• 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!

As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

Gays have equal protections. Marriage is not a protection.

Nope.....sorry.....try again. You are dead wrong and the courts are ruling against you right and left. Get used to it.
 
But there is no reason to be hateful about the push for change, I suspect that is the underline point being made. We tend to make matters like this far worse with militant attitudes about one another. Change in this regard is supposed to be about recognition of the minority no longer being subjected to the will of the majority using the government as the control mechanism. We can easily ruin that and get quite a backlash.

I'm not hateful, but I'm not going to sit here and coddle people who want to use government force to push their religion on other people. This is a basic human rights issue. I talk to these bigots the same way I'd talk to someone who thinks that black people shouldn't have rights. These bigots deserve absolutely nothing less than derision and spite. I absolutely could not give less of a flying **** what their opinion is. They're entitled to have it, but they aren't entitled to violate another sovereign human being's rights over it.

Gays have equal protections. Marriage is not a protection.

You're welcome to your bigoted opinion, but the supreme court has ruled 13 times that marriage is a fundamental human right. I'm not sure who told you that you do, but you don't have a right to force your religion on other people. Learning to respect the rights of others would be the christian thing to do.
 
A threat can always be tangible theoretically - this is not philosophy class - actual involvement only occurrs a I already stated now twice - your comments do not change that fact. Therefore, government is not involved unless an actual enforcement dispute is made by one or the other parties of the contract. Period.

Nope. Again: a contract only works because there is the threat of enforcement. If that is not present, there is no need for the contract, now is there? A contract without the ability to enforce it is a checklist. Period.
 
Nope. Again: a contract only works because there is the threat of enforcement. If that is not present, there is no need for the contract, now is there? A contract without the ability to enforce it is a checklist. Period.

You continue to be incorrect but no amount of facts I can provide seem to make a difference. Have a nice day.
 
Nope. Again: a contract only works because there is the threat of enforcement. If that is not present, there is no need for the contract, now is there? A contract without the ability to enforce it is a checklist. Period.

100% correct
 
You continue to be incorrect but no amount of facts I can provide seem to make a difference. Have a nice day.

LOL

You are still wrong. Just like there's no reason to have laws unless there is a penalty or consequence. Are you saying that the govt is not involved in laws either unless they are broken?

Sorry, laws hold little power unless there is a govt entity to back up enforcement of consequences.
 
LOL Of course you'd say that.

And of course you'd leave out the pertinent example where I demonstrated that you were wrong.

That's pretty telling in and of itself.
 
Government is needed - the issue is how much and where should government exist.

And most people want the government involved in marriage which is why most people get married legally before they die at least once (even if that isn't always successful) and the majority of those who aren't married would like to eventually be married.

I have yet to see any legitimate argument on how privatizing marriage, completely removing government recognition in any way benefits the majority of couples at all, or even society.
 
And most people want the government involved in marriage which is why most people get married legally before they die at least once (even if that isn't always successful) and the majority of those who aren't married would like to eventually be married.

I have yet to see any legitimate argument on how privatizing marriage, completely removing government recognition in any way benefits the majority of couples at all, or even society.

Most people can't find Spain on a map either - so a popularity contest really isn't a good measure or good argument. I admit, as long as I've been alive government has been in the marriage business but personally, I see it as a money making function. They really don't have to be in it - but it's a nice hook for them to keep track of people, things, etc. I can go either way on it and my tendency would be the status quo but if there's an opportunity to privatize and cut government down to size, I usually take a good hard look at it and try to see if it would work. I think it could work just as well or better than it does now as would most of government functions with a few exceptions.
 
Most people can't find Spain on a map either - so a popularity contest really isn't a good measure or good argument. I admit, as long as I've been alive government has been in the marriage business but personally, I see it as a money making function. They really don't have to be in it - but it's a nice hook for them to keep track of people, things, etc. I can go either way on it and my tendency would be the status quo but if there's an opportunity to privatize and cut government down to size, I usually take a good hard look at it and try to see if it would work. I think it could work just as well or better than it does now as would most of government functions with a few exceptions.

When it comes to things people want, and it is something that doesn't actually violate any part of the Constitution (which the government being involved in marriage doesn't), then that is how the US works, rule of the majority.

You cannot prove that it would work just as well or better privatized. The fact is that it very likely wouldn't work better without any government involvement since the government is the entity that protects our private legal kinships to begin with, hence the government issuing birth certificates.
 
You cannot prove that it would work just as well or better privatized. The fact is that it very likely wouldn't work better without any government involvement since the government is the entity that protects our private legal kinships to begin with, hence the government issuing birth certificates.
Private companies work better than government - they're more efficient than government due to competition. I can certainly prove that... especially given the waste and fraud which is rampant through government programs. Private companies cannot absorb such things as the margins (in a majority of business with a few exceptions) are normally low. If private company's cannot meet revenue and cost through margin, they close. Government doesn't have revenue or margin - if they overspend they simply tax more.

For example, Military Housing which has been privatized since the early 1990's.
WEB FEATURE: Privatization of Military Housing: a PPP Success Story | Multi-Housing News Online
Lease agreement adds six bases to housing privatization success story

Don't get me wrong, it's not all wine and roses, but if privatization is done correctly with government oversight - it's a no brainer.
The Pros and Cons of Privatizing Government Functions
 
Most people can't find Spain on a map either - so a popularity contest really isn't a good measure or good argument. I admit, as long as I've been alive government has been in the marriage business but personally, I see it as a money making function. They really don't have to be in it - but it's a nice hook for them to keep track of people, things, etc. I can go either way on it and my tendency would be the status quo but if there's an opportunity to privatize and cut government down to size, I usually take a good hard look at it and try to see if it would work. I think it could work just as well or better than it does now as would most of government functions with a few exceptions.

government does have to be involved to anybody that actually wants thier rights protected or any contract protected and honored :shrug:

and for those that feel otherwise they are free to get a religious/spiritual marriage with on government involved

so the solution is VERY simply for those that claim they dont want government (not saying you) simply dont get a LEGAL marriage
 
Don't get me wrong, it's not all wine and roses, but if privatization is done correctly with government oversight - it's a no brainer.
The Pros and Cons of Privatizing Government Functions

as soon as you say "government oversight" it defeats the whole purpose LMAO
legal marriage is a contract, if people care about those things contained in the contract that requires government period.
for people not interested they are already able to marry in other non-legal ways
 
Private companies work better than government - they're more efficient than government due to competition. I can certainly prove that... especially given the waste and fraud which is rampant through government programs. Private companies cannot absorb such things as the margins (in a majority of business with a few exceptions) are normally low. If private company's cannot meet revenue and cost through margin, they close. Government doesn't have revenue or margin - if they overspend they simply tax more.

For example, Military Housing which has been privatized since the early 1990's.
WEB FEATURE: Privatization of Military Housing: a PPP Success Story | Multi-Housing News Online
Lease agreement adds six bases to housing privatization success story

Don't get me wrong, it's not all wine and roses, but if privatization is done correctly with government oversight - it's a no brainer.
The Pros and Cons of Privatizing Government Functions

We are not talking about a business, but rather an institution, a huge set of rights, protections, and various other things that have very little to do with money. Nothing is really being exchanged in a marriage, nothing bought or sold. This is a relationship. You have to show how private contracts without any government backing are better. Trying to compare marriage to housing or business is stupid.
 
government does have to be involved to anybody that actually wants thier rights protected or any contract protected and honored :shrug:

and for those that feel otherwise they are free to get a religious/spiritual marriage with on government involved

so the solution is VERY simply for those that claim they dont want government (not saying you) simply dont get a LEGAL marriage

I'm not LEGALLY married though I've been with someone I call my wife now for 13 years. As I've already stated, government isn't involved unless there's a dispute. If there's no dispute there is no government involvement. How such an easy concept eludes you is quite amusing.
 
We are not talking about a business, but rather an institution, a huge set of rights, protections, and various other things that have very little to do with money. Nothing is really being exchanged in a marriage, nothing bought or sold. This is a relationship. You have to show how private contracts without any government backing are better. Trying to compare marriage to housing or business is stupid.

The rights and protections exist regardless of who actually does the task. It has everything to do with money.... when privatization can do the same job as government for less - and government still provides the same rights and protections costs go down. As my links already attribute - privatization has worked and the government still backs it.

You asked for proof, I gave you privatization which has already been done and has succeeded - I didn't compare housing and marriage. And the housing privatization that was done was for the government - the military in fact - and it's worked out great. The rights and privileges of soldiers who live in those houses were still enforced by the DoD. I don't have to prove private contracts are better - I just have to show past privatization has worked and could work with marriages without sacrificing anything and it could. Give evidence as to why it's such a bad idea. Make a case. Making claims about institutions and a loss of rights and privileges without some evidence means you have an opinion but nothing to back it up with. I've provided my opinion and my evidence supporting the idea.
 
The rights and protections exist regardless of who actually does the task. It has everything to do with money.... when privatization can do the same job as government for less - and government still provides the same rights and protections costs go down. As my links already attribute - privatization has worked and the government still backs it.

You asked for proof, I gave you privatization which has already been done and has succeeded - I didn't compare housing and marriage. And the housing privatization that was done was for the government - the military in fact - and it's worked out great. The rights and privileges of soldiers who live in those houses were still enforced by the DoD. I don't have to prove private contracts are better - I just have to show past privatization has worked and could work with marriages without sacrificing anything and it could. Give evidence as to why it's such a bad idea. Make a case. Making claims about institutions and a loss of rights and privileges without some evidence means you have an opinion but nothing to back it up with. I've provided my opinion and my evidence supporting the idea.

No they don't exist unless the government guarantees them, recognizes the legal relationship. And if you have to have the government recognize that relationship, then it is cheapest and easiest to simply get that one single contract, piece of paperwork, that costs very little compared to what it would require paperwork wise without that marriage license. How is the private industry going to provide a single, one page contract for each individual that costs less and covers as much or more than the marriage license?

Yes, you would have to prove that they were better or at least as good. It isn't just the legal protections either, but also other things. Even military housing is regulated by the government, I know, I lived in it less than a year ago. Plenty of rules that both residents and the private contractors had to abide by.
 
No they don't exist unless the government guarantees them, recognizes the legal relationship. And if you have to have the government recognize that relationship, then it is cheapest and easiest to simply get that one single contract, piece of paperwork, that costs very little compared to what it would require paperwork wise without that marriage license. How is the private industry going to provide a single, one page contract for each individual that costs less and covers as much or more than the marriage license?
The model already exists in the private sector - Legal Zoom. I can't guarantee marriage licenses could follow this model but I don't see why it couldn't since Legal Zoom already covers things like: Trusts, Wills, LLC's and Incorporations... Those things are also contracts which are enforced by our court system in the US. If the government privatized marriage licenses, they would need to guarantee and recognize them - unless of course the government got out of the marriage business altogether, which would be another discussion entirely.

Yes, you would have to prove that they were better or at least as good. It isn't just the legal protections either, but also other things. Even military housing is regulated by the government, I know, I lived in it less than a year ago. Plenty of rules that both residents and the private contractors had to abide by.
I'm sure if it were tested and Congress created a bill - it could be done with proper oversight. That's all I've been saying.
 
The model already exists in the private sector - Legal Zoom. I can't guarantee marriage licenses could follow this model but I don't see why it couldn't since Legal Zoom already covers things like: Trusts, Wills, LLC's and Incorporations... Those things are also contracts which are enforced by our court system in the US. If the government privatized marriage licenses, they would need to guarantee and recognize them - unless of course the government got out of the marriage business altogether, which would be another discussion entirely.

I'm sure if it were tested and Congress created a bill - it could be done with proper oversight. That's all I've been saying.

Those things you mentioned are but a small bit of what marriage covers. And none of them are as secure as legal marriage. And much of that stuff costs extra money if you want something besides a very basic contract. And it still would be more than a single document. Less efficient.

And a will alone at Legal Zomm costs $70-$80, not counting the $15 a month subscription fee. Then there is the costs for each of the other documents, some of which expire. The most expensive marriage license is about $100, most are much less, less than even the cost of just the will.
 
Last edited:
Those things you mentioned are but a small bit of what marriage covers. And none of them are as secure as legal marriage.
What do you mean "secure"? How is marriage more "secure" than say a Will?

And much of that stuff costs extra money if you want something besides a very basic contract. And it still would be more than a single document. Less efficient.
It may or may not be - factually you cannot say it would be more than a single document because no one has tried it yet - a nice opinion though.
 
What do you mean "secure"? How is marriage more "secure" than say a Will?

It may or may not be - factually you cannot say it would be more than a single document because no one has tried it yet - a nice opinion though.

You have nothing to try it with and if the government still had to recognize it then it wouldn't change anything. What exactly would be changed? Who is paying for the document to be made? What would the point of that be? The government would still decide which ones it recognized as legal relationships, just as they decide what is and isn't recognized as a legal agreement between people.

Legal relationships are established by marriage, just as they are established by birth certificates. Do you think a private birth certificate is going to be automatically recognized by the government?
 
You have nothing to try it with and if the government still had to recognize it then it wouldn't change anything. What exactly would be changed?
Hold on - you haven't explained what you meant by "secure". You used that as a qualifier and did not explain it.

Who is paying for the document to be made?
The same people who pay the marriage license fee they pay today when the government processes the marriage form.
What would the point of that be?
Paying the private company to process the license - work is still being done whether or not it's the government doing it or the private sector.
The government would still decide which ones it recognized as legal relationships, just as they decide what is and isn't recognized as a legal agreement between people.
That's status quo.

Legal relationships are established by marriage, just as they are established by birth certificates. Do you think a private birth certificate is going to be automatically recognized by the government?
Sure. Why wouldn't it? The government accepts all types of official documents from the private sector today. Why would a marriage license or birth certificate be any different?
 
Hold on - you haven't explained what you meant by "secure". You used that as a qualifier and did not explain it.

The same people who pay the marriage license fee they pay today when the government processes the marriage form.
Paying the private company to process the license - work is still being done whether or not it's the government doing it or the private sector.
That's status quo.

Sure. Why wouldn't it? The government accepts all types of official documents from the private sector today. Why would a marriage license or birth certificate be any different?

Because they aren't. You seem to think that this is something that people want as well. It isn't.

As for being more secure, it is due to the fact that a marriage license, that particular document, sets up the legal relationship, that then takes precedent over other legal relationships or in some cases other legal documentation. And that is held in legal precedent. Also there is security in the process to obtain and file a marriage certificate with the government, helping to prevent fraud.

And you still haven't shown how it would be better privatized, especially since all the same laws concerning spouses and marriages and those relationships would be in place. Why make a change just to make it without any purpose, especially when that change is almost certainly going to cost couples more money with no benefit to them nor to even society.
 
Because they aren't. You seem to think that this is something that people want as well. It isn't.
Whether people want it or not is not relevant to my posts - I'm looking at the possibility of the private sector taking over this function. Popularity is a different discussion.

As for being more secure, it is due to the fact that a marriage license, that particular document, sets up the legal relationship, that then takes precedent over other legal relationships or in some cases other legal documentation. And that is held in legal precedent. Also there is security in the process to obtain and file a marriage certificate with the government, helping to prevent fraud.
Most legal documents carry a state seal, require a witness signature and a notary seal, which seem good enough today for affidavits, oaths, applications, deeds, and contracts.

And you still haven't shown how it would be better privatized, especially since all the same laws concerning spouses and marriages and those relationships would be in place. Why make a change just to make it without any purpose, especially when that change is almost certainly going to cost couples more money with no benefit to them nor to even society.
That was already addressed - lower cost, competition and slimmer margins will lower the cost vs. government doing the same thing. Privatization does not have to benefit society - government certainly doesn't benefit society all the time or even most of the time, even though government sells itself that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom