• 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
Boo Radley said:
Sure there is. Supporting marriage in no way infringes on your rights, but does promote stability for society. It's largely a win win.
Click to expand...

It's creates government authority outside of where it should be. Some of us practice restraint when it comes to government authority and some of us are serious about it.
 
Henrin said:
It's creates government authority outside of where it should be. Some of us practice restraint when it comes to government authority and some of us are serious about it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about separate locker rooms, separate bathrooms, by gender? Separate job standards, separate sports, again, by gender.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure there is. Supporting marriage in no way infringes on your rights, but does promote stability for society. It's largely a win win.
Click to expand...

If we are doing so much win-win then why do we need a federal gov't that must borrow over $3 billion per day in order to do so? I agree that SSM will not destroy the country, yet it will not save it either. So far, 8 states and DC, have allowed some form of SSM but that does not create a nationwide right or mean that the other states now have less rights to govern themselves, as they see fit. Just what does handing out gov't cash to single parent "families" do to promote stability? How has increasing the out of wedlock childbirth rate, aided by direct gov't subsidiy, helped to create a stable society?
 
Lightning said:
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.
Click to expand...

Probably Article 4 of the Constitution, which deals with states recognizing public records of other states being valid in theirs. Also the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which seems to give the US Supreme Court jurisdiction into state matters when denial of equality under the law is in question. I think the Supreme Court is deciding what constitutes inequality, after all homosexuals can legally marry right now just like anybody else, as long as the person is the opposite sex. Based on some of the question asked by some of the justices, it looks like they're also considering the social impact of normalizing homosexuality in the culture.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lightning said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.

clownboy said:
What about separate locker rooms, separate bathrooms, by gender? Separate job standards, separate sports, again, by gender.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do realize your argument flies right in the face of what the country stands for right?
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AGENT J said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cyrylek said:
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.
Click to expand...

That prevents non religious people from marrying. So now you're just discriminating against the secular instead of gays. And besides, isn't this the sort of definition changing that so many are arguing against? When two people decide they want to marry, they're not deciding they want to civil unionize. They want to marry. But now they'll have to call it something else. That sounds like definition changing to me.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those don't involve fundamental rights. The right to marry has been recognized as a "fundamental right". The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was designed to address these exact type of issues.
 
disneydude said:
Not at all. To say so, shows complete ignorance of the Supremacy clause.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but the supremacy clause does not trump state rights. You might want to read the federalist papers some time. Both Madison and Hamilton pointed this out.
 
Paschendale said:
That prevents non religious people from marrying. So now you're just discriminating against the secular instead of gays.
Click to expand...

Honestly? If someone doesn't want to marry you do they not have the right to say no?
 
Henrin said:
I'm sorry but the supremacy clause does not trump state rights. You might want to read the federalist papers some time. Both Madison and Hamilton pointed this out.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand Constitutional Law and the Supremacy clause. If you did, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim. Go read up a little.

What do you think the Supremacy clause is? The Supremacy clause says that there are some rights that are FUNDAMENTAL to this Country and in those cases, the Federal Constitution trumps any state laws. How do you think the Civil rights cases of the 1950's -60's came about?
 
disneydude said:
Those don't involve fundamental rights. The right to marry has been recognized as a "fundamental right". The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was designed to address these exact type of issues.
Click to expand...

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is definitely a fundamental right. In what year did SSM become a fundamental right?
 
disneydude said:
You obviously do not understand Constitutional Law and the Supremacy clause. If you did, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim. Go read up a little.
Click to expand...

Federalist 33
Federalist 44

You're wrong. Pick your poison.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is definitely a fundamental right. In what year did SSM become a fundamental right?
Click to expand...

And if California tried to outlaw guns....guess what.....the Supremacy clause would prohibit it. As for marriage being a fundamental right....see Loving v. Virginia. Supreme Court.
 
Paschendale said:
That prevents non religious people from marrying. So now you're just discriminating against the secular instead of gays.
Click to expand...

It does not prevent anyone from doing anything. It defines the parameters of government involvement. What does the State do here? It certifies a contract, basically - and arranges for a number of legal accomodations - from hospital visitation to bride visas. Whether it is called "marriage", "civil union", or "abracadabra" is immaterial.

Now, there are plenty of people who think of "marriage" as somethng entirely different: a sacrament. Not a contract between two people, but a communion between two people and a deity. Let them think whatever they think, and let them have the word, for crying out loud! What's the damage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom