• 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!

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?


  • Total voters
    105
Then perhaps people who want to twist marriage should refrain from constantly bleating about whom they "love," and "fairness," which are after all, emotional arguments?

Not my argument, try again. Hint: responding to my actual words will work better than responding to what you wish I had said.
 
Legal recognition for benefits is the issue, that should be removed. IOW if a ceremony is performed the marriage should automatically be authorized for all benefits contained therein. For instance if I marry a fiance in the Catholic church she has a right to my property upon death or divorce, all benefits I get through a company like insurance are legally mandated for her to be covered under, etc. what I was saying is that the government does not get to pick and choose, any marriage should have equal legal protections and a justice of the peace(civil ceremony) would have to be performed under equal protections law. What I am arguing is that no level of government may pick and choose what to recognize as "legal", I'm actually using the first amendment(religious protection) and fourteenth(binds all rights to all levels of government) to state that government shall not have authority to decide which marriages(barring child, etc.) they may recognize.

Not at all. Private organizations can handle all parts of marriage.

Nah. Whatever rationale du jour is used it's fantastically transparent that those who reject gay marriage want to exist under a separate system so they can plausibly claim that gay marriages are illegitimate. Under the current system (and the one that homosexuals are fighting to be included in), no matter where I go in this country no one can tell me my marriage isn't real, despite whatever religious and arbitrary personal reasons they may hold for thinking so. Under your proposed system they can, which is of course the point. You know it, I know it, we all know it. All the winking isn't going to change it.
 
Not at all. Private organizations can handle all parts of marriage.

No they can't, not well. What about within the law? Many of the parts of marriage are legal issues. Recognition of the spouse legally as a person's closest legal relative and someone who, by agreeing to marry the other person, shares some at least financial assets and debts. They also do legally join, at least to a small extent, families, since the FLA covers inlaws dying. Plus there is the military, which gives a lot of benefits to spouses because of the demand of the military on the military members.

There is a cost issue involved, not to mention marriage licenses make everything more efficient, for both the couple and the government.
 
Nah. Whatever rationale du jour is used it's fantastically transparent that those who reject gay marriage want to exist under a separate system so they can plausibly claim that gay marriages are illegitimate.

What are you talking about? I support gay marriage just as much as anyone else. I'm just different in that I don't support the governments involvement in marriage. I really don't care one little bit who wants to spend their lives together and as long as everyone consents the government has no business to even care either. I suppose there is nothing I can do about bigots joining my ranks, but this is basically the libertarian position on marriage. :cool:

Under the current system (and the one that homosexuals are fighting to be included in), no matter where I go in this country no one can tell me my marriage isn't real, despite whatever religious and arbitrary personal reasons they may hold for thinking so. Under your proposed system they can, which is of course the point. You know it, I know it, we all know it. All the winking isn't going to change it.

So your concern is that someone along the way will reject the existence of your contract?
 
Last edited:
Promoting state rights so they have the right to discriminate is a terrible and morally bankrupt argument for keeping the Federal government out of it.

The discrimination would lie in denying voters their right to vote on a policy issue. The morally bankrupt aspect is telling the people that their votes don't matter. The federal government should never get involved in forcing states to accept SSM in their legal definitions of marriage.
Reason?????

Marriage is a state issue. Each state has (and should retain) the right to approve of or not approve of SSM and uphold traditional marriage. The feds shouldn't get involved, and the rights of the state to set state policy should be preserved.
Disgusting.

Nah, what's disgusting is telling the voters in all the other states that have upheld traditional marriage that their beliefs, votes, and state policies on a state issue don't count and that they somehow have to legally accept SSM.
Why? Whats wrong with equality? Arent all men created equal?

We have equality. All men a created equal with one vote. SSM, polygamous marriages, and other alterations to the definition of marriage are policy issues. It would be a breach of equality to deny people of a certain opinion their right to vote and to reverse and destroy the laws that were lawfully put in place to preserve traditional marriage.
 
It weren't equal 'cause the same people couldn't a married the same people. They weren't equal. You aren't trying to create an equal right but a new one. (And reinvent civilization, religion morality and nature.) It's been tired before of course. The history books are full of references to dead civilization that tried. Typically, in short order they're supplanted by more vital ones.

Which is why same sex marriage restrictions aren't equal.

If you line up 10 men and 10 women, they all can get married. However, they cannot marry the same people. The men cannot marry the men, nor can the women marry the women. That is unequal based on sex/gender, not sexuality.

And the history books are full of civilizations that shunned and/or killed homosexuals throughout their existence as well. Failed logic.
 
Marriage is a state issue. Each state has (and should retain) the right to approve of or not approve of SSM and uphold traditional marriage. The feds shouldn't get involved, and the rights of the state to set state policy should be preserved.

-marriage is not a state issue its a right, SCOTUS disagrees with you, rights of these nature are never states issues nor should they ever be just like interracial marriage.
-traditional marriage is a made up thing and its in zero danger, my traditions and your traditions and your neighbor could all be different and they stay that way because those traditions belong to US, your traditions have ZERO impact on mine and vice versa. When people mention traditional marriage its a complete cop out of the issue because no one can ever factually explain how its impacted and why this ONE issue makes it different
 
What are you talking about? I support gay marriage just as much as anyone else. I'm just different in that I don't support the governments involvement in marriage. I really don't care one little bit who wants to spend their lives together and as long as everyone consents the government has no business to even care either. I suppose there is nothing I can do about bigots joining my ranks, but this is basically the libertarian position on marriage. :cool:



So your concern is that someone along the way will reject the existence of your contract?

Not to lump you in with all Libertarians as I'm perfectly aware that you're not Borg, but removing the government from marriage has been consistently a Libertarian postion on this forum, and not once has a Libertarian been able to coherently explain to me why I should share their enthusiasm for doing so. Every "solution" they come up with is invariably a gigantic pain in the ass compared to the current system.
 
The discrimination would lie in denying voters their right to vote on a policy issue. The morally bankrupt aspect is telling the people that their votes don't matter. The federal government should never get involved in forcing states to accept SSM in their legal definitions of marriage.

If you see people being "discriminated" against because they're being denied the right to vote away the rights of others, then I'd say your understanding of what constitutes as discrimination is terribly flawed.
 
Marriage is a state issue. Each state has (and should retain) the right to approve of or not approve of SSM and uphold traditional marriage. The feds shouldn't get involved, and the rights of the state to set state policy should be preserved.

As someone else on this forum has already noted, "state rights" has, sadly, devolved into code for "the right to discriminate against its citizens without Federal meddling."
 
If you see people being "discriminated" against because they're being denied the right to vote away the rights of others, then I'd say your understanding of what constitutes as discrimination is terribly flawed.

It's a policy issue. I don't think that there is a "right" anywhere that forces a state to recognize SSM. It's a policy issue, a legal definition. Many pro-SSM groups have been successful in delusionally applying some kind of Civil Rights model to the issue with hyped up emotions, but it still remains that it's a legal definition set into place by states and it's not unlawful for a state to uphold traditional marriage. It's not a federal issue, so the feds need not get involved either. DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional for this reason because it gets in the way of states and people who chose to recognie SSM.

-marriage is not a state issue its a right, SCOTUS disagrees with you, rights of these nature are never states issues nor should they ever be just like interracial marriage.
-traditional marriage is a made up thing and its in zero danger, my traditions and your traditions and your neighbor could all be different and they stay that way because those traditions belong to US, your traditions have ZERO impact on mine and vice versa. When people mention traditional marriage its a complete cop out of the issue because no one can ever factually explain how its impacted and why this ONE issue makes it different

Marriage policy is a state issue. States define marriage and set the parameters who what is legally recognized as a marriage for their state. SSM is not equatable with interracial marriage, that is a common straw man argument.

Traditional marriage exists as the norm for this nation. The norm has been one man one woman. Some states want to change that, let them change it. Other states do not, they are within their rights to keep the definition that has been widely legally accepted since marriage was even legally recognized.
 
It's a policy issue. I don't think that there is a "right" anywhere that forces a state to recognize SSM. It's a policy issue, a legal definition. Many pro-SSM groups have been successful in delusionally applying some kind of Civil Rights model to the issue with hyped up emotions, but it still remains that it's a legal definition set into place by states and it's not unlawful for a state to uphold traditional marriage. It's not a federal issue, so the feds need not get involved either. DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional for this reason because it gets in the way of states and people who chose to recognie SSM.



Marriage policy is a state issue. States define marriage and set the parameters who what is legally recognized as a marriage for their state. SSM is not equatable with interracial marriage, that is a common straw man argument.

Traditional marriage exists as the norm for this nation. The norm has been one man one woman. Some states want to change that, let them change it. Other states do not, they are within their rights to keep the definition that has been widely legally accepted since marriage was even legally recognized.

Stating that something is "a policy issue", as well as tacking on pejoratives such as "emotions," in no way camouflages the fact that this is very much a civil rights matter.
 
Stating that something is "a policy issue", as well as tacking on pejoratives such as "emotions," in no way camouflages the fact that this is very much a civil rights matter.

But the fact remains that it's a policy issue. People can set policy on what defines a marriage within the confines of the Constitution. I do not believe it is unconstitutional to uphold the definition of traditional marriage and I hope the SCOTUS agrees.
 
1.)Marriage policy is a state issue. States define marriage and set the parameters who what is legally recognized as a marriage for their state.
2.)SSM is not equatable with interracial marriage, that is a common straw man argument.
3.)Traditional marriage exists as the norm for this nation. The norm has been one man one woman.
4.)Some states want to change that, let them change it.
5.) Other states do not, they are within their rights to keep the definition that has been widely legally accepted since marriage was even legally recognized.

1.) again false, SCOTUS disagrees, states can make little local additions to it but its not a states issue
2.) I dont think you know what strawman means

strawman
1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

please factually explain why they are different

3.) so again just your opinion and nothing else
4.) no they are granting equality liberty and freedom and in the few cases that went to the states supreme courts to decide that SCOTUS felt the same way."Traditional marriage" is the only factual straw man being discussed. as it isnt any danger nor is it in danger of not being upheld.
5.) they dont, just like they didnt for interracial marriage as when the time comes
 
But the fact remains that it's a policy issue. People can set policy on what defines a marriage within the confines of the Constitution. I do not believe it is unconstitutional to uphold the definition of traditional marriage and I hope the SCOTUS agrees.

Interjecting "policy" into the discussion is a meaningless red herring, since essentially every single thread on Debate Politics revolves around policy to some degree. And it's a waste of time in any case because you're not changing the fact that it's still a discriminatory policy to deny homosexuals marriage.

Near-infinite red herrings are invented daily to camouflage the fact that civil rights are at the heart of the gay marriage debate. Arguing that it's a "policy" issue is one of the more irrelevant ones.
 
Last edited:
1.) again false, SCOTUS disagrees, states can make little local additions to it but its not a states issue
The SCOTUS is ruling on that now. I don't see how you can factually say that's false. It is a states issue, states are the ones who issue the marriage certificates and who set policy. It's within their jurisdiction to do so.
2.) I dont think you know what strawman means

strawman
1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

please factually explain why they are different

3.) so again just your opinion and nothing else
4.) no they are granting equality liberty and freedom and in the few cases that went to the states supreme courts to decide that SCOTUS felt the same way."Traditional marriage" is the only factual straw man being discussed. as it isnt any danger nor is it in danger of not being upheld.
5.) they dont, just like they didnt for interracial marriage as when the time comes

It violates definition 1. It's a weak opposition that doesn't correctly equate with SSM. Interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on race. A latina woman and a black man can get married, it's a violation of their rights to say "you can't marry due to being different races." Not allowing SSM is simply not altering the current legal definition of marriage in most states to recognize "marriage" as a union between people of opposite sexes and same sexes. It's not unlawful gender discrimination to say that 2 wives can't make a marriage or 2 husbands can't make a marriage. If so, should we legally and forcibly make all states recognize polygamy? Someone could claim it violates their religious freedom and that marriage is a union between any number of consenting adults. Under the Constitution should this be forced? Why or why not?

It's not unlawful gender discrimination to adhere to the facts. It's fact that a man cannot be a "wife" or that a woman cannot be a "husband." Many states do not recognize that, and it would be dishonest to warp the literal definition of a word because people feel uncomfortable with facts.

Interjecting "policy" into the discussion is a meaningless red herring, since essentially every single thread on Debate Politics revolves around policy to some degree. And it's a waste of time in any case because you're not changing the fact that it's still a discriminatory policy to deny homosexuals marriage.

Near-infinite red herrings are invented daily to camouflage the fact that the heart of gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Arguin that it's a "policy" issue is one of the more irrelevant ones.

I never said it wasn't discriminatory, I just said it should be legal. It's discriminatory to have men and women bathrooms. It's very discriminatory to force all men of age to sign up with Selective Service and to not require women to do so. But yet, both cases are legal. It's discriminatory against someone's choice to kill another when we make murder illegal. Nearly all enforceable laws are based on some kind of discrimination, and discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. It is an issue of policy, it's how a state wants to define marriage.

Personally, the hype typically comes from the rabidly pro-SSM side that wants to treat SSM like the Civil Rights issues in the 60's and label their opposition as the racists, bigots, and haters during that time who opposed equal rights based on race. Sure there is hype on the pro-traditional marriage side as well, typically it involves accusations that this will allow pedophilia, bestiality, and a number of other things.
 
Last edited:
1.)The SCOTUS is ruling on that now. I don't see how you can factually say that's false. It is a states issue, states are the ones who issue the marriage certificates and who set policy. It's within their jurisdiction to do so.


2.)It violates definition 1. It's a weak opposition that doesn't correctly equate with SSM.
3.) Interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on race. A latina woman and a black man can get married, it's a violation of their rights to say "you can't marry due to being different races.
4.)" Not allowing SSM is simply not altering the current legal definition of marriage in most states to recognize "marriage" as a union between people of opposite sexes.
5.)It's not unlawful gender discrimination to say that 2 wives can't make a marriage or 2 husbands can't make a marriage.
6.) If so, should we legally and forcibly make all states recognize polygamy?
7.)Someone could claim it violates their religious freedom and that marriage is a union between any number of consenting adults.
8.)Under the Constitution should this be forced? Why or why not?
9.)It's not unlawful gender discrimination to adhere to the facts.
10.)It's fact that a man cannot be a "wife" or that a woman cannot be a "husband."
11.) Many states do not recognize that, and it would be dishonest to warp the literal definition of a word because people feel uncomfortable with facts.

1.) very easily cause im dealing with facts. My response was to you saying its a state issues. Its is not in general because scotus has already ruled 14 times marriage is a right so its not a state issue in general. States can set up small t when they go to far and the issues is pushed they get a smacking just like they should, thats why i say it because its factual. I didnt not claim SCOTUS ruled on SSM yet just that its not just a policy/state issue. SCOTUS, facts and history disagree.

2.) according to what FACTS? i cant wait to read this.
3.)the way the law was set up is whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks but they couldnt marry each other so thats the argument you make when you say its already equal is it not?
what about when blacks could drink out of water fountains just like whites just not the same water fountains.
Its completely illogical disingenuous and irrational to claim these are somehow magically different when they are not.
4.) LOL yeah not allowing blacks to be men was simply not altering the current legal definition of a man that in most states to recognized, thats just silly. It discrimination period. This is what state supreme courts have already ruled.
5.) glad you brought this example up because this argument is going through the courts now and is being heard because on the surface its been determined at least valid so you dont get to decide that yet. (if its not gender discrimination)
6.) Polygamy does not fit the current mold of any discrimination going on now or is there any precedence here or in court decisions that loans itself to polygamy. Egual rights for gays =/= polygamy. If you disagree point one out.
but on a side note i would support people fighting for a new right to polygamy.
7.) they could but religion is meaningless to LEGAL marriage. Law isnt needed for RELIGIOUS marriage so that completely fails.
8.) no because theres no grounds for it, see above. Religions can marry who ever they want.
9.) you havent presented any facts that support your claim the way you frame it though
10.) yes this is true, completely meaningless to legal marriage though lmao completely and utterly meaningless tp legal marriage a legal contract.
11.) i agree people need to realize that their opinions are meaningless to the facts and that their own traditions are also meaningless to facts, them being uncomfortable gives them zero right to force their opinions on others.

Dishonesty and warp thinking is that word is only for man and woman, the fact is its not, reality proves that along with dictionaries and contracts etc etc etc ONe side has facts on what that word can mean what do the others have? uncomfortable feelings.
 
Last edited:
Nah. Whatever rationale du jour is used it's fantastically transparent that those who reject gay marriage want to exist under a separate system so they can plausibly claim that gay marriages are illegitimate. Under the current system (and the one that homosexuals are fighting to be included in), no matter where I go in this country no one can tell me my marriage isn't real, despite whatever religious and arbitrary personal reasons they may hold for thinking so. Under your proposed system they can, which is of course the point. You know it, I know it, we all know it. All the winking isn't going to change it.
You aren't understanding what I'm saying, the government has to honor all marriages performed by a church, government weddings cannot be denyed due to sexual preference under a system where the government doesn't have rights over marriage. The government already can't force a church to perform weddings legally.
 
I never said it wasn't discriminatory, I just said it should be legal.

Well thats....refreshing.

It's discriminatory to have men and women bathrooms. It's very discriminatory to force all men of age to sign up with Selective Service and to not require women to do so. But yet, both cases are legal. It's discriminatory against someone's choice to kill another when we make murder illegal. Nearly all enforceable laws are based on some kind of discrimination, and discrimination is not inherently a bad thing.

Interesting you bring that up. Sotomayor cut through a lot of the fog on that topic during the hearing with this enlightening exchange:

Sotomayor: Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make -- denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?

“Your Honor, I cannot,” Cooper said. “I, I do not have, uh, uh, any, uh, anything to offer you in that regard.”
Sonia Sotomayor Question On Gay Marriage Leaves Lawyer Stumped (VIDEO)

It is an issue of policy,

No, it's an issue of of clothing, since what would government officials be wearing when they stamped the marriage certificates? Shall I go on or can we stop these silly red herrings now?

it's how a state wants to define marriage.

Translation: it's how a state wants to discriminate.

Personally, the hype typically comes from the rabidly pro-SSM side that wants to treat SSM like the Civil Rights issues in the 60's and label their opposition as the racists, bigots, and haters during that time who opposed equal rights based on race. Sure there is hype on the pro-traditional marriage side as well, typically it involves accusations that this will allow pedophilia, bestiality, and a number of other things.

And yet, your arguments no less distract from the arguments in favor of gay marriage than those do.
 
You aren't understanding what I'm saying, the government has to honor all marriages performed by a church, government weddings cannot be denyed due to sexual preference under a system where the government doesn't have rights over marriage. The government already can't force a church to perform weddings legally.

If you have any desire whatsoever for me to share your enthusiasm for government removing itself from marriage, you need to answer two questions, two questions I have never been given straight answers to.

1)What is in it for you?
2)What is in it for me?

I would appreciate it if we didn't pretend that this has nothing to do with gay marriage, since gay marriage is literally the ONLY topic in which government being removed from marriage is ever brought up.
 
Not sure i understand what you are say. This is already the case, legal marriage has nothing to do with religion what so ever its a non-factor. And you say you want fed, state and local out of it (which will never happen ever) but u mention justice of the peace, im confused what you want.

But either way Government is never getting out of marriage thats just unrealistic and the poll is about what you THINK will happen not what you want. But i am still curious about what you want since you brought it up.
There are places where you have to get a marriage license, that should not be legal and it's an excuse to set the rules of who can get married and creates a taxable event. Next, the only time legalization of marriage matters if for benefits, and transfers of property(will, trusts, divorce). What I'm saying is we need to have a system that eliminates any marriage license requirement for religious unions, all civil unions performed must comply with anti-discrimination laws, and once a union is performed the government at all levels must recognize it.
 
Not to lump you in with all Libertarians as I'm perfectly aware that you're not Borg, but removing the government from marriage has been consistently a Libertarian postion on this forum, and not once has a Libertarian been able to coherently explain to me why I should share their enthusiasm for doing so. Every "solution" they come up with is invariably a gigantic pain in the ass compared to the current system.

It's not really that much different except in this instance you can craft your own contract or at the very least half different offerings available. There is a few details that I'm not aware of like what the military offers married couples, but I can't imagine why that couldn't just be transfered to another system. Then there is also child custody issues, but again, easy transfer to existing systems.
 
It's not really that much different except in this instance you can craft your own contract or at the very least half different offerings available. There is a few details that I'm not aware of like what the military offers married couples, but I can't imagine why that couldn't just be transfered to another system.

Right now one system is in place for recognizing the legitimacy of marriage throughout all fifty states. Remove the Federal government and my marriage (as gay marriage is currently) at the mercy of the arbitrary opinion of every state I travel in.

No thanks.
 
1.)There are places where you have to get a marriage license, that should not be legal and it's an excuse to set the rules of who can get married and creates a taxable event.
2.) Next, the only time legalization of marriage matters if for benefits, and transfers of property(will, trusts, divorce).
3.) What I'm saying is we need to have a system that eliminates any marriage license requirement for religious unions
4.), all civil unions performed must comply with anti-discrimination laws, and once a union is performed the government at all levels must recognize it.

1.) maybe but i see it as a way to set up the contract
2.) yes some of this stuff is the most important parts and theres no other way to do it in one contract or make it as historically and legal binding
3.) we dont have thous now so theres nothing to eliminate
4.) this im ok with but how do we set up a national legal contract without involving government
 
hopefully the SCOTUS will find that it falls under the equal protection clause this summer.
 
Back
Top Bottom