• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same sex marriage compromise

Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

  • I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

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

    Votes: 19 28.4%

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

    Votes: 6 9.0%

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

    Votes: 36 53.7%
  • Total voters
    67
there are a lot of legal issues that go along with marriage, such as property, end of life decisions, custody of children, litigation of divorce, etc. i don't see a way to remove government recognition.

accept that as a compromise? no. i think it's more of a cop out. if heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals are guaranteed that right under the equal protection clause. if that's not socially acceptable, amending the clause is the solution, and it's a solution that i don't support.

historically, this plays out like interracial marriage. let's hope the court recognizes this and doesn't punt.
 
Smeagol said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why, in a fight, would someone possibly compromise with an opponent who is on the ropes and about to fall over dead? The gay haters are on the ropes. No one will be compromising with them. The time for that is over. Now is time to keep swinging and go for the gold. Equal rights for all citizens.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.



I wouldn't deny them that ability. I would simply separate it from their relationship status.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

I used polygamy because we are discussing marriage. Polyamory, I have no opinion. They might as well be single people living together. There is nothing for the government to say about people in a relationship without benefit of marriage.

I guess I'm not in a position to hand out rights, but as a polygamy costs society, I might have some standing. More to the point, I didn't want it to be assumed I would support polygamy.

You have not explained what it is that you cannot now have. I'm really confused about what it is that you want to separate from a person's relationship status.

A person does have a choice not to give rights to their 401k. Don't marry. But the person who would put their partner through school or take a lesser paying position in order to support their spouse without marriage to protect their rights, is a fool. You haven't recognized that either. Doesn't the lesser earning spouse in a marriage deserve their portion?

If you want the same set of legal rights that a current marriage can give you, you can have that.
Click to expand...

Ok, then. Again, what ability is it that you don't have that you want?
 
Hard Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's the same really for anything the government does. Once they start doing something some one starts to feel a benefit and they will never agree to let it go.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Why, in a fight, would someone possibly compromise with an opponent who is on the ropes and about to fall over dead? The gay haters are on the ropes. No one will be compromising with them. The time for that is over. Now is time to keep swinging and go for the gold. Equal rights for all citizens.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this do it faster though? Instead of just gays being allowed and everyone else still denied marriage this would allow anyone to be able to practice their right to marry whoever they want.
 
Gina said:
A person does have a choice not to give rights to their 401k. Don't marry. But the person who would put their partner through school or take a lesser paying position in order to support their spouse without marriage to protect their rights, is a fool. You haven't recognized that either. Doesn't the lesser earning spouse in a marriage deserve their portion?
Click to expand...

People make all sorts of choices on what they will do for those they love. Why do you need protected from your choices?
 
Henrin said:
Wouldn't this do it faster though? Instead of just gays being allowed and everyone else still denied marriage this would allow anyone to be able to practice their right to marry whoever they want.
Click to expand...

I don't think the government should have any role whatsoever in marriage. However, I oppose the reason for this compromise. No one in their right mind compromises with the losing party, they take their win and everything they can with it.

If marriage really were to be decoupled from the state, yeah maybe, but it never will, and therefore **** compromise, it's time for equal rights.
 
Smeagol said:
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?
Click to expand...

This has always been my preferred solution to the issue of gay marriage. Separate the ceremonial/religious and legal aspects of marriage. Call the legal benefits a domestic partnership and give it to any adult couple who wants the benefits. Let churches define the spiritual side of marriage however they want. People can still get married if they want or if their religion demands it or whatever, but it will carry no legal weight.
 
Henrin said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...

It is most certainly the state's concern because if the couple cannot dissolve the union amicably, they head to court. It is in the state's best interest to provide a contract to adjudicate the dissolution. One has to spend a great deal of time and money, as well as court time, in establishing what a marriage contract makes defacto.

Establishment of paternity, and rights of each parent. I have two family members in this position. They are in relationships now, but having visited lawyers, if there is a fuss from the other parent, it becomes messy. Contracts exist to make disputes more easily settled.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure...it's to deal with the reality that a vast majority of individuals decide to pair up and live a substantial amount of time together. There's no doubt about that. I personally just see it as the government reaction to what people tend to do. I have no problem with expanding those benefits to allow for different situation.

There are just a lot of realities of what a "spouse" is in the law. It's not just someone making decisions but it's the whole idea that those two individuals are forming a life partnership. From financial to personel issues.
 
Henrin said:
People make all sorts of choices on what they will do for those they love. Why do you need protected from your choices?
Click to expand...

I don't need protection from my choices. Any person needs protection for the choices they make because you can't trust people to do the right thing. Especially as a relationship is dissolved.
 
Gina said:
I used polygamy because we are discussing marriage. Polyamory, I have no opinion. They might as well be single people living together. There is nothing for the government to say about people in a relationship without benefit of marriage.

I guess I'm not in a position to hand out rights, but as a polygamy costs society, I might have some standing. More to the point, I didn't want it to be assumed I would support polygamy.
Click to expand...

Polygamy actually has a much more straight-forward counter-argument: it often involves force. It should be illegal in any democracy for the same reason rape and slavery are.

Polyamory is polygamy where the partners are equal.

You have not explained what it is that you cannot now have. I'm really confused about what it is that you want to separate from a person's relationship status.

A person does have a choice not to give rights to their 401k. Don't marry. But the person who would put their partner through school or take a lesser paying position in order to support their spouse without marriage to protect their rights, is a fool. You haven't recognized that either. Doesn't the lesser earning spouse in a marriage deserve their portion?
Click to expand...

By not marrying, that means they are not allowed to control other rights of theirs without huge expense and time -- and sometimes not at all, no matter what they do. That's the issue. That's why it's bribery.

I have recognized your point, and in fact, EVERY point. ANY reason why a person may feel like their rights ought to be designated in a certain way is valid.

Ok, then. Again, what ability is it that you don't have that you want?
Click to expand...

Straight-forward designation of ones own rights without huge expense.

A pre-nup does not allow you to change anything you want. Aquiring some rights a marriage affords is actually impossible. Getting others is sometimes extremely difficult.
 
Smeagol said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would support the abolition of the Marriage License. But so long as the Marriage License exists as it does, a government recognized and issued contract, they cannot discriminate against same sex couples wishing to engage in that contract.
 
I'll support gay marriage being recognized in the closet.
 
Smeagol said:
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?
Click to expand...

No because this wouldnt be a "compromise" at all. instead of letting woman vote nobody votes, would that be a compromise?

legally and legislatively its totally illogical and would be much harder,there about 1200 rights and protections granted through marriage some that can be granted another way, none that are as binding as history proves and nothing that can accomplish it it in ONE contract.

it screws people already married

and its a cop out.

The easiest solution is equal rights :shrug:
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes. This is actually my preferred outcome.

I don't see why the government is in the business of rubber-stamping people's personal romantic relationships. What business is it of theirs?

I think the legal rights that are assigned to marriage (medical rights, childcare rights, etc) should be opened up to allow anyone to assign them to whomever they like. Only an individual can decide which people are the best to assign their own rights to, and a spouse may not be right for all of them.

I think "marriage" should only be a social ceremony, or a name someone chooses to assign to whatever collection of rights they have traded with their spouse. But the rights themselves should be completely separated from a person's relationship status.
Click to expand...

I think it has to be more than that. I believe that courts must recognize an "official marriage" in order to legally confer those rights onto another person. Our court system would be in a freakin' shambles without that. "We lived together three months! I want all the rights conferred on . . . " On what? The Shack-Up Contract?

Marriage, and the rights that pass to a spouse because of marriage, needs to be in the form of a legal contract...a contract that can change with societal norms, court challenges and custom. I completely support SSM, by the way.

Edit: I'd just like to add that neither a civil ceremony or a religious one actually marries two people. It's the marriage license. Once the marriage license is issued? You're married. Just thought I'd point that out. A minister told me that just the other day -- I'm assuming he knew what he was talking about.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Polygamy actually has a much more straight-forward counter-argument: it often involves force. It should be illegal in any democracy for the same reason rape and slavery are.

Polyamory is polygamy where the partners are equal.



By not marrying, that means they are not allowed to control other rights of theirs without huge expense and time -- and sometimes not at all, no matter what they do. That's the issue. That's why it's bribery.

I have recognized your point, and in fact, EVERY point. ANY reason why a person may feel like their rights ought to be designated in a certain way is valid.



Straight-forward designation of ones own rights without huge expense.

A pre-nup does not allow you to change anything you want. Aquiring some rights a marriage affords is actually impossible. Getting others is sometimes extremely difficult.
Click to expand...

There is a bribe because it benefits society to have people marry and when they decide not to be married, it solves a lot of issues quickly. As a single person, you can designate who is the beneficiary of your bank, savings and investment accounts and life insurance. Via a will, you can say who gets your property. You have to state who gets to make medical and end of life decisions, because as a single person, there is no obvious person to go to for that, unless it might be your parents. Such is the case with my unmarried father. Why is that so onerous? What rights can you not assign no matter what you do?

Does a spouse not have a right to their fair share of the martial assets under the scenario I have laid out? Do you think a married person should be able to cut out their spouse? Again, no marriage, no problem though.

Ok, I agree, it should be made easier, but leave marriage alone.

Exactly, a pre-nup protects what you own, by yourself, before the marriage. It prevents you from cutting out your spouse's share of the marital assets. Don't want to share, don't get married.

Which are impossible and which are difficult? Could you be specific?
 
MaggieD said:
I think it has to be more than that. I believe that courts must recognize an "official marriage" in order to legally confer those rights onto another person. Our court system would be in a freakin' shambles without that. "We lived together three months! I want all the rights conferred on . . . " On what? The Shack-Up Contract?

Marriage, and the rights that pass to a spouse because of marriage, needs to be in the form of a legal contract...a contract that can change with societal norms, court challenges and custom. I completely support SSM, by the way.
Click to expand...

Sure, have a legal contract. Just stop making it contingent on a romantic relationship and whether the government thinks yours is good enough.
 
Gina said:
I don't need protection from my choices. Any person needs protection for the choices they make because you can't trust people to do the right thing. Especially as a relationship is dissolved.
Click to expand...

So why is that the governments concern? Everything these two parties are fighting over the state can protect without having to involve themselves in their dispute. If the two parties ever come to terms then at that point the state can deal with any property claim changes. I don't see the problem.
 
Gina said:
There is a bribe because it benefits society to have people marry and when they decide not to be married, it solves a lot of issues quickly. As a single person, you can designate who is the beneficiary of your bank, savings and investment accounts and life insurance. Via a will, you can say who gets your assets. You have to state who gets to make medical and end of life decisions, because as a single person, there is no obvious person to go to for that. Such is the case with my unmarried father. Why is that so onerous? What rights can you not assign no matter what you do?
Click to expand...

What comes immediately to mind is some tax rights (some of which I don't feel should exist). Also co-parenting rights. Some people parent with a non-romantic partner (and rarity is not a good argument against legality).

Also, while it's *possible* to designate a lot of these rights, it is sometimes time-consuming and expensive when it doesn't need to be.

What parts of a marriage contract can be altered by pre-nup varies by state, but most won't let you change whatever you want. Even if they did, though, it's still expensive and time-consuming.

Does a spouse not have a right to their fair share of the martial assets under the scenario I have laid out? Do you think a married person should be able to cut out their spouse? Again, no marriage, no problem though.

Ok, I agree, it should be made easier, but leave marriage alone.

Exactly, a pre-nup protects what you own, by yourself, before the marriage. It prevents you from cutting out your spouse's share of the marital assets. Don't want to share, don't get married.

Which are impossible and which are difficult? Could you be specific?
Click to expand...

A spouse has a right to whatever they agree on. Like I said, I'm not out to take anything from anyone. I'm out to allow everyone to have equal and un-coerced access to their rights.

I don't understand why it's so important to you to keep it as an institution that applies only to romantic relationships of the type you approve.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Sure, have a legal contract. Just stop making it contingent on a romantic relationship and whether the government thinks yours is good enough.
Click to expand...

this new contract or set of contracts how do we make them as binding as marriage was is?
how many years would it take?
would it ever be?

i ask this because the main reason civil unions and domestic partnerships are crap is because if one is intellectually honest thay arent a compromise at all.

and its because they arent equal in rights or benefits nor does the law find them to be as concrete or as binding.

examples, people have had civil unions and domestic partnerships and had their rights to kids, property, money etc over turned by family at a much more successful right than if one was married.
 
AGENT J said:
this new contract or set of contracts how do we make them as binding as marriage was is?
how many years would it take?
would it ever be?

i ask this because the main reason civil unions and domestic partnerships are crap is because if one is intellectually honest thay arent a compromise at all.

and its because they arent equal in rights or benefits nor does the law find them to be as concrete or as binding.

examples, people have had civil unions and domestic partnerships and had their rights to kids, property, money etc over turned by family at a much more successful right than if one was married.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking. They're as binding as any contract, and could be nullified under the same rules.

Just make it harder (or damn near impossible, preferably) for anyone to over-turn the rights that the people involved have agreed upon.

Take marriage, remove it from romantic context, and make it easier to design to your needs. That's it. That's all I'm proposing.
 
Henrin said:
So why is that the governments concern? Everything these two parties are fighting over the state can protect without having to involve themselves in their dispute. If the two parties ever come to terms then at the point the state can deal with property claims. I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

How do they come to terms? Via lawyers and courts. Judges can block block the sale of property. Freeze liquid assets and prevent a parent from fleeing with children. All of that comes before terms are agreed to.

Are you saying, though, that contracts aren't necessary to protect parties from damage? That is the point I addressed in the quoted response.
 
There is already a compromise in place - civil unions. The compromise was struck and now one of the parties wants to renegotiate for the whole enchillada. Modius operandi for the gay movement. Compromise more and they'll be back at the table asking for more before the ink is dry.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
1.)I'm not sure what you're asking. They're as binding as any contract, and could be nullified under the same rules.

2.)Just make it harder (or damn near impossible, preferably) for anyone to over-turn the rights that the people involved have agreed upon.

3.)Take marriage, remove it from romantic context, and make it easier to design to your needs. That's it. That's all I'm proposing.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom