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 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #11
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,924

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

    Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"
    qft, again.

    No compromise. In addition to Fiddy's reasons, I will add, marriage establishes legal protection and status for each partner and any children as well.

  2. #12
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

    Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"
    With respect to your editorial note, I personally don't care who gets married or doesn't get married as long as tax and government benefit policy has nothing to do with the marital status of citizens. To me, marriage should be no more benefit tax wise than being a card carrying member of the local golf club or any other legal contract you enter into with one person or a group of people. The fact that more than 50% of North American marriages end in divorce these days should tell anyone who's listening that marriage is a failed social concept but if you want to take the plunge, more power to you.

  3. #13
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,698

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Excuse me, but I have always endorsed same-sex marriage rights. I realize society isn't ready for the radical idea that the government needs to get out of our bedrooms entirely.
    Allow me to prevent this from starting right away. Here was the option indicated: "I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise."

    If you do not fall into that territory, there is no usual issue.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,924

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post

    And a lack of a marriage contract does not mean a couple can't raise children. More and more people are choosing to cohabitate without marriage for lots of different reasons, and many raise children just fine. In fact, most homosexual couples raise children without a marriage license (which, unfortunately, is harder for them due to them being denied the right to assign their own legal childcare rights to each other).

    Allowing government to be the ultimate validator of a relationship does not guarantee a stable home for a family. If it did, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.
    Lack of a marriage contract complicates everything if the relationship dissolves. Disposition of assets accumulated during the relationship becomes a very sticky wicket. Custody issues are made more difficult. I know women and men both who's spouses attempted to abscond with everything. Without a marriage certificate, they would have spent much more time in court establishing their rightful claim. The government is pulled into these messes, and so it behooves the government to provide a shortcut through the mire.

    I agree, you should be able to assign rights outside of marriage, but getting rid of marriage altogether, would be a disaster.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
    That's a dumb idea. If you think for one second that the people who hate gay marriage would ever accept losing all of the benefits heterosexuals get by being married, you're out of your mind. You'd have rioting in the streets. It won't happen.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #16
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,942
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
    First churches have been defining marriages in the west for thousands of years, then the states started to get involved in the mid 1800's. I am satisfied to let who get married or not, who defines marriages up to the church and the several states. What I am oppose to is having the federal government regulate and determine who can or can't be married. Regulating or defining marriage isn't a power of the federal government.

    If the talking heads are correct, the SCOTUS will punt on California, return the case to the 9th circuit court which has already ruled the ban is unconstitutional. If this is true, then California will once again be a state that recognizes gay marriages. That is 10 states and I expect that number to increase to around 20 over the next several years. I can imagine in 10-15 years time that 30-40 states will have made gay marriage legal and congress will use their power under Article IV section 1 to ensure that all states recognize all other states marriages which is congress's right since marriages are a public record.

    Tomorrow the SCOTUS hears arguments on DOMA, which I think is unconstitutional. But who knows what the judges think of it. Striking it down will lead to federal recognition of gay marriages from the states in which it is legal and pretty much make it nation wide. What will be mission is state benefits in those states which gay marriages is still illegal, but federal benefits will be had.

    My opinion or opinions.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #17
    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

    There is no legal or social precedent to gut the whole idea of marriage merely to prevent gays from having access to it. Marriage has always been a legal status. Laws about property, inheritance, and sex have been affected my legal marital status for thousands of years. If someone wants to have a relationship with all of those legal elements, without marriage, they're welcome to fill out the paperwork. You can have a relationship and call yourself whatever you want. Marriage is a legal status, and destroying that status over some people's desire to keep the label for themselves is absurd.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #18
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Lack of a marriage contract complicates everything if the relationship dissolves. Disposition of assets accumulated during the relationship becomes a very sticky wicket. Custody issues are made more difficult. I know women and men both who's spouses attempted to abscond with everything. Without a marriage certificate, they would have spent much more time in court establishing their rightful claim. The government is pulled into these messes, and so it behooves the government to provide a shortcut through the mire.

    I agree, you should be able to assign rights outside of marriage, but getting rid of marriage altogether, would be a disaster.
    No, not really.

    You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.

    For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.

    That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.

  9. #19
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    No, not really.

    You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.

    For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.

    That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.
    You can do that now it's just expensive and time consuming to draw up legal documents for each individual right that a spouse assumes. With a marriage document bam....someone has a list of rights conveyed to them with a 50 dollar marriage license (may vary by state). It's convient.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  10. #20
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,924

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    No, not really.

    You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.

    For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.

    That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.
    And you have to execute each document separately.

    Marriage is a one stop, all-purpose contract. In addition to marriage, what you suggest is fine, but not in place of it. It exists now for the purpose of status and protection, for a reason.

Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •