• 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!

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?


  • Total voters
    99
States have a funny way of showing what they think is and is not their business. Here in Alabama, there is no lottery, and all forms of gambling-based games are illegal. In multiple counties in this state, they're "dry". Alcohol cannot be sold within county lines, and it is illegal to possess even in ways that's legal anywhere else.

Do I think that states should legislate morality? No, of course not. However, I'm not going to get on a soapbox and say it's my "right" to go and have a beer at any place I want, or to buy a scratch-off at the local convenience store because I suddenly feel the need to.

I certainly think it is your right to do those things. It's not the same kind of right as one granted by the constitution, but more of a natural right. You have a natural right to control your own body. When the state steps in and stops you from doing something that harms no one, they are interfering with your freedom. You own your own body, and you possess the right to make associations and contracts with whom you choose.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I certainly think it is your right to do those things. It's not the same kind of right as one granted by the constitution, but more of a natural right. You have a natural right to control your own body. When the state steps in and stops you from doing something that harms no one, they are interfering with your freedom. You own your own body, and you possess the right to make associations and contracts with whom you choose.

I'm inclined to believe that insofar as "castle doctrine". If I want to buttsecks a dude while watching horse porn, drinking absinthe, and playing bingo within my own home I should be allowed. However, I'm a HUGE proponent of states' rights. States like Utah, Alabama, and others have laws set aside that may restrict some "freedoms", but they're a long, long shot away from rights violations.

I just hate the overuse of the word "right". It seems like everyone wants everything defined that way. Right to drive, right to drink, right to marriage, etc.
 
I am always amused when so-called libertarians refuse to accept a natural right when it doesn't further their world view.

That is just above using rather small ball examples of other rights they don't see as rights.
 
I'm inclined to believe that insofar as "castle doctrine". If I want to buttsecks a dude while watching horse porn, drinking absinthe, and playing bingo within my own home I should be allowed. However, I'm a HUGE proponent of states' rights. States like Utah, Alabama, and others have laws set aside that may restrict some "freedoms", but they're a long, long shot away from rights violations.

I just hate the overuse of the word "right". It seems like everyone wants everything defined that way. Right to drive, right to drink, right to marriage, etc.

Well you have a right to your opinion no matter how supercilious it is.
 
I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right. I've seen umpteen articles saying that they can and will hear cases involving gay/SSM. However, at no point did I see a statement from SCOTUS saying that "marriage is a right".

It's just viewed as a "right" by a lot of people who think that every damned thing today is a "right". It's as if America has forgotten the definition of "privilege".

The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.

In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

UMKC.edu ~ The Right to Marry

Might want to look again.
 
:) That is generally the way of it. Those who are more confident in their power tend to believe in pushing conflict to the bitter end, and those who are less so tend to believe in finding common ground.

Civil; unions are not common ground. Civil unions are creating a separate set of rules so that a few people do not get offended at what others might do, and for zero gain. Civil unions as the OP expresses(which do not exist in this country currently) would be the same as marriage, so you are creating a whole new set of government regulations because you are afraid of having gays sign the same form as you but in every other way being the exact same. Why can't you take responsibility for your own emotional irrationality?
 
Census is pretty self explanatory, legal reasons are things like custody of children.
Child custody could easily be assumed shared custody, then have a court determine in the event of a break-up... pretty much like is done for unmarried couples who have kids together already in most places.

Still not sure what you mean by census, but I presume you mean orderly records for archival and tracking purposes. I suppose we could add a question or two regarding household status (if there's not already one), but to me the census should be scaled way back to be a simple counting of people and not much else.
 
easy because we are talking legal marriage and it has aboselutley positively nothing to do with religious marriage unless the people involved want it too. They are completely separate in reality neither needing eachother to exist.

Rings, vows etc arent needed for marriages at all and if people choose to use them again, that is thier choice and effect religion zero. Religion isnt even a factor for the topic in reality.

If you are going to eliminate all the traditional things that go along with a marriage, then what is the difference between that and a civil union?

Another question, what exactly would be different about a civil union other than the name?

To be honest, I really don't care if gay people get married, as long as they don't want to change things (or make certain customs no longer acceptable) for everyone else.
 
1.)If you are going to eliminate all the traditional things that go along with a marriage, then what is the difference between that and a civil union?

Another question, what exactly would be different about a civil union other than the name?

To be honest, I really don't care if gay people get married, as long as they don't want to change things (or make certain customs no longer acceptable) for everyone else.

1.) nothing traditional is being illuminated though and two there are huge differences when it comes to legality and rights, secondly its still discrimination and a slap in the face.
2.) well legally they are completely different, marriages grants you about 1400 rights/protections and privileges, civil unions dont even come close to that and they have already been proven in the court of law to not be as legally binding or strong. and again not to mention giving it a different name is silly, insulting and discrimination.
3.) well its a good thing this isnt happening and that the super vast majority of gays dont want to do anything of the sort.

equal but separate is discrimination and doesnt work thats already proven, did you see my example everybody runs from and nobody has the guts to even try to answer.

simple question what if the term president of the united states was changed to something else or a new term was used only for black presidents or in the future women presidents, or a different or new title for women CEOs, bosses etc.

SOrry mr Obama we cant call you POTUS, "traditionally" thats never been a man of color and we think a black man holding that title will harm the "sanctity" of it, so we are going to call you CEO of america, then if somebody else wins that is male and white we will go back to calling him POTUS, now mind you, you will still have all the power and responsibility but we just cant call you POTUS.

no thanks thats beyond dumb and to the honesty eye discrimination and insulting.

its complete nonsense to try and call it something else.
 
1.) nothing traditional is being illuminated though and two there are huge differences when it comes to legality and rights, secondly its still discrimination and a slap in the face.

In the other thread, it said that they were eliminating (or so I thought) bride and groom and replacing them with spouse A and spouse B.

2.) well legally they are completely different, marriages grants you about 1400 rights/protections and privileges, civil unions dont even come close to that and they have already been proven in the court of law to not be as legally binding or strong. and again not to mention giving it a different name is silly, insulting and discrimination.

It isn't discrimination if BOTH options are open to everyone, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't change things so that civil union does include all of the benefits of marriage. Besides, don't the benefits given vary from state to state?

3.) well its a good thing this isnt happening and that the super vast majority of gays dont want to do anything of the sort.

To be honest, like I said, I don't care, as long as they don't try to force unwanted/unnecessary changes on everyone else just to be "PC".

equal but separate is discrimination and doesnt work thats already proven, did you see my example everybody runs from and nobody has the guts to even try to answer.

Well, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that yes, I could see your point if we were talking about schools, workplaces, markets, entrances to public buildings, etc. Also, if you eliminate all of the traditional aspects of a wedding, you are kind of left with a legal contract which is what a civil union is.
 
In the other thread, it said that they were eliminating (or so I thought) bride and groom and replacing them with spouse A and spouse B.

That was one possibility, but not the one that the state of Washington went with.

It isn't discrimination if BOTH options are open to everyone, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't change things so that civil union does include all of the benefits of marriage. Besides, don't the benefits given vary from state to state?

If civil unions and marriage are the same, but only go by different names, what is the point of having them both?

To be honest, like I said, I don't care, as long as they don't try to force unwanted/unnecessary changes on everyone else just to be "PC".

No changes are being forced on any one.

Well, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that yes, I could see your point if we were talking about schools, workplaces, markets, entrances to public buildings, etc. Also, if you eliminate all of the traditional aspects of a wedding, you are kind of left with a legal contract which is what a civil union is.

The legal contract is what a marraige is from the states point of view. The rest is up to the participants.
 
That was one possibility, but not the one that the state of Washington went with.

Okay, but that doesn't rule out people wanting to change things to be PC. I did hear a clever vow for it though, "I now pronounce you spouses for life." I thought that sounded pretty good.


If civil unions and marriage are the same, but only go by different names, what is the point of having them both?

Just so that the PC police aren't marking their territory. :mrgreen:


No changes are being forced on any one.

We will have to wait and see until it passes in MOST states, if not all states. That is when we will find out.


The legal contract is what a marraige is from the states point of view. The rest is up to the participants.

This is true, but I still can't help but think of the other thread where they want to change terminology. I know that this one example in and of itself is NOT such a big deal, but it is the principal of it. Now that gay people are allowed to marry in some states, what changes will they demand to make marriage more PC for them?
 
Okay, but that doesn't rule out people wanting to change things to be PC. I did hear a clever vow for it though, "I now pronounce you spouses for life." I thought that sounded pretty good.

Wedding vows are not determined by the state. No one is changing anything about marriage except who can get married.

Just so that the PC police aren't marking their territory. :mrgreen:

Actually, not letting those dirty gays be able to use the word marriage sounds PC to me, not the other way around.

We will have to wait and see until it passes in MOST states, if not all states. That is when we will find out.

No. SSM simply allows other people to get married.

This is true, but I still can't help but think of the other thread where they want to change terminology. I know that this one example in and of itself is NOT such a big deal, but it is the principal of it. Now that gay people are allowed to marry in some states, what changes will they demand to make marriage more PC for them?

No one wanted to change terminology, a form was outdated and had to be updated. There is no longer necessarily one bride, one groom. You are making a mountain out of nothing.
 
Wedding vows are not determined by the state. No one is changing anything about marriage except who can get married.



Actually, not letting those dirty gays be able to use the word marriage sounds PC to me, not the other way around.



No. SSM simply allows other people to get married.



No one wanted to change terminology, a form was outdated and had to be updated. There is no longer necessarily one bride, one groom. You are making a mountain out of nothing.

I hope you're right.
 
1.)In the other thread, it said that they were eliminating (or so I thought) bride and groom and replacing them with spouse A and spouse B.



2.)It isn't discrimination if BOTH options are open to everyone, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't change things so that civil union does include all of the benefits of marriage. Besides, don't the benefits given vary from state to state?



3.)To be honest, like I said, I don't care, as long as they don't try to force unwanted/unnecessary changes on everyone else just to be "PC".



Well, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that yes, I could see your point if we were talking about schools, workplaces, markets, entrances to public buildings, etc. Also, if you eliminate all of the traditional aspects of a wedding, you are kind of left with a legal contract which is what a civil union is.

1.) yes the STATE was making a form easier to fill out and more universal, the form has nothing to do with marriage, verbiage said whill getting married or any traditions. Washington didnt always even use bride and groom and they used to use participating parties and many states have never used bride and groom on the contract/licenses/certificate form.

people will still be husband and wife if that's what they want, the form is meaningless

2.) no it is still discrimination just like minority separate but equal laws are and just like my presidential / woman example is theres no changing the fact its discrimination. As for making them match that would be VERY hard to do since legal precedence as already been set that civil unions/domestic partnerships are not equal, a waste of money and time having government doing two things that are the sae and again it doesnt address the discrimination and insulting aspects of it.

and yes SOME of them vary but there are still about 1400 many of which cant be achieved any other way.

3.) well again this simply isnt happening

4.) but where this logic fails is NOTHING is being eliminated traditional aspects of a wedding, not one singles thing ? IF that was happening id be against it myself but the fact is its not. :shrug:

so bottom line is its discriminaiton plane and simple, what do you think of my example about the president and women, you didnt directly comment?
 
I hope you're right.

she is thats what happened, nothing else, the other nonsense being said by some people in this thread is simply not true and fantasy hyperbole.
 
1.) yes the STATE was making a form easier to fill out and more universal, the form has nothing to do with marriage, verbiage said whill getting married or any traditions. Washington didnt always even use bride and groom and they used to use participating parties and many states have never used bride and groom on the contract/licenses/certificate form.

people will still be husband and wife if that's what they want, the form is meaningless

2.) no it is still discrimination just like minority separate but equal laws are and just like my presidential / woman example is theres no changing the fact its discrimination. As for making them match that would be VERY hard to do since legal precedence as already been set that civil unions/domestic partnerships are not equal, a waste of money and time having government doing two things that are the sae and again it doesnt address the discrimination and insulting aspects of it.

and yes SOME of them vary but there are still about 1400 many of which cant be achieved any other way.

3.) well again this simply isnt happening

4.) but where this logic fails is NOTHING is being eliminated traditional aspects of a wedding, not one singles thing ? IF that was happening id be against it myself but the fact is its not. :shrug:

so bottom line is its discriminaiton plane and simple, what do you think of my example about the president and women, you didnt directly comment?

Sorry, had to grab a bite. I was starving! Anyhow, like I told Redress, I hope you're right.

Regardless of what you might think, MY example was NOT discriminatory at all, as both options are open to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

About your "example" I must have missed that. Post it again please.
 
Because marriage is the central institution by which our society thrives and survives, and weakening it's structures results in a weakening of our ability to do so.



No. For example, we have blue laws that are perfectly Constitutional, and murder is illegal as well.

Murder would be illegal regardless of the Bible. Religion would not play a role in that.

As for the Blue laws, with the exception of Federal observance of holidays and no alcohol sale on Sundays, most of the Blue laws have been repealed, unenforced, or declared unconstitutional.

How does stopping 2 people from marrying make marriage stronger? Would that not make it weaker?
 
Sorry, had to grab a bite. I was starving! Anyhow, like I told Redress, I hope you're right.

Regardless of what you might think, MY example was NOT discriminatory at all, as both options are open to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

About your "example" I must have missed that. Post it again please.

No apologies need but thank you, hope you ate something good lol

making them different names is discriminatory no matter how much you think its not and history proves that so im sorry but you are simply wrong on that point.
but if you like me to lead you to water i will :)
here is a simply question about your solution, when i ask you WHY you are making them separate what would your answer be?

and no problem here is my example post, maybe thats why you missed it it wasnt directly to you but from another post and i just quoted it but here it is again.
simple question what if the term president of the united states was changed to something else or a new term was used only for black presidents or in the future women presidents, or a different or new title for women CEOs, bosses etc.

SOrry mr Obama we cant call you POTUS, "traditionally" thats never been a man of color and we think a black man holding that title will harm the "sanctity" of it, so we are going to call you CEO of america, then if somebody else wins that is male and white we will go back to calling him POTUS, now mind you, you will still have all the power and responsibility but we just cant call you POTUS.

no thanks thats beyond dumb and to the honesty eye discrimination and insulting.

so based on this stuff above would you be ok if you were the first women CEO, President, or whatever and they said we cant call you the same name simply because you are a woman and how would that not be discrimination.
 
No apologies need but thank you, hope you ate something good lol

Not really. :lol: Chicken salad.

making them different names is discriminatory no matter how much you think its not and history proves that so im sorry but you are simply wrong on that point.

No it isn't discrimination if it is a choice that couples make.


but if you like me to lead you to water i will :)

I'm not a horse. :lol:


here is a simply question about your solution, when i ask you WHY you are making them separate what would your answer be?

Why would I make them separate? So that if gay people or even any other people (perhaps atheists) are offended by something to do with "marriage" then they can have another option without having to change anything for everyone else too.

so based on this stuff above would you be ok if you were the first women CEO, President, or whatever and they said we cant call you the same name simply because you are a woman and how would that not be discrimination.

That is completely different than what I proposed. And no.
 
I couldn't give a damn, personally. It only starts becoming a problem when people start viewing marriage as a "right".

Marriage is a right.

But more importantly equal protection under the law is a right. This is why a state can't tell someone with blue hair that they can't have a fishing license just because of their blue hair. This is why a state can't tell agnostics that they can't be plumbers. This is why a state can't tell Asian women that they cannot have a driver's license no matter how many people may want to make such a law. None of these things have ever been ruled as a right, but the 14th Amendment states that people have right to be treated equally by the law unless the state is able to show that a certain law that does treat people differently actually furthers a state interest.
 
1.)Not really. :lol: Chicken salad.



2.)No it isn't discrimination if it is a choice that couples make.




3.)I'm not a horse. :lol:




4.)Why would I make them separate? So that if gay people or even any other people (perhaps atheists) are offended by something to do with "marriage" then they can have another option without having to change anything for everyone else too.



5.)That is completely different than what I proposed. And no.

1.) nothing wrong with that lol
2.) what choice? did i miss something? are you allowing the couples to pick if they enter into a legal marriage contract or a legal civil union contract? maybe i made some mistake?
3.) i know but you do follow logic as opposed to others around here ;)
4.) THIS is exactly why its discrimination legal marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion nor are the vast majority of anybody trying to change anything.
my next question is why should gays be forced to do something else? (if they arent allowed to marry)
5.) again unless i missed something and my example wasnt about what YOU proposed it was about the OP because those are the SAME maybe i have to reread what you proposed maybe i missed something.

but civil unions would be discrimination as in the OP, maybe you did somethig different to change that but i dont see how unless gays are ALSO allowed to get married if not its discrimination.
 
Government needs to get out of the marriage business. I see no good reason it should have been involved in it in the first place.
 
Murder would be illegal regardless of the Bible

:shrug: maybe. The fact remains that those who wrote our laws put that in their because their religious background informed them that it was wrong. You are attempting to declare motive and belief to be somehow illegitimate.

How does stopping 2 people from marrying make marriage stronger?

:shrug: it wouldn't. however, shifting the institution of marriage further from it's basis as the center of the family unit and in the direction of "just a couple of people who love each other" would absolutely make it weaker. Not as bad in the case of SSM as, say, no-fault divorce has done - but that's not really a reason to make it worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom