• 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!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

Ikari said:
You must use government force to forbid same sex couples from entering the contract of marriage. Force is the only tool that can suppress the exercise of rights, and government force the most used of all tools to do so. If there was no government force here, there would be no issue as same sex couples could then marry.

So do you think you can now answer my question?
Click to expand...
Same sex couples can marry. This is a question of whether or not the state should be forced to recognize those marriages. The state has identified a number of "prerequisites" to determine which marriages are "valid" for recognition. State interests underly those prerequisites. Procreation is one interest that has been identified in relevant case law. What other interest might the state have in restricting marriages between related individuals?

Do you not agree that the state has a significant interest in promoting responsible procreation within long term, committed relationships?
 
BCR said:
but I have and still have yet to see a vaild reason to keep it illegal.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal. There is no crime against homosexuality. The issue is not recognizing homosexual unions as marriage, because that relationship is not a marriage.
 
Neil Patrick Harris and his partner of many years are about to become parents through a surrogate. As long as there is a female somewhere in the picture, anybody can create a family.

Hicup said:
Do you understand what instrinsic means?




Um, I hope that helps you out a little.


Tim-
Click to expand...
 
Hicup said:
Case closed.. LOL This is your argument? That a license is the same as a contract. :)

Next, please..

Tim-
Click to expand...

You're not seriously suggesting that the marriage license isn't a contract, are you? Seriously?
 
rivrrat said:
You're not seriously suggesting that the marriage license isn't a contract, are you? Seriously?
Click to expand...


In law, a contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties which, if it contains the elements of a valid legal agreement, is enforceable by law[1] or by binding arbitration. A legally enforceable contract is an exchange of promises with specific legal remedies for breach. These can include compensatory remedy, whereby the defaulting party is required to pay monies that would otherwise have been exchanged were the contract honoured, or an Equitable remedy such as Specific Performance, in which the person who entered into the contract is required to carry out the specific action they have reneged upon.

Agreement is said to be reached when an offer capable of immediate acceptance is met with a "mirror image" acceptance (i.e., an unqualified acceptance).[2] The parties must have the necessary capacity to contract and the contract must not be either trifling, indeterminate, impossible, or illegal. Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (usually translated "agreements are to be kept", but more literally "pacts must be kept").[3] Breach of contract is recognized by the law and remedies can be provided. Link

Where are the promises in the marriage license? Riverrat, you only need to meet prerequisits in order for the license to be issued. That is NOT a contract. Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this with me?


Tim-
 
I believe we have Supreme Court precedent stating that marriage is more than a civil contract:

"Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority."
Click to expand...
Maynard v. Hill

Marriage establishes rights and obligations as a matter of law, not contract.
 
Last edited:
The thing in this whole situation that really burns me, is the phrase "the will of the voters". If a state got together and voted for a law that red headed short people would longer be allowed to reside in the state, and this law passed with 85% of the vote, should it be allowed to stand? Now, I am not comparing this to the vote against gay marriage, as I am not going to get into my positions on it in this post. I am only trying to make a point. If the vote of the people goes against the constitution, then that vote cannot be allowed to stand. This is WHY we have 3 branches of government, and why it is the job of the courts to interpret the laws, and, if necessary, determine their constitutionality. Like I said, I am not saying that law is unconstitutional, but it is the courts job to make that call, and NOT by a direct vote of the people. A vote of the people cannot change the constitution. So, please. Stop talking about what the voters want. America, contrary to popular belief, is NOT a direct democracy. The people can all want to remove all taxes completely, and make it a law that only people uglier than themselves be allowed to hang out with them so they can look more attractive, but they cant just have a vote and make this happen.

Agree or disagree with gay marriage all you want, but stop whining about the will of the voter.
 
Kandahar said:
Do you believe that the voters should have veto power over YOUR (current or future) marriage? It's no one's goddamn business except the two people who want to get married.
Click to expand...

Apparently, it's the government and the laws business.
 
Hicup said:
Where are the promises in the marriage license? Riverrat, you only need to meet prerequisits in order for the license to be issued. That is NOT a contract. Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this with me?


Tim-
Click to expand...
I can't even believe you're arguing that it's NOT. When you both sign that license (aka - CONTRACT) you're agreeing to abide by the marriage laws of the state in which you are married. Where the hell else do you think that agreement happens? Anything not covered by said state laws you'd have to get an additional document for, commonly referred to as a 'pre-nup'.
 
opinion8tdwench said:
If a state got together and voted for a law that red headed short people would longer be allowed to reside in the state, and this law passed with 85% of the vote, should it be allowed to stand?
Click to expand...

/me wrings hands

How long do I have to pack?!

Welcome to DP, btw. Enjoy your stay!
 
Taylor said:
Same sex couples can marry. This is a question of whether or not the state should be forced to recognize those marriages. The state has identified a number of "prerequisites" to determine which marriages are "valid" for recognition. State interests underly those prerequisites. Procreation is one interest that has been identified in relevant case law.
Click to expand...

OK, but it was stated that procreation is not "the" interest, but "an" interest. So I want to know what other interests are violated with same sex marriage. And is the violation of one interest enough to justify government action against the individual. That question has still not yet been answered

Taylor said:
What other interest might the state have in restricting marriages between related individuals?
Click to expand...

We have enough stupid people already. There's no need to marry into your own family. But it's also not really a problem since it's not the norm here to do.

Taylor said:
Do you not agree that the state has a significant interest in promoting responsible procreation within long term, committed relationships?
Click to expand...

What business is it of theirs? You want to talk about "long term, committed relationships", but over half of all first marriages end in divorce. If the State had significant interest in promoting responsible procreation within long term, committed relationships don't you think they should have tougher restrictions on divorce? Maybe mandatory pre-marriage counseling too. But none of that exists. And same sex couples can also have a long term, committed relationship. And since there are so many orphans out there, they can even provide better homes than the State for the raising of these children.
 
rivrrat said:
I can't even believe you're arguing that it's NOT. When you both sign that license (aka - CONTRACT) you're agreeing to abide by the marriage laws of the state in which you are married. Where the hell else do you think that agreement happens? Anything not covered by said state laws you'd have to get an additional document for, commonly referred to as a 'pre-nup'.
Click to expand...

So is my drivers license a contract. What are the promises, in law, specific to marriage that, I must fulfill, or not break? I must be a man, or a woman, not already married, of legal age, and uncoerced, inter alia in order to recieve my license. There, now I'm married. Now what performance standard, in law, am I bound to? What legal obligation do I have to my spouse, or the state, specific to marriage?

The verb licence or grant licence means to give permission. The noun licence (license in American English) refers to that permission as well as to the document memorializing that permission.

License may be granted by a party ("licensor") to another party ("licensee") as an element of an agreement between those parties. A shorthand definition of a license is "an authorization (by the licensor) to use the licensed material (by the licensee)."

In particular a license may be issued by authorities, to allow an activity that would otherwise be forbidden. It may require paying a fee and/or proving a capability. The requirement may also serve to keep the authorities informed on a type of activity, and to give them the opportunity to set conditions and limitations
Click to expand...
Link


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
So is my drivers license a contract. What are the promises, in law, specific to marriage that, I must fulfill, or not break? I must be a man, or a woman, not already married, of legal age, and uncoerced, inter alia in order to recieve my license. There, now I'm married. Now what performance standard, in law, am I bound to? What legal obligation do I have to my spouse, or the state, specific to marriage?

Link


Tim-
Click to expand...
Depends on your state.
 
rivrrat said:
Depends on your state.
Click to expand...

Please.. A license is only setting the requirements to obtain the permission to peform an act. It is NOT by any definition, and certainly not in the context of marriage, a contract that binds any of the three parties together. Period!


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
So is my drivers license a contract. What are the promises, in law, specific to marriage that, I must fulfill, or not break? I must be a man, or a woman, not already married, of legal age, and uncoerced, inter alia in order to recieve my license. There, now I'm married. Now what performance standard, in law, am I bound to? What legal obligation do I have to my spouse, or the state, specific to marriage?
Click to expand...

It depends on the specifics between the two people in the contract. For some, something like infidelity is breech of contract. The full break condition is no longer wishing to be married. Because it is a contract, you must have the contract dissolved by a court. Once one or both parties no longer wish to be considered married and reap the contractual privileges which come with it; they can go to the courts to have the contract nullified. If it's a both party sort of thing, there is no fault. Which merely means that neither party involved wishes to remain married. There are fault divorces through which activity of one, and it can be illegal doings or cheating or any number of reasons, and that can be brought forth by one party to show breech of contract as to what was expected in the particular relationship. That breech can be considered significant enough to warrant dissolving the contract.
 
Hicup said:
Please.. A license is only setting the requirements to obtain the permission to peform an act. It is NOT by any definition, and certainly not in the context of marriage, a contract that binds any of the three parties together. Period!


Tim-
Click to expand...
Holy ****. Are you serious? That IS the contract. There is nothing else binding but the signed marriage license. Nothing. (aside from a pre-nup) What the hell do you think the contract IS if not the license? By signing the license, you're agreeing to state marriage laws. In some cases, it means if you cheat on your spouse, they get an uncontested divorce and they get everything. That's just one simple example. What else BUT the license would put the two people in legal contract together?

All that is required to get married is that license. You get it, you sign it, an officiate signs it, the officiate submits it and guess what? You're ****ing married. That's all that's required. 3 signatures. (sometimes 5 if the state requires witnesses to the signing) Basically, it's a notorized document. That is all that makes you married. Signatures on a document (contract).

So please do attempt to tell us what, if not that license/contract, would be the legally binding marriage contract? Since that license/contract is all that's required.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Holy ****. Are you serious? That IS the contract. There is nothing else binding but the signed marriage license. Nothing. (aside from a pre-nup) What the hell do you think the contract IS if not the license? By signing the license, you're agreeing to state marriage laws.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the marriage license is not a contract. It is a license, hence the name. If you want a contract, you've got to write one up and sign it (pre-nup) otherwise you're left to whatever statutory arrangement exists. A license is not always required for the state to recognize a marriage as "valid."
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Holy ****. Are you serious? That IS the contract. There is nothing else binding but the signed marriage license. Nothing. (aside from a pre-nup) What the hell do you think the contract IS if not the license? By signing the license, you're agreeing to state marriage laws. In some cases, it means if you cheat on your spouse, they get an uncontested divorce and they get everything. That's just one simple example. What else BUT the license would put the two people in legal contract together?

All that is required to get married is that license. You get it, you sign it, an officiate signs it, the officiate submits it and guess what? You're ****ing married. That's all that's required. 3 signatures. (sometimes 5 if the state requires witnesses to the signing) Basically, it's a notorized document. That is all that makes you married. Signatures on a document (contract).

So please do attempt to tell us what, if not that license/contract, would be the legally binding marriage contract? Since that license/contract is all that's required.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you're not in any way understanding what a license does in the context of the law, much less how it applies to marriage. I can't help you any further on this matter. next..

edit - Ok I will help, but only becauase I care about you. :)

read this and tell me if you still hold to your opinion? Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
I would argue that the marriage license is not a contract. It is a license, hence the name. If you want a contract, you've got to write one up and sign it (pre-nup) otherwise you're left to whatever statutory arrangement exists. A license is not always required for the state to recognize a marriage as "valid."
Click to expand...

No, it's a contract. Otherwise you wouldn't need to go to court to nullify it and release oneself from it.

Hicup said:
With all due respect, you're not in any way understanding what a license does in the context of the law, much less how it applies to marriage. I can't help you any further on this matter. next..

edit - Ok I will help, but only becauase I care about you. :)

read this and tell me if you still hold to your opinion? Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tim-
Click to expand...

It's a contract. You take on certain obligations, and gain certain privileges by entering into it. If it was just a license, you wouldn't need to go to court to get out of it. The license is called that only because you have to qualify in order to ENTER INTO said contract. You must first meet qualifications (aka, get a license), but once the license is signed and "notarized" (via the officiate and witnesses if necessary) then it becomes a contract.
 
rivrrat said:
No, it's a contract. Otherwise you wouldn't need to go to court to nullify it and release oneself from it.
Click to expand...
You go to court to nullify your marriage not your marriage license.
 
Taylor said:
You go to court to nullify your marriage not your marriage license.
Click to expand...

The marriage is marked void by voiding the marriage license.
 
Ikari said:
The marriage is marked void by voiding the marriage license.
Click to expand...
No, it is typically voided by a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage or other court order.
 
Taylor said:
You go to court to nullify your marriage not your marriage license.
Click to expand...

Can you believe Rivrrat is arguing this? Is it so hard on this forum to admit youi made an error, and move on? Rivrrat? It's okay, really, no one thinks you're stupid, just admit you understood the two things to be something else.. :)

We're here for you.


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom