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 20 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #191
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Actually I think I'd prefer that myself. I like to minimize the impact of government on people's private lives as much as possible.

    Then again, there's this compromise I've been offering to pro-SSMers...

    Give me universal Constitutional Carry (no permit, open/concealed, anywhere normally open to the public, every state and city of USA) and I'll give you full-fledged gay marriage.

    I like it myself. If you support my personal liberty issue, I'll support yours....
    Sure. Spit on it.

  2. #192
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    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".

    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?

    Another example would be if when African-Americans were granted the right to vote and otherwise equality, it was also declared that when the Constitution was written, "all men" did not include blacks, so historically it would be inaccurate to call blacks "men" and "women" - plus this would offend non-blacks who are entitled to their historic traditions. So all government forms and legal contracts of any kind could not refer to black people as "man" or "woman." Rather, African-Americans could ONLY be referred to "Negro" and "Negroes."

    That's certainly a fair compromise for slaves to have equal legal status, right?
    Last edited by joko104; 03-27-13 at 03:05 AM.

  3. #193
    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
    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 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.



    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.



    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?
    1. Which tax credits? Please S&M. I'm trying to understand but you are not being specific. The tax rate is not lower for marrieds. There is a marriage "penalty" in fact.

    The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples, where spouses are making approximately the same taxable income, filing one tax return ("married filing jointly") than for the same two people filing two separate tax returns if they were unmarried (i.e., filing as "single", not "married filing separately"). The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates.The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples, where spouses are making approximately the same taxable income, filing one tax return ("married filing jointly") than for the same two people filing two separate tax returns if they were unmarried (i.e., filing as "single", not "married filing separately"). The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates.
    2. I agree, it should be less expensive and more easily accomplished.
    3. You haven't been specific here either. Which issues? Above you are speaking of taxes or adoption.
    4. But the fact is you can make legal all your needs. I have agreed, it should be made easier and less costly. I

    As I've stated at length throughout this thread and to you directly, if a couple wants to commit to a long term relationship, a marriage grants rights and protections and in order to do that, the government has to know. Sticking with the 401k situation, unmarried, but having helped a partner to obtain an education that will reap a high paying job with the understanding there would be a benefit to the helping partner, that partner can be left in the dust with nothing but that verbal promise. A marriage gives that partner the right to their share of what was gained during the relationship. It is foolish to enter such a partnership without protection. The government enables that protection. A person is welcome to sue for such, but good luck without a contract.

    I wish you would just make a list. It would make this easier to discuss. I don't understand what power the government wields over your relationship. Don't get married. It's all good. It just so happens relationships where people agree to be together and work for the benefit of each other as a pair and possibly raise children, are romantically formed and all parties need legal protection.

  4. #194
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Thats what they said back in the 1800's and early 1900's about lifting a ban on segregation and interracial marriages. Hell, I would give up those benefits. The federal government has no legal basis whatsoever to decided what marriage is and what marriage is not. That's why I am willing to bet that DOMA will fall.
    When they legalized interracial marriages, they didn't argue that nobody should be married in order to stop blacks and whites from intermarrying, did they? No, they just gave them the same rights that everyone else had. I honestly doubt that anyone who isn't a libertarian, and that makes it the vast majority, would tell anyone who suggested we stop giving them benefits for being married, would tell that individual where to shove it.
    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!

  5. #195
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    1. Which tax credits? Please S&M. I'm trying to understand but you are not being specific. The tax rate is not lower for marrieds. There is a marriage "penalty" in fact.
    One example (there are hundreds -- singles paying more is a cumulative thing, not a matter of a single law or bracket) is that the income threshold is a lot lower for paying income tax for singles. Singles pay income tax once they pass the poverty threshold. Marrieds don't.

    Being single costs more in taxes over time. Like I said, there's no single law, or even a handful of laws. It's a thousand little penalties over the course of ones single years.

    2. I agree, it should be less expensive and more easily accomplished.
    3. You haven't been specific here either. Which issues? Above you are speaking of taxes or adoption.
    4. But the fact is you can make legal all your needs. I have agreed, it should be made easier and less costly. I

    As I've stated at length throughout this thread and to you directly, if a couple wants to commit to a long term relationship, a marriage grants rights and protections and in order to do that, the government has to know. Sticking with the 401k situation, unmarried, but having helped a partner to obtain an education that will reap a high paying job with the understanding there would be a benefit to the helping partner, that partner can be left in the dust with nothing but that verbal promise. A marriage gives that partner the right to their share of what was gained during the relationship. It is foolish to enter such a partnership without protection. The government enables that protection. A person is welcome to sue for such, but good luck without a contract.

    I wish you would just make a list. It would make this easier to discuss. I don't understand what power the government wields over your relationship. Don't get married. It's all good. It just so happens relationships where people agree to be together and work for the benefit of each other as a pair and possibly raise children, are romantically formed and all parties need legal protection.
    If marriage offered no advantages, I doubt gay people would be fighting so hard for it. After all, it was actually family-oriented republicans who first pushed for it -- not gays. It wasn't until gay relationships were able to function more "above board" that they realized what a huge disadvantage it was in terms of child care, medical care, taxes, etc.

    I also know straight couples who were against marriage who wound up getting married for these exact reasons.

    I gave you another specific example in the form of the difficulties of child custody which you haven't addressed, by the by.

    I am not arguing against having a contract. I am arguing against tying that contract to a relationship status. I don't know how many different ways to say it.

  6. #196
    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
    One example (there are hundreds -- singles paying more is a cumulative thing, not a matter of a single law or bracket) is that the income threshold is a lot lower for paying income tax for singles. Singles pay income tax once they pass the poverty threshold. Marrieds don't.

    Being single costs more in taxes over time. Like I said, there's no single law, or even a handful of laws. It's a thousand little penalties over the course of ones single years.



    If marriage offered no advantages, I doubt gay people would be fighting so hard for it. After all, it was actually family-oriented republicans who first pushed for it -- not gays. It wasn't until gay relationships were able to function more "above board" that they realized what a huge disadvantage it was in terms of child care, medical care, taxes, etc.

    I also know straight couples who were against marriage who wound up getting married for these exact reasons.

    I gave you another specific example in the form of the difficulties of child custody which you haven't addressed, by the by.

    I am not arguing against having a contract. I am arguing against tying that contract to a relationship status. I don't know how many different ways to say it.
    I did address the child custody, two replies ago. I suggested adoption. You commented it was difficult and I agreed, it should be made easier. The only way to protect the child and each parent's rights, that I can see, is adoption.

    I said, it just so happens that the relationship forms on a romantic basis. What you have it tied to?

  7. #197
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I did address the child custody, two replies ago. I suggested adoption. You commented it was difficult and I agreed, it should be made easier. The only way to protect the child and each parent's rights, that I can see, is adoption.

    I said, it just so happens that the relationship forms on a romantic basis. What you have it tied to?
    Nothing. It's your personal legal arrangements, no one has any place asking you why, and you can call it whatever you want.

  8. #198
    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
    Nothing. It's your personal legal arrangements, no one has any place asking you why, and you can call it whatever you want.
    Then what do you propose to execute the legal arrangement? A series of legal filings? You can do that now.

  9. #199
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Then what do you propose to execute the legal arrangement? A series of legal filings? You can do that now.
    I'm not going to start this whole posting loop over again with you.

    1. Not always.
    2. Not easily, when you can.
    3. It's none of the government's business.

  10. #200
    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
    I'm not going to start this whole posting loop over again with you.

    1. Not always.
    2. Not easily, when you can.
    3. It's none of the government's business.
    Only you haven't specified what you offer instead.
    It's the governments business when it ends and dissolution of accumulated assets have to be divvied up and one side, isn't so keen to share equally. Then a court (the state) becomes involved.

Page 20 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •