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 24 of 51 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #231
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    There's no authority. They merely recognize or don't. They don't dictate who you marry, who has to provide the services, or anything like that. There is next to no interference.
    What do you mean no authority? The contract is the governments contract and their terms are the ones that must be followed. If that is not authority then exactly what is? If I write a contract for my employees do I not come up with the terms of that contract? Yes, and by doing so that does give me a certain level of authority.

  2. #232
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,152

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Than why in the hell is everyone making it an issue for the federal government to decide on?????

    I agree equality and fairness is important, but why should the Constitution and freedom be trampled over in order to provide someone else with a tax break or a legal status. The 14th was written to provide all citizens with equal civil and political rights. Marriage is not a right! I still have yet to hear a real rational argument that explains to me how marriage is a constitutional right.

    Actually, the 14th Amendment says "privileges or immunities," not rights. As marriage is a privilege that is recognized as special by the government, I don't see how they can deprive people of this "privilege" within the 14th Amendment.

    While I understand your argument about the 10th, the 10th Amendment does not make the rest of the document irrelevant. I'm fine with certain states not allowing SSM on some level, but the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over marriage. It's also hard to jive "privileges and immunities" clause with denying that privilege to certain citizens because you don't like what they do with their genitalia.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #233
    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

    I really don't understand how people can take the position that protecting SSM is government encroaching on marriage, or telling people who they can or cannot marry. Protecting SSM is the government divesting itself of the ability to prevent people from marrying. It is the government saying "you know what, we're not actually allowed to pass this law and tell people what to do." Protecting SSM is getting government farther out of marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    What about separate locker rooms, separate bathrooms, by gender? Separate job standards, separate sports, again, by gender.
    Locker rooms and bathrooms are more mutually agreed upon, so the same standard might not apply, but they also serve a purpose beyond mere separation, that is, protecting women from rape by giving them a safe place to do those things. It is not that discrimination is always unconstitutional, but that it is prohibited without a compelling purpose. The same is true of sports teams. Separate teams for males and females is intended to promote fairness, similar to weight classes in boxing.

    I'm not aware of any jobs with separate standards between genders where appearance is not a part of the job (which is why you won't find male waiters at Hooters, for example), but if they are, they would be discriminatory without some compelling purpose behind them. Separation for the mere purpose of separation is unconstitutional.
    Last edited by Paschendale; 03-27-13 at 01:32 PM.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #234
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    The ideal solution would be "civil unions for everyone" - with marriage (holy matrimony) left to churches, synagogues and mosques, where it belongs.

    But since nobody is promoting such solution, gay marriage it is.

  5. #235
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    I really don't understand how people can take the position that protecting SSM is government encroaching on marriage, or telling people who they can or cannot marry. Protecting SSM is the government divesting itself of the ability to prevent people from marrying. It is the government saying "you know what, we're not actually allowed to pass this law and tell people what to do." Protecting SSM is getting government farther out of marriage.



    Locker rooms and bathrooms are more mutually agreed upon, so the same standard might not apply, but they also serve a purpose beyond mere separation, that is, protecting women from rape by giving them a safe place to do those things. It is not that discrimination is always unconstitutional, but that it is prohibited without a compelling purpose. The same is true of sports teams. Separate teams for males and females is intended to promote fairness, similar to weight classes in boxing.

    I'm not aware of any jobs with separate standards between genders where appearance is not a part of the job (which is why you won't find male waiters at Hooters, for example), but if they are, they would be discriminatory without some compelling purpose behind them. Separation for the mere purpose of separation is unconstitutional.
    We should be aware the fourteenth amendment only applies to government. It has nothing to do with locker rooms at a gym or what happens at businesses. Why does this always need pointed out?

  6. #236
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    A marriage should be between the people in the marriage. No government, church, state, dp members, or activists need be involved. Just the people in the marriage.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  7. #237
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    1. It belongs at the states
    2. If it comes to my state I will vote to keep our current definition of marriage
    3. If I then lose I will be disappointed and continue to do what I can to figure out how to help the human wreckage caused by our disastrous social assumptions.
    This is the UNITED states of America. It makes zero sense to have a patchwork of laws in which marriage is recognized in one state and not another. So...are we to have laws in the South that outlaw inter-racial marriage, but those marriages are recognized in other states? This is exactly what the Supremacy clause of the Constitution is designed to protect.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    This is the UNITED states of America. It makes zero sense to have a patchwork of laws in which marriage is recognized in one state and not another. So...are we to have laws in the South that outlaw inter-racial marriage, but those marriages are recognized in other states? This is exactly what the Supremacy clause of the Constitution is designed to protect.
    You do realize your argument flies right in the face of what the country stands for right?

  9. #239
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    This is the UNITED states of America. It makes zero sense to have a patchwork of laws in which marriage is recognized in one state and not another. So...are we to have laws in the South that outlaw inter-racial marriage, but those marriages are recognized in other states? This is exactly what the Supremacy clause of the Constitution is designed to protect.
    Explain CA "only" laws on auto emissions, minimum wage, marijuana use, illegal immigration sanctuary cities and gun ownership. It appears that you like many state differences, but simply not all of them.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #240
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    easy
    all the past marriages that will now be made weaker unless you plan on just grand fathering them in and all the future new contracts what ever they are that will also be weaker, more complicated etc etc until the bugs are ironed out, if they ever are.

    I mean honestly, you think our government could abolish marriage and replace it with 1200 other contracts or rights etc and get it right even with in say 10 years?
    Why would they be weaker? Is the law all of a sudden going to mean less?

    Your second line is just... you know, you should try reading what I post.

Page 24 of 51 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •