• 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

ttwtt78640 said:
Note that the 15th and 19th amendments were added (due to majority opinion?) to address issues which you now seem to imply were "fully covered" under the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
There was also a time that many thought the equal rights amendment a necessary addition, until they found that most of it had been hiding (unseen) in the 14th all along.
 
ecofarm said:
It's a legally binding contract and facilitating such is a legitimate government function. I don't know what else to tell you.



I get that a lot but thanks.
Click to expand...


Odd that it is the only "contract" known to exist where verbally agreed upon vows mean absolutely nothing in a dissolution of marriage, even though there are usually hundreds of witnesses and documentary evidence to support the promises made before entering into said "contract".. Don' you find that odd?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Odd that it is the only "contract" known to exist where verbally agreed upon vows mean absolutely nothing in a dissolution of marriage, even though there are usually hundreds of witnesses and documentary evidence to support the promises made before entering into said "contract".. Don' you find that odd?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Vows don't mean "nothing". There are issues of assets, obligations and other things to be resolved in a divorce.

How can anyone believe enforcing private contracts is not a function of the state?
 
ecofarm said:
Vows don't mean "nothing". There are issues of assets, obligations and other things to be resolved in a divorce.

How can anyone believe enforcing private contracts is not a function of the state?
Click to expand...


A "vow" is a promise. In contractual legal terms it is the same as any other promise and lack of performance to meet that promise is grounds to nullify and void ANY other type of contract in this nation, EXCEPT, or course, marriage. Since every state no has no fault divorce, two people thinking about marriage have no choice but to forget about any promises they make to each other because the state doesn't care who's fault it was/is (Although contract performance - who's fault it is/was means a whole heck of a lot in any other contract) who broke the promises made, or who has done what in said marriage, and who has done little.. Doesn't matter, and is/was the dumbest law ever perpetuated on the American electorate, and men in particular, and I believe is the sole reason why we have so much divorce today.


Once women know that no matter what, they get half, and heaven forbid they have children, they're pretty much set for the next 25 years. Good deal if you're a chick, that's for sure, but it's ok if you feel later that you don't like this guy anymore, you can divorce him, take half of everything he owns, and 25 - 32% of his "gross" income, and then marry another unsuspecting man, and if you want, do the exact same thing to him.. ;)

Yeah that's a great law!


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
A "vow" is a promise. In contractual legal terms it is the same as any other promise and lack of performance to meet that promise is grounds to nullify and void ANY other type of contract in this nation, EXCEPT, or course, marriage.
Click to expand...

Upon divorce the contract is not voided, its contingencies for dissolution are enforced as per the agreements made in the contract.

Are you really under the impression that all other contracts are completed to both party's satisfaction? Often, even in the business world, that is not the case and thus contingencies must be reckoned. It is a legitimate function of the state to see that these contingencies are enforced. That cannot be accomplished without recognizing the contract.

Once women know that no matter what, they get half, and heaven forbid they have children, they're pretty much set for the next 25 years. Good deal if you're a chick, that's for sure, but it's ok if you feel later that you don't like this guy anymore, you can divorce him, take half of everything he owns, and 25 - 32% of his "gross" income, and then marry another unsuspecting man, and if you want, do the exact same thing to him..
Click to expand...

No one forces anyone to enter into such a contract. Pre-nups are binding and virtually without limits as to their provisions.
 
ecofarm said:
Upon divorce the contract is not voided, its contingencies for dissolution are enforced as per the agreements made in the contract.

Are you really under the impression that all other contracts are completed to both party's satisfaction? Often, even in the business world, that is not the case and thus contingencies must be reckoned. It is a legitimate function of the state to see that these contingencies are enforced. That cannot be accomplished without recognizing the contract.
Click to expand...


Nope, no contingencies in marriage. Doesn't matter who's fault or any degree of fault one may incur, it's equitable distribution down the middle, or in most cases, men waive their right to the house and get o run from spousal support, depending of course on how long they've been married. ;) Add children to the mix, and Mom (nothing short of being caught with a needle in her arm) get the kids because of an out dated doctrine, and unless poor ole Dad lives in the same school district, or in some cases the same bus route, they'll get one day during the week to take the kids to dinner, and every other weekend! THAT is the reality, Sir.



No one forces anyone to enter into such a contract. Pre-nups are binding and virtually without limits as to their provisions.
Click to expand...

What is the difference legally between a written promise or one that is verbal and witnessed, with accompanying documentary evidence to support the promise? No, no-fault divorce is a sham, and men somehow allowed it to happen. I'm waiting for no-fault to be challenged one day, and the law changed. Yes, it's harder for the courts to resolve these issues without no fault divorce, but so what..


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Nope, no contingencies in marriage. Doesn't matter who's fault or any degree of fault one may incur, it's equitable distribution down the middle, or in most cases, men waive their right to the house and get o run from spousal support, depending of course on how long they've been married. ;) Add children to the mix, and Mom (nothing short of being caught with a needle in her arm) get the kids because of an out dated doctrine, and unless poor ole Dad lives in the same school district, or in some cases the same bus route, they'll get one day during the week to take the kids to dinner, and every other weekend! THAT is the reality, Sir.





What is the difference legally between a written promise or one that is verbal and witnessed, with accompanying documentary evidence to support the promise? No, no-fault divorce is a sham, and men somehow allowed it to happen. I'm waiting for no-fault to be challenged one day, and the law changed. Yes, it's harder for the courts to resolve these issues without no fault divorce, but so what..


Tim-
Click to expand...


Someone's bitter. I recommend better judgement in general and the use of a pre-nup in the future.

Best of luck.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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".
Click to expand...

absolutely. Just knock off the government ties that do kickbacks for marriage and this is not a problem whatsoever.
 
Henrin said:
Changing your deed to your house to include another person for example is not an overly hard process.
Click to expand...

There are laws though that only apply to spouses when it comes to jointly owning a house though.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not all of it is though. Plus having a single legal document cover it all is more efficient, from my first point.
 
ecofarm said:
Someone's bitter. I recommend better judgement in general and the use of a pre-nup in the future.

Best of luck.
Click to expand...


Not bitter at all, my ex and I are friends, BUT I have seen this happen and literally destroy other men. Are you saying you don't know anyone that got screwed by divorce? I find that odd, if not unlikely. I also have money so I'm the sort that could absorb the complete unfairness the court dished out, but I am the exception. Most Dad's through no fault (Pardon the pun) of their own don't have it nearly as good as I do. Also, pre-nups are not armor proof, just like wills. Probate often comes into play regardless so I fail to see how a pre-nup prevents some of these things from happening. Sure it's a good idea, getting contingencies in place prior to the entering into the contract is always a good idea, but so to is vowing to do this or that for each other. Pre-nups can be challenged AND ARE in many different legal ways, and a lot of the time they are successfully so. Pre-nups provide some protection, but only some. Savvy lawyers can get around them if they can meet certain evidentiary burdens.


Tim-
 
ecofarm said:
They're weak and stupid. What do you care?
Click to expand...

Hehe.. Ok, sure.. Spoken like someone that has never gone through a divorce, or apparently not ever knowing someone that has. Men get screwed, and if it's their fault I have no problem with that, but the problem is that men who do nothing wrong also get screwed by the exact same system. No fault is punitive on men who have lived up to their promises, and rewards women who have not.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Hehe.. Ok, sure.. Spoken like someone that has never gone through a divorce, or apparently not ever knowing someone that has.
Click to expand...

I've been divorced twice, each marriage was 7 years. No problems.

Men get screwed, and if it's their fault I have no problem with that, but the problem is that men who do nothing wrong also get screwed by the exact same system. No fault is punitive on men who have lived up to their promises, and rewards women who have not.
Click to expand...

Spare us the victim card.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... like an all male draft for a unisex military? The idea that any (every?) law must treat all folks equally is great on paper but then why the need for the 15th and 19th amendment if the 14th "really" covers that ground?
Click to expand...

because the 14th itself carved out an exception based on gender:

"the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
 
WCH said:
I agree the government should stay out of it. However, "We the People" are the government and many of WE said NO to SSM.
Click to expand...

i'm so thankful that you the people are in fact NOT the government, and the trashing of one ballot initiative after another proves that. Joe the plumber is in fact NOT capable of deciding anything more complex than how to fix a toilet.
 
chromium said:
because the 14th itself carved out an exception based on gender:

"the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
Click to expand...

So we seem to agree that at least as far as the 14th amendment goes that the "equal protection" clause does not apply to gender and that the 19th addresses nothing except for the right to vote. In other words, the 14th and 15th amendments were intended to be narrowly targeted to the matter of racial discrimination which makes sense in light of the US civil war and the 19th to apply to gender in voting alone as is contains no "equal protection" clause at all.
 
ecofarm said:
Vows don't mean "nothing". There are issues of assets, obligations and other things to be resolved in a divorce.

How can anyone believe enforcing private contracts is not a function of the state?
Click to expand...

What makes you think we are talking about enforcing private contracts?
 
Henrin said:
What makes you think we are talking about enforcing private contracts?
Click to expand...

That's the purpose of the state recognizing marriage. That's what Hicup and I were discussing before you interrupted.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
That's the purpose of the state recognizing marriage. That's what Hicup and I were discussing before you interrupted.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.
 
Henrin said:
No, it's not.
Click to expand...

I was having the discussion, not you. Quoting me and having no idea what was being discussed is rather silly, yes?

It's probably a bad idea to interrupt a discussion if you have no clue what's being discussed. Of course, I have no idea what you were talking about prior to quoting me, as I was not talking to you.
 
ecofarm said:
I was having the discussion, not you. Quoting me and having no idea what was being discussed is rather silly, yes?

It's probably a bad idea to interrupt a discussion if you have no clue what's being discussed. Of course, I have no idea what you were talking about prior to quoting me, as I was not talking to you.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the purpose of government recognized marriage has nothing to do with enforcing private contracts.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So we seem to agree that at least as far as the 14th amendment goes that the "equal protection" clause does not apply to gender and that the 19th addresses nothing except for the right to vote. In other words, the 14th and 15th amendments were intended to be narrowly targeted to the matter of racial discrimination which makes sense in light of the US civil war and the 19th to apply to gender in voting alone as is contains no "equal protection" clause at all.
Click to expand...

Look at historical context for *why* it excluded gender. The same congress that voted in the 13th (abolishing slavery) did so with the agreement it would not lead to votes for women. The 14th says all *citizens* and does not mention race and it can be argued section 2 deals with voting specifically and refers to "male" only because women could not as of yet vote. The 14th would never have passed if it included votes for women, sadly

Further, section 5 seems to foresee challenges to equal protection for classes not even thought of at the time by establishing authority to enforce the amendment.

I see nothing in the 14th that designates race as the only class to be granted equal protection, and that's certainly not becoming of a "free country" to withhold equal protection from people for ANY reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom