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 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 77

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

  1. #51
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    It would be entirely unrealistic for government to get out of marriage entirely. There are inheritance disputes, child custody issues, splitting assets in divorces, joint credit issues... all sorts of property and financial problems to sort out from marriage that courts are pretty well required for. Where there is ownership involved, there will need to be government involvement to help sort it out.

    Secondly, the courts are ruling left and right that preventing two consenting adults from marrying is unconstitutional, so the scenario in the OP is unlikely to happen. SSM is 100% about civil rights. If marriage is a right, then it is a right that must be applied equally to everyone. There is absolutely no way around this. It has nothing to do with pushing an agenda, it has nothing to do with pandering to get votes, it has nothing to do with indoctrinating children, it has nothing to do with making being gay "cool". It's about equal rights. Period.

    I see no reason for polyamory (thanks MistressNomad for the clarification between this and polygamy) to be illegal. It's complicated, in terms of inheritance and all those other issues I mentioned above, since it more resembles a corporation than a partnership, but it's not impossible to sort out. Again, these are consenting adults. The slippery slope fallacy about children and animals does not apply, since they are not legally able to enter into contracts, and thus cannot marry anyone. However, this discussion is not about any form of marriage besides SSM. There is no "if SSM is okay, then others have to be okay, too". It is an invalid argument.

    Marriage is not a religious institution. It's not even a human institution. Many animals pair off, and do so for life. No single culture or religion can lay claim to marriage as its own. It has been a part of many (if not all) cultures that have existed throughout history in this world. To state that marriage is the sole providence of Christianity is ignorant and arrogant. Many Americans do not believe what some Christians in this country believe, and it is wrong to attempt to force us to comply with your beliefs. And NO, it is not the same in reverse. To prevent you from living how you wish would be to infringe on your religious rights, not to prevent you from stopping others from living how they wish. If you cannot handle that your neighbors do not believe as you do, then you have no place in the United States, a land where everyone is free to pursue whatever theological beliefs they choose.

    These are my thoughts on what has been discussed in this thread.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #52
    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
    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.
    Only technically can "that framework can be changed at any time". Yes single people should "assign some of those rights to a close friend"; but, they don't. People will continue to be stupid, but they can be assisted in making reasonable contracts at a very low cost to society compared to not assisting. I'm not suggesting taking rights away or having the government involved in marriage. Just adding options in a 'suggested contract' for marriage. This might be doable sooner. The red tape is not in the way, it’s actually a simple enabler. Red tape is requiring people to find a private lawyer to do it then having to take unique contracts with you at all times. Otherwise we agree, that happens so seldom to me. thx

  3. #53
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    It would be entirely unrealistic for government to get out of marriage entirely. There are inheritance disputes, child custody issues, splitting assets in divorces, joint credit issues... all sorts of property and financial problems to sort out from marriage that courts are pretty well required for. Where there is ownership involved, there will need to be government involvement to help sort it out.

    Secondly, the courts are ruling left and right that preventing two consenting adults from marrying is unconstitutional, so the scenario in the OP is unlikely to happen. SSM is 100% about civil rights. If marriage is a right, then it is a right that must be applied equally to everyone. There is absolutely no way around this. It has nothing to do with pushing an agenda, it has nothing to do with pandering to get votes, it has nothing to do with indoctrinating children, it has nothing to do with making being gay "cool". It's about equal rights. Period.

    I see no reason for polyamory (thanks MistressNomad for the clarification between this and polygamy) to be illegal. It's complicated, in terms of inheritance and all those other issues I mentioned above, since it more resembles a corporation than a partnership, but it's not impossible to sort out. Again, these are consenting adults. The slippery slope fallacy about children and animals does not apply, since they are not legally able to enter into contracts, and thus cannot marry anyone. However, this discussion is not about any form of marriage besides SSM. There is no "if SSM is okay, then others have to be okay, too". It is an invalid argument.

    Marriage is not a religious institution. It's not even a human institution. Many animals pair off, and do so for life. No single culture or religion can lay claim to marriage as its own. It has been a part of many (if not all) cultures that have existed throughout history in this world. To state that marriage is the sole providence of Christianity is ignorant and arrogant. Many Americans do not believe what some Christians in this country believe, and it is wrong to attempt to force us to comply with your beliefs. And NO, it is not the same in reverse. To prevent you from living how you wish would be to infringe on your religious rights, not to prevent you from stopping others from living how they wish. If you cannot handle that your neighbors do not believe as you do, then you have no place in the United States, a land where everyone is free to pursue whatever theological beliefs they choose.

    These are my thoughts on what has been discussed in this thread.
    Excellent points.

  4. #54
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    Only technically can "that framework can be changed at any time". Yes single people should "assign some of those rights to a close friend"; but, they don't. People will continue to be stupid, but they can be assisted in making reasonable contracts at a very low cost to society compared to not assisting. I'm not suggesting taking rights away or having the government involved in marriage. Just adding options in a 'suggested contract' for marriage. This might be doable sooner. The red tape is not in the way, it’s actually a simple enabler. Red tape is requiring people to find a private lawyer to do it then having to take unique contracts with you at all times. Otherwise we agree, that happens so seldom to me. thx
    Well, one example of it being expensive I can think of is gay couples having kids. Even if the child biologically belongs to one parent through IVF or whatever, the other parent has to formally adopt the child to be the other parent - a process that costs thousands of dollars. If they were married, this would be implied. There's no reason other than the current framework that this contract couldn't be freed up and made easier. Just apply the marriage clause to anyone who agrees to be the other parent.

    But yeah, we generally agree. It is not as simple as "just changing it." Like anything, society as a whole has to get behind that before it could happen. And it would require a huge re-working of our current system, and as such, I don't think it's practical for a very long time.

  5. #55
    Student SPC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Last Seen
    10-02-11 @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    215

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

    I've asked this question before in other threads: What happens if gay marriage passes in a state and ministers in that state refuse to perform the ceremony. Do they violate the ministers First Amendment Rights and make it mandatory that they perform the ceremony or strip them of their ministerial license, or do they put a special provision in the law that allow's the minister to refuse. You know that many ministers are going to refuse to perform the ceremony. I'm thinking about putting a poll up to see what reaction I get to the question.

  6. #56
    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 SPC View Post
    I've asked this question before in other threads: What happens if gay marriage passes in a state and ministers in that state refuse to perform the ceremony. Do they violate the ministers First Amendment Rights and make it mandatory that they perform the ceremony or strip them of their ministerial license, or do they put a special provision in the law that allow's the minister to refuse. You know that many ministers are going to refuse to perform the ceremony. I'm thinking about putting a poll up to see what reaction I get to the question.
    Ministers have always had the right to refuse to perform a marriage. Who cares? You don't have to have your wedding performed by a member of the clergy and you have no right to their religious endorsement.

    The courts have already settled these issues.

  7. #57
    Student SPC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Last Seen
    10-02-11 @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    215

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

    True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.

  8. #58
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?
    Nope, I think it's stupid to amend the Constitution for something like this. The States can figure it out for themselves.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #59
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SPC View Post
    True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.
    Oh no, that liberal agenda!!

    Wrong. Most of us expected and accepted that some churches will refuse to do it. Whatever. There will be plenty more who will be willing to, and the church, not being the state, is allowed to do that.

  10. #60
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SPC View Post
    I've asked this question before in other threads: What happens if gay marriage passes in a state and ministers in that state refuse to perform the ceremony. Do they violate the ministers First Amendment Rights and make it mandatory that they perform the ceremony or strip them of their ministerial license, or do they put a special provision in the law that allow's the minister to refuse. You know that many ministers are going to refuse to perform the ceremony. I'm thinking about putting a poll up to see what reaction I get to the question.
    This is a question that has been answered repeatedly. The state and individuals have no legal right to force a church to perform a wedding. Churches are perfectly free to turn down any one for any wedding ceremony.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •