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 5 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #41
    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 Cephus View Post
    The unrealistic rarely do.
    I know I didn't over much to work with, but you could say more than you are.

  2. #42
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Which is why SSM is in court. It's not legitimate to bar same sex and interracial couples from marriage. I have a problem with polygamous relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.
    Why not? Keeping in mind, polyamory and polygamy are different.

    But then again, who says you have a right to tell them they can't have their rights because you have a problem with it? This is the point. You're simply setting a different bar for the same discrimination.

    So if you don't want monstrous cost of time, and money, then why deny the ability for a couple to enter into an easy to obtain (excepting SS couples for now) contract? What purpose is there in that?
    I wouldn't deny them that ability. I would simply separate it from their relationship status.

    You cannot redirect your 401k to someone else without spousal approval because that comes under the umbrella of marital assets. It assumes that both are contributing to that account over the course of the relationship, which is not a poor assumption. One may be earning the greater pay, but the other is providing support in the relationship that contributes. It goes both ways, men and women. Either can be the top earner. Maybe you haven't seen someone get ripped off during a divorce. Or put a spouse through school, only to be dumped at some later point. (Not me, I assure you.) I have seen it and the earning power of that spouse was greatly enhanced by the one who helped buy their education. They "earned" a portion of that 401k and it shouldn't be allowed to be taken from them without consent.
    My point is that people should get a choice whether or not they want to do that. To make it part and parcel with the only way to easily get a non-family medical proxy, or childcare rights, is bribery.

    Having right A should not be contingent on whether you give up right B.

    I can see why you wouldn't want to get married. I don't see a work around for your IP rights. I just don't understand why you want to do away with marriage. Don't enter into one and your problem is solved. Your IP rights and your 401k is protected.
    If you want the same set of legal rights that a current marriage can give you, you can have that.

    I'm not proposing preventing anyone from doing that.

  3. #43
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    So have 3 choices.

    1. A whole enchilada document much like a marriage license.

    2. A bunch of pre-made smaller documents for individual issues.

    3. Write your own.

    The state did not always recognize marriage as an institution. The reason they started to was in order to discriminate against people. And they're still doing it now.

    Lots of people partner for life and raise children without a marriage license. If I ever partner for life, that is how I will be doing it.
    Sure that works. It's not like reflexively opposed to an alternative method or married to the idea of marriage (heyo!) I just think that it's the same thing under a different name.

    People partner for life and raise children without a marriage license sure. They also very much depend the state giving benefits and reconizing that union though. Marriage/Civil Union...whatever...it's the government recognizing the fact that people tend to pair up and share their lives together.

    I think that typically what your advocating already exists it's just not calling it marriage just something else.

    Ultimately I don't care as long as the state does recognize and provide protections for individuals that decide to spend their lives together.
    “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

  4. #44
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Sure that works. It's not like reflexively opposed to an alternative method or married to the idea of marriage (heyo!) I just think that it's the same thing under a different name.

    People partner for life and raise children without a marriage license sure. They also very much depend the state giving benefits and reconizing that union though. Marriage/Civil Union...whatever...it's the government recognizing the fact that people tend to pair up and share their lives together.

    I think that typically what your advocating already exists it's just not calling it marriage just something else.

    Ultimately I don't care as long as the state does recognize and provide protections for individuals that decide to spend their lives together.
    It doesn't exist for people who want to give those rights to non-romantic partners, ESPECIALLY if they are also not family members. I don't see why that should be the case.

  5. #45
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    It doesn't exist for people who want to give those rights to non-romantic partners, ESPECIALLY if they are also not family members. I don't see why that should be the case.
    Are you sure? I just checked the Sacremento criteria for a wedding license.

    To apply for a marriage license, the couple must meet the following general requirements:

    •The parties must be unmarried. You may not be already married to each other or other individuals.

    •If either party has been married before, you must know the specific date the last marriage ended, and how it ended (Death, Dissolution, Divorce or Nullity). If the last marriage ended by dissolution or nullity, you must present a copy of the final judgment.

    •The parties must appear together in-person when the license issued. Note: There are specific procedures for inmate marriages; please call our office at (916) 874-6131 for more information.

    •Each party must present valid, government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, passport, or military I.D.

    •The appropriate fees must be paid.

    •Please note: There are specific requirements related to the type of license selected. Refer to “Types of Licenses” for details.

    Technically I could fly to whever you live now and probably marry you without any sort of romantic relationship. When SSM is allowed I could technically marry my best friend even though we don't have a non-romantic relationship.
    “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

  6. #46
    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 SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    It doesn't exist for people who want to give those rights to non-romantic partners, ESPECIALLY if they are also not family members. I don't see why that should be the case.
    Actually, it does. You can assign power of attorney, or medical proxy to someone other than your spouse, and can choose that assignment to supersede your spouse. You can use a prenup to modify your marital duties and rights to one another as much as you want.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  7. #47
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Are you sure? I just checked the Sacremento criteria for a wedding license.

    To apply for a marriage license, the couple must meet the following general requirements:

    •The parties must be unmarried. You may not be already married to each other or other individuals.

    •If either party has been married before, you must know the specific date the last marriage ended, and how it ended (Death, Dissolution, Divorce or Nullity). If the last marriage ended by dissolution or nullity, you must present a copy of the final judgment.

    •The parties must appear together in-person when the license issued. Note: There are specific procedures for inmate marriages; please call our office at (916) 874-6131 for more information.

    •Each party must present valid, government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, passport, or military I.D.

    •The appropriate fees must be paid.

    •Please note: There are specific requirements related to the type of license selected. Refer to “Types of Licenses” for details.

    Technically I could fly to whever you live now and probably marry you without any sort of romantic relationship. When SSM is allowed I could technically marry my best friend even though we don't have a non-romantic relationship.
    But it's still a deal where you don't get freedom about which rights go where, and you are required to give up certain rights in order to get others, for no readily apparent reason.

    And I am also just opposed to the general idea of government being able to issue romantic relationship officiators. You can argue a romantic relationship isn't strictly required, but there's no denying that's what it exists for.

  8. #48
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Actually, it does. You can assign power of attorney, or medical proxy to someone other than your spouse, and can choose that assignment to supersede your spouse. You can use a prenup to modify your marital duties and rights to one another as much as you want.
    But it's unnecessarily complicated and expensive to do so in a lot of cases, and there's no reason it should be.

  9. #49
    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 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.
    That is not really the states concern. For example, there is no real need for the state to worry about changing the deed until such point the owners request it. At such point they handle it like any other deed transfer. Until such point its up to the people to decide and the state to wait. If however, they can't do such a thing then the state simply considers the property owned by both. It doesn't really make any sort of difference for the state in any real way.

    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.
    How? The claims would be the same and the conditions in front of them would be the same. What exactly makes it easier in this case?

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Although it is often brought up in debates, there is no way that government will get out of the marriage business. Heteros will never give up the ability to be legally married.

Page 5 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •