• 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!

'I do' in DC: Same-sex couples wed in Washington

yes, a legal marriage conveys benefits. my contention is that a marriage belongs in a church, while a civil union is just that, civil, although we categorize civil unions as marriage right now. but i've heard that many people are perfectly ok with civil unions for gays, and i think we already have the mechanism in place for that, which is marriage outside a church.

maybe i'm not explaining myself very well, but it seems to me the label is what's important to some poeple.
 
I think that government needs to get out of the marriage business.

And that is not going to happen. Just from a purely practical standpoint, it's a nonstarter.
 
And that is not going to happen. Just from a purely practical standpoint, it's a nonstarter.

I actually think that it's the most practical way to respond to it. Make every governmental relationship contract a "civil union" and let people get "married" in a church. "Marriage" is defended, and gays/lesbians get equal rights. Win/Win.
 
Government recognition is an option, not a requirement. The government could care less if you want to give it a "big, fat, middle finger."

These days, any gay couple can get married in the sense of our forefathers. If they want to "just do it without a license" nobody is going to come after them. That type of marriage exists today for everyone, does it not?

There are some things that couples do get if they get state recognition. One big one is Hospital visits, by law my girlfriend cant see me in the hospital within a certain time period because we arent married (not that I want to be married).
 
could we all please just realize that any union outside a church is only a civil union, and not a marriage?

Not really. Its only recently in the history of man that churches got involved with marriage.

Justinian Lawyers came up with rules about it around 550 as another way to control you.

The church saw the advantage of controlling marriage and started getting into it 400 years later through blessings and prayers. The council of Trent started requiring catholic marriages with a priest and witnesses. It became fashionable around the 18th century. $$$


Civil ceremonies started popping up around colonial times via magistrates.


The common law option is there for everyone and always has been.

This about sticking it in your face and money.
 
There are some things that couples do get if they get state recognition. One big one is Hospital visits, by law my girlfriend cant see me in the hospital within a certain time period because we arent married (not that I want to be married).
Yes - I am of the mind that the benefits that come with the state-recognition of marriage outweigh any drawbacks. Regarding hospital visits, I'm dubious that it's illegal for the hospital to allow a visit from your girlfriend so long as you're able to ok it. It might be their policy not to allow it - but I don't see government making it illegal unless it's to protect your privacy (e.g. you've been in an accident and are not able to "clear" the visitor).
 
I actually think that it's the most practical way to respond to it. Make every governmental relationship contract a "civil union" and let people get "married" in a church. "Marriage" is defended, and gays/lesbians get equal rights. Win/Win.

I understand the logic, and don't disagree. What I am saying though is the votes to do something like this do not exist, nor will they any time soon. As such, we have to deal with marriage as it is now, and work to make changes that work within that framework.
 
Those people in DC can get married all they want.....they will not get one government benefit........
 
Those people in DC can get married all they want.....they will not get one government benefit........

Why do you oppose people being able to visit loved ones in a hospital, file taxes jointly, or inherit possessions of a deceased loved one?

Because that's what this is all about. It's about the law treating everyone equally. It's not about the word. It's about being treated as second class citizens.
 
Last edited:
Why do you oppose people being able to visit loved ones in a hospital...

That's not a legal right.

I know first hand that's hospital policy. There is no law mandating access for a spouse, and this being a problem is much less common then you might assume. Usually the hospital will let in whomever the patient wants when visitors are allowed.
 
You know, I am really torn on this. Why? Because when was who got married any of the government's damn business anyways? When our forefathers got married, they just did it, and didn't need a license. It was only racism in the south and eugenics in the north that brought about marriage licenses. If my wife and I had to get married again, we would just do it, and give the government a big, fat, middle finger, by not registering and getting their damn license. We would be married, whether or not the government approved of it. It's not their domain, and they have absolutely no say in it.

However, having said that, I will now say congratulations to brides and grooms, brides and brides, and grooms and grooms, wherever they may find themselves at the altar, whether that altar is religious or secular.

Article is here.

Half of them will end up divorced anyway so I don't see why anyone should give a rat's ass.
 
Why do you oppose people being able to visit loved ones in a hospital, file taxes jointly, or inherit possessions of a deceased loved one?


Because that's what this is all about. It's about the law treating everyone equally. It's not about the word. It's about being treated as second class citizens.

I don't because none of those are federal benefits.......

Everyone is treated equally....Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex just as I can.....
 
I don't because none of those are federal benefits.......

They're benefits of marriage. The exact nature varies state by state, but these benefits are denied to same-sex couples.You're splitting hairs, and doing it badly. Why do you oppose these benefits to same-sex couples?
 
All opposition to gay marriage boils down to "I don't like it and therefore they shouldn't have it."
 
All opposition to gay marriage boils down to "I don't like it and therefore they shouldn't have it."

Conservatives have managed to convince themselves that gay marriage is about them. I can't really figure out how they did that.
 
All opposition to gay marriage boils down to "I don't like it and therefore they shouldn't have it."

That's what everything boils down to.

What's your point?
 
Conservatives have managed to convince themselves that gay marriage is about them. I can't really figure out how they did that.

If it's not about us then per pro-gm arguments we shouldn't care, therefore the only way for us to give our support is for it to be about us in some way.
 
They're benefits of marriage. The exact nature varies state by state, but these benefits are denied to same-sex couples.You're splitting hairs, and doing it badly. Why do you oppose these benefits to same-sex couples?

Most of those benefits you can get with a will...You don't have to be married.....There are no so called married gays receiving Gov. benefits.....
 
:roll:

So you think that all laws are basically people saying they don't like something and therefore no one should enjoy it?

Not all laws, just those laws which ban or restrict something.

I don't like drunk driving, therefore I don't think others should enjoy drunk driving.

See you're ignoring why people don't like something, passing it off as mere bias by assuming there couldn't be any rational behind their dislike.
 
Not all laws, just those laws which ban or restrict something.

I don't like drunk driving, therefore I don't think others should enjoy drunk driving.

See you're ignoring why people don't like something, passing it off as mere bias by assuming there couldn't be any rational behind their dislike.


No, I am not assuming anything. I am explicitly saying that there is no rationale behind the people who don't want gay marriage. None whatsoever. Only bigotry.

Now, in their mind, they can justify their bigotry in a hundred ways. Bigots always do.
 
I don't because none of those are federal benefits.......

Everyone is treated equally....Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex just as I can.....

Well how nice for them?:roll:

Forget the fact that they would rather marry the person they love. Not unlike yourself, I'm sure. No matter how much you all like to say that this is nothing like anti-miscegenation laws, you are wrong. It is a lot like them, unless you want to show me where the law requires that marriages must result in children or that the two people involved have to be able to have children.

Now, if the government decided that, yes, marriage is for the good of children, and that is why it exists, then you might have a case against gay marriage. Of course, the government has never actually said this, and doing so could easily put other people's marriages in question. I'm thinking especially about transgendered marriages, old people who want to get married, people who have some form of sterilization, and certain handicapped people.

However, since the government is in the business of giving special entitlements and privileges to people who get married without any care to whether or not those two people can actually produce offspring, then it really isn't fair for them to say that one group of people isn't eligible just because they can't produce offspring.
 
Most of those benefits you can get with a will...You don't have to be married.....There are no so called married gays receiving Gov. benefits.....

Technically, there could be. Transgendered marriages have never really been questioned. A couple who started their marriage as a man and woman, and then one gets a sex change, and they decide to stay married. In all outward appearances, they are a gay couple.

Also, the federal government goes by whatever sex the state the person is living in says the person is. So, in a state that accepts the born sex of the person after a sex change, a woman could marry a woman or a man a man and it would be federally recognized. This does work the opposite way too. In a state that recognizes the new sex of a transgendered person, a man, who started life as a woman, could marry a woman.
 
Back
Top Bottom