accomplish. You devalue marriage in an attempt to normalize it to gay relationships.
 
Absolutely nothing. Marriage in no way helps property, contract or equity and trust law. You're totally right, jmotivator. Since civil marriage does not help define legal relationships between people, we should totally ban gay marriage [/sarcasm]

And I never said any such thing. I am pointing out that there is no societal need that is met with promoting gay marriage. I am in favor of letting the states decide for themselves what types of marriage they choose to promote based on the value they believe such relationships bring to their state.
 
Of course it is. People wish to enter into legally binding relationships. It's a matter of contract facilitation.

It sounds so romantic when you say it.

But no, marriage is a different kind of relationship than the relationship between a fisherman and a fishmonger.
 
But no, marriage is a different kind of relationship than the relationship between a fisherman and a fishmonger.

It's a legally binding contract and facilitating such is a legitimate government function. I don't know what else to tell you.

It sounds so romantic when you say it.

I get that a lot but thanks.
 
The problem is that banning same-sex marriage in no way furthers this interest.
Under rational basis review, there is no requirement that the law be narrowly tailored, so this really isn't a problem.

I can see sometime one taking issue with the level of scrutiny applied, but I think it's pretty clear that these sorts of marriage laws survive minimal scrutiny. The vast majority of laws do.
 
Last edited:
One can appreciate the ruling which in effect says that courts should interpret law established by legislatures and not establish law from the bench.

That said, I'm incredibly tired of the whole debate. I don't give a rat's ass about who marries whom and how they want to do it. Get the government out of this mess and let people live their own lives as they see fit - want a church/religious marriage, find a church to marry you - want a civil marriage, visit a lawyer, create a contract, sign off on it and you're done.

Government is far too intrusive in the personal lives of citizens and this nonsense is a prime example of it.

I agree the government should stay out of it. However, "We the People" are the government and many of WE said NO to SSM.
 
Not as easily workable as simply having marriage.

Changing your deed to your house to include another person for example is not an overly hard process.
 
Of course it is. People wish to enter into legally binding relationships. It's a matter of contract facilitation.

How is that a valid purpose of the state?
 
Changing your deed to your house to include another person for example is not an overly hard process.


True, getting the name on the deed is only part of it though. There then needs to be finical documentation that goes along with it which the non-spousal partners then show the ownership relationship (50/50, 60/40, etc.) and they have to keep track of the financial documents for the mortgage on who pays what.

Let's say a couple buys a house valued at $300,000 with 50/50 ownership. If one individual puts in $300,000 and the other nothing, then the other person has received a gift from the purchaser and is subject to the gift tax on anything over $10,000. Now if the house wasn't bought for cash, the purchasing and mortgage documents will have to be maintained showing showing each individual investment during the period where the house is owned to maintain the percentages of ownership.

On the other hand my wife an I don't have to worry about such things. We purchased a house together, our income goes into a central pool to pay bills which includes such things as our mortgage. We don't have to maintain separate financial documents.

I could buy her a $1,000,000 house hand over the keys with her name only on the lease and since she's my spouse there is no gift tax.



>>>>
 
Last edited:
I agree the government should stay out of it. However, "We the People" are the government and many of WE said NO to SSM.

Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but if the government wasn't in the marriage business, whomever I or you marry would be none of the "We the People's" business.
 
Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but if the government wasn't in the marriage business, whomever I or you marry would be none of the "We the People's" business.

Yep, if the gays weren't insistent on redefining marriage, "We the People" wouldn't feel the need to pass laws to stop it.
 
Yep, if the gays weren't insistent on redefining marriage, "We the People" wouldn't feel the need to pass laws to stop it.

If the government wasn't providing benefit to taxpayers based on them holding a piece of paper issued by the government, gay people wouldn't be interested in "redefining" marriage. It's only the government definition that's being "redefined".
 
As time moves on law in the USA changes to reflect the will of the people.

Right now most people in the USA support SSM.
Not true.. In the state of Michigan we amended our.state constitution to ban SMM and it's been forced on the citizenry by bullies in black robes. The same tyranny happened in California of all places. The people of Liberal California DID NOT WANT SSM.. FACT. So if the majority of citizens are so in favor of this
(Which they are not) how were all these states constitutions being amended?? Your point is not correct.
 
How is that a valid purpose of the state?

How is the facilitation of voluntary private legally binding contracts not a legitimate function of the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom