View Poll Results: Would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage? See below

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Under these circumstances, yes

    4 14.81%
  • Under any circumstances, no

    17 62.96%
  • Under other circumstances, maybe

    6 22.22%
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77

Thread: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were different?

  1. #41
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    Government should have zero to do with marriage. It is strictly a religious ceremony and all laws and regulations regarding marriage should be struck down.
    A primary function of the state is to provide a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes. A marriage involves a comingling of property, next of kin issues, joint and several liability and other legal issues. The state has an interest in marriage.

  2. #42
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    A primary function of the state is to provide a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes. A marriage involves a comingling of property, next of kin issues, joint and several liability and other legal issues. The state has an interest in marriage.
    The purpose of the state is the defense of our rights, militarility (foreign) police (domestic) and law courts where we can invoke said rights. Providing a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes is a primary function of the court system, however said issues to not require the legal institution of marriage in order to negotiate.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 06-25-11 at 07:29 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  3. #43
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    First I want to be real specific about something.

    Polygamy and polyamory are not the same thing.

    Polygamy is basically nothing but a glorified harem. It's on the knife's edge of being something we don't allow in a free country, due to how slavishly it tends to treat women and that there is often a real question as to whether all parties consented.

    Polyamory is a love-based relationship that happens to involve more than 2 people, who can be any combination of genders and sexualities.

    Polyamory? Yeah, I'm down with that. Polygamy? Not so much.

    Anyway, I wouldn't support any constitutional definition of marriage. A constitutional definition of what counts as valid love? Please. That's absurd. And I do think people in polyamorous relationships should be allowed to marry. As long as it involves consenting adults, why does anyone care?

    But count me as another who thinks gov should get out of the marriage business all together.
    The only trouble with your position is that people generally don’t know enough on their own to set up a contact between them for the courts to use to settle disputes. Given where we are now, I think the government has to a standard ‘marriage’ contract with maybe a dozen options. There would still be ‘religious’ marriages w/o government control. (We had one, not because of a religion, but because we are members of a community.) And there was signing the paper that made us ‘married’ according to the government; it’s a contract. To keep things reasonably simple the government should support a contract to be limited to two adult people and one individual could only be party to one such contract. The contract would provide for all the functional stuff the government recognizes now, e.g. rights of the spouse at the hospital. Religious marriages can still be whatever people want, polygamous, polyamorous, polyandry, etc. The constitution directs the state to stay out of religious marriages.

  4. #44
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,692
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    A primary function of the state is to provide a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes. A marriage involves a comingling of property, next of kin issues, joint and several liability and other legal issues. The state has an interest in marriage.
    No, the state has an interest in implied social contracts...marriage is God's territory.
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  5. #45
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    The only trouble with your position is that people generally don’t know enough on their own to set up a contact between them for the courts to use to settle disputes. Given where we are now, I think the government has to a standard ‘marriage’ contract with maybe a dozen options. There would still be ‘religious’ marriages w/o government control. (We had one, not because of a religion, but because we are members of a community.) And there was signing the paper that made us ‘married’ according to the government; it’s a contract. To keep things reasonably simple the government should support a contract to be limited to two adult people and one individual could only be party to one such contract. The contract would provide for all the functional stuff the government recognizes now, e.g. rights of the spouse at the hospital. Religious marriages can still be whatever people want, polygamous, polyamorous, polyandry, etc. The constitution directs the state to stay out of religious marriages.
    The only reason it's currently impractical is because we've been sticking government into marriage for so long. I do agree with you that under our current framework, it is impractical. But that framework can be changed at any time, and there are ways to streamline or or broaden its useage.

    What if I want to assign some of those rights to a close friend, rather than a lover? What if I'd like to assign them to mutliple people for whatever reason? The only reason that's impractical is because it is currently only streamlined to work within marriage, and trying to do it outside marriage is extremely expensive. But we can change that any time we like, and whenever society is ready. The red tape doesn't have to be there.

  6. #46
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,683
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    There is no circumstance where I would support any constitutional amendment making one specific group of people less equal than others.

  7. #47
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    I have to say don't push it you are getting your way one State and judge at a time. It's not the time to risk a big backlash when you're winning.

  8. #48
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    Quote Originally Posted by deltabtry View Post
    I would support a constitutional amendment for the government to get out of the marriage business all together, it's just another source of unconstitutional income for the government.
    I agree - though there are some aspects of marriage the government has a business to be involved with - for tax purposes and legal records. That type of thing is fine. But determining *who* can marry isn't their concern at all.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  9. #49
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,683
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    I have to say don't push it you are getting your way one State and judge at a time. It's not the time to risk a big backlash when you're winning.
    It's not a matter of "getting their way." It's a matter of having equal rights under the law, and being protected from legalized discrimination. Civil rights would still be a wet dream in many states if minorities had to "get their way" one state and judge at a time. This is a constitutional issue, a federal issue, and sooner or later there will be a SCOTUS that will agree that it's not okay for state's to violate the constitutional rights of homosexuals just because they want to do so.

  10. #50
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    No, the state has an interest in implied social contracts...marriage is God's territory.
    The state handles contractual disputes. God has nothing to do with it.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •