View Poll Results: Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

    6 7.59%
  • I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise

    24 30.38%
  • I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    7 8.86%
  • I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    42 53.16%
Page 19 of 51 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #181
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Nor did I say that we should. Again you are butting into a conversation you don't understand...

    In relation to the emboldened quote, I would like for you provide that text for me please, since I have never ran across that.
    Deuteronomy 22:28-29

  2. #182
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Actually, I'm a third year law student (graduating in 6 weeks), who will be published in the upcoming law review and has written legislation that was enacted into law in the District of Columbia. What's your extensive legal and judicial experience again? Have you even read Lawrence or Griswold? Do you plan to cite some precedent to support your 10th amendment claim?
    For a "law student", you display a severe abridgement in reading comprehension. If you were to come to my classroom I would've failed your ass because you don't know how to properly comprehend text. Do you plan on providing your diplomas, acceptance letters, LSAT scores etc. to prove this laughable claim. And if it is true, may God help the future of the American judicial system.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  3. #183
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    You really don't get it.................If it's ok to commit a crime against me, then it's ok to commit a crime against anyone.......................
    When did we start talking about crime? I'm confused now, because I don't know where our conversation has turned too maybe because I've largely ignored it which would be my fault.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  4. #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    When did we start talking about crime? I'm confused now, because I don't know where our conversation has turned too maybe because I've largely ignored it which would be my fault.
    My human rights have been violated. Rectify it, or I am supporting the violation of anyone and everyone's human rights on any basis whatsoever................................

  5. #185
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    My human rights have been violated. Rectify it, or I am supporting the violation of anyone and everyone's human rights on any basis whatsoever................................
    What are you talking about??
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  6. #186
    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: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Sorry but I will have to disagree with you here. If I have two books that are exactly the same in content but one is titled "Marriage" and the other is titled "Civil Union" they are still exactly the same book. If I give you an orange and I have an orange, but my orange is called "Civil Union" while yours is called "Marriage", but otherwise they are are exactly the same right down to weight, size, color, etc. Then they are still the same

    Now I will agree with you that pretty much anything that occurred during the Jim Crow era was unconstitutional, and despite being labeled "separate but equal", they were anything but. I am NOT talking about doing anything like that. I'm talking about taking marriage law, photocopying it, and then taking whiteout to the top of one and relabeling it "Civil Union". Not separate but equal. Same with a different cover.
    Keeping your standard in mind, explain to me how separate drinking fountains, or a separate place on the bus are unconstitutional, but separate types of marriage aren't. They were, in theory, exactly the same. That was the legal principal by which blacks and whites had to drink from separate fountains. It was exactly the idea of photocopying and labeling one "whites only" and the other "blacks only".

    Let me give you a fantastic example. Car rental companies allow the renter on the form, and a spouse, to drive the rental car. A spouse through marriage, not through civil union. Are you really suggesting that the government should impose that businesses have to treat two different legal statuses exactly the same, curtailing their liberty to operate as they see fit, instead of merely not discriminating against people?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  7. #187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    What are you talking about??
    Life................It's just so tragic....................

  8. #188
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Keeping your standard in mind, explain to me how separate drinking fountains, or a separate place on the bus are unconstitutional, but separate types of marriage aren't. They were, in theory, exactly the same. That was the legal principal by which blacks and whites had to drink from separate fountains. It was exactly the idea of photocopying and labeling one "whites only" and the other "blacks only".
    I grant you the point and concede that using the orange example actually hurt my argument. However, I maintain my point in light of the difference between solid objects and an more intangible "item" such as law. The book example is more apt. It doesn't matter what you label a bible, the message is still the same. It doesn't matter what you label the law the effect is still the same.

    Let me give you a fantastic example. Car rental companies allow the renter on the form, and a spouse, to drive the rental car. A spouse through marriage, not through civil union. Are you really suggesting that the government should impose that businesses have to treat two different legal statuses exactly the same, curtailing their liberty to operate as they see fit, instead of merely not discriminating against people?
    Now this takes me to a completely different area, as I see a major difference in how government should and shouldn't interact with the citizenry and how the individuals within the citizenry would and shouldn't interact with each other. I am a firm believer that individuals and business should be allowed to discriminate IF they choose to do so. This is a stance that is NOT at all like the Jim Crow laws in that those laws FORCED businesses to discriminate, which I find equally wrong. Also please do not take my position of what I think the law should allow with how I would run my business or what businesses I would frequent. What I think is right and what I think should be legal may or may not coincide with one another. So in the example not only would I support a business' right that disallows the partner in a civil union to be added onto the rental, I also support a business' right that disallows a spouse in a marriage to be added onto the rental. Conversely, and more in line with your question, if the law states that a person HAS to be added if they hold the married status, then that law should have been copied into the civil union law. All of that is irrelevant since the company can make the policy that they will allow whomever they wish as another driver, and will maybe add the spouse of one marriage but not the spouse of another.

  9. #189
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) and yet when put to the test marriage was more binding than anything and civil unions and domestic partnerships failed this test.
    2.) well this is what im asking, nothing as been able to do this like marriage has so why do you think this new system that would could do it?
    3.) "rermove the romantic context" we can do that now and people do already
    That is because we as a society decided to stop challenging marriage as a gold standard of contracts. No other reason. But if too many more people like me pop up, that won't last long.

    People do it, but the problem is that it's not very flexible and it doesn't really allow for complex legal assignment. It also leaves a lot of people with perfectly valid rights or tax claims completely out in the cold. It's better to simply remove it from that context completely, because then there is no reason to keep denying people customization for their legal needs.

  10. #190
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Which tax rights? I can't address what you aren't saying. There is a marriage tax "penalty" as well. A couple is taxed at a higher rate than a two single people.
    The tax code is insane as per relationship status, and a lot of these things -- penalties and perks both -- just shouldn't exist.

    But overall, single people get bled like a sacrificial lamb compared to marrieds, when it comes to taxes. This is true even in home sharing situations. Why? Why don't people who share resources to pay for their living, regardless of relationship status, get these tax credits? And why are they so incredibly steep?

    But, you know, come to think of it, why the hell is the tax rate lower for a couple, and why should it be lower for non-romantic house sharers? They spend less money on living. Single people are the ones spending most of their income on the basics.

    As to co-parenting, is that something that cannot be obtained? How about adoption?
    As the tribulations of gay couples have shown, it is exceptionally expensive for a non-familiar member to get joint custody without marriage, even if both parties want it. Sometimes the courts simply deny it outright. One partner adopts/has the child, and the other partner if forced to essentially adopt it.

    Which of them is time consuming? A will? It is for married couples too. Again, please be specific.
    See above. Also, like I said, altering provisions in a marriage license is sometimes impossible, and sometimes costly and timely due to basically having to start from scratch. I would see each of these issues with a "standard" license for simplicity.

    Ok, if they agree one should have the right to cut out the other from their 401k, they can do that. Just with approval of spouse and all of that goes away if they remain single. It's right there on the form, "Who do you designate as beneficiary of this account upon death?". Easy.

    I have agreed, designating legal rights shouldn't be so difficult or expensive. Though I sure would like to have a laundry list of what you are referring to.

    Why is it so important to you to abolish an institution you will, by your own declaration, never partake in? You want one or more other people you are not related to, to have rights over your finances and life (I'm assuming because you haven't specified what applies to you). I think those are pretty important designations and so there are hoops, but I agree, they shouldn't be impediments.
    Because I feel it is unjust for the government to wield such power over our personal relationships. It's just begging for bigotry, which is exactly the reason it was implemented as a legal institution in the first place, and it's still carrying out that purpose today.

    The entire idea of making romantic relationships legal on the BASIS that they are romantic was flawed and a huge over-reach right from the get-go.

    If you want your marriage to have a traditional set of marriage rights, go and be merry.

    But the question is, why do you feel it's so important for the government to know you're in a relationship?
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 03-27-13 at 02:44 AM.

Page 19 of 51 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... 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
  •