• 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
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

not to mention its an ass backwards approach that is illogical, way more work to do the same thing but harder and weaker and wouldnt have the legal precedence that marriage already has
 
AGENT J said:
1.) maybe but i see it as a way to set up the contract
Click to expand...
We already have contract law in the U.S., we really don't need anything specific for marriage contracts which is why the license system is unnecessary.
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
Click to expand...
Maybe, but that's why we have divorce and family court. The only time there is a secondary clause in the contract is a pre nuptual agreement, and that is only to protect certain assets prior to vows.
3.) we dont have thous now so theres nothing to eliminate
Click to expand...
"We" may not in the U.S. but there are United States locales that do have that requirement. That's one major problem to marriage reciprocity and actually allows for governments that don't agree with homosexual marriage to ignore that couple's contract.
4.) this im ok with but how do we set up a national legal contract without involving government[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Treat it like other contracts between individuals. For instance if I sign an insurance contract here and move to NYC the contract is still valid, same with marriage.
 
AGENT J said:
not to mention its an ass backwards approach that is illogical, way more work to do the same thing but harder and weaker and wouldnt have the legal precedence that marriage already has
Click to expand...

It's a bloody mess is what it is. I find it funny that this discussion consistently brings up the proposal to eliminate one of the few institutions (government recognized marriages) that actually functions halfway decently.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep going back to the idea that the state would not respect your private contract?
 
Henrin said:
Why do you keep going back to the idea that the state would not respect your private contract?
Click to expand...

Why should it be obliged to under your scenario?
 
digsbe said:
On a federal level? Hopefully never.
Click to expand...

Said the guy who still thinks people should deprive themselves of sex until marriage....

Do you have a legal reason for that position other than:
 
Cardinal said:
It's a bloody mess is what it is. I find it funny that this discussion consistently brings up the proposal to eliminate one of the few institutions (government recognized marriages) that actually functions halfway decently.
Click to expand...

I would think people like yourself would think the government does a great deal of things at the very least halfway decently. Anyway, my objection has always been the same. The state should not be providing benefits or incentivising certain life decisions for this reason or that reason. It should simply be protecting the rights and liberties of all people. Since all you have is a right to marriage that does not include government intervention it would follow then that government must respect all marriages as long as the parties consent. It would seem to me that you argument of states denying your contract are baseless due to the right to marriage.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)We already have contract law in the U.S., we really don't need anything specific for marriage contracts which is why the license system is unnecessary.
2.) Maybe, but that's why we have divorce and family court. The only time there is a secondary clause in the contract is a pre nuptual agreement, and that is only to protect certain assets prior to vows.
3.) "We" may not in the U.S. but there are United States locales that do have that requirement. That's one major problem to marriage reciprocity and actually allows for governments that don't agree with homosexual marriage to ignore that couple's contract.
4.) Treat it like other contracts between individuals. For instance if I sign an insurance contract here and move to NYC the contract is still valid, same with marriage.
Click to expand...

1.) fine with getting rid of the license unless it serves some purpose im unaware of
2.) thats not a good way at all, id rather be proactive than reactive. Id like the contract set up very securely and in a binding fashion. If theres extra stuff, that fine you go get the extras but i wouldnt want it broken apart and historical precedence to start from scratch.

what i mean by this is there have been domestic partnerships and civil unions that when death happened the partner has been screwed because these things arent as binding. The one case was the house was a wedding gift(no legal wedding gift obviously) from the family of one of the partners. That partner died and the family came and took the house and one in court because of course those things arent as binding as marriage.

i was just giving you this example to explain where im coming from, im not down with the idea of starting from scratch or using something weaker at all.

3.) im confused again, you are talking ssm now about you mentioned religion, where in the us is government needed for religious marriage.
4.) again but you want to erase all the historical precedence and binding history and use many and multiple contracts i wouldn't want that. Why make it harder and add confusion to a process that already works.

seems to me the best solution is get rid of the licenses (if what i said earlier is true) and keep its national recognized and the work is done in those two steps already.
 
As someone else said, barring a SC ruling, I predict 5-10 years. Note that that is *nationally*. Whether it be federal, or all 50 states separately, I can't predict. I do think it is inevitable.
 
Cardinal said:
It's a bloody mess is what it is. I find it funny that this discussion consistently brings up the proposal to eliminate one of the few institutions (government recognized marriages) that actually functions halfway decently.
Click to expand...

well i cant speak for everybody's personal motives but id bet the farm, tractor, toto and auntie em that 98% of the time its a cop out.
 
Henrin said:
I would think people like yourself would think the government does a great deal of things at the very least halfway decently.
Click to expand...

If that's the direction you want to take this conversation in I can guarantee you it will end poorly.

Henrin said:
Anyway, my objection has always been the same. The state should not be providing benefits or incentivising certain life decisions for this reason or that reason. It should simply be protecting the rights and liberties of all people. Since all you have is a right to marriage that does not include government intervention it would follow then that government must respect all marriages as long as the parties consent. It would seem to me that you argument of states denying your contract are baseless due to the right to marriage.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, hold on, what about my other question? You asked "Why do you keep going back to the idea that the state would not respect your private contract?" to which I responded, "Why should it be obliged to under your scenario?"

Why did you ignore that?
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

*bump*
 
Cardinal said:
If that's the direction you want to take this conversation in I can guarantee you it will end poorly.
Click to expand...

Just joking around. :2razz:

Whoa whoa whoa, hold on, what about my other question? You asked "Why do you keep going back to the idea that the state would not respect your private contract?" to which I responded, "Why should it be obliged to under your scenario?"

Why did you ignore that?
Click to expand...

Didn't see it. :3oops:
 
Henrin said:
Right to marriage
Right to contract
:shrug:
Click to expand...

How would that enforced if it doesn't recognize the legitimacy of that contract. Case in point: gay marriage.
 
Cardinal said:
How would that enforced if it doesn't recognize the legitimacy of that contract. Case in point: gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Since marriage has been ruled a right of the people by the courts it would be within reason then that if the state denied to respect the contract due to the arrangement, being in this case an arrangement between two individuals of the same sex or gender, that the courts would in turn rule in the couples favor. Of course that is not tested, but I can't see how they can rule it's a right and then deny to respect the private contract of gay individuals. I'm completely certain the states would try to deny it, but I see no reason they would not lose. In short, the state would have to enforce the contract as marriage is a right.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
1.) fine with getting rid of the license unless it serves some purpose im unaware of
Click to expand...
It's sold as "public safety" because of requirements to get blood tests for STDs and a few other reasons, but it really serves two purposes, create a taxable event(the license) and allows for control of who gets married. It applies to secular and religious ceremonies.

2.) thats not a good way at all, id rather be proactive than reactive. Id like the contract set up very securely and in a binding fashion. If theres extra stuff, that fine you go get the extras but i wouldnt want it broken apart and historical precedence to start from scratch.

what i mean by this is there have been domestic partnerships and civil unions that when death happened the partner has been screwed because these things arent as binding. The one case was the house was a wedding gift(no legal wedding gift obviously) from the family of one of the partners. That partner died and the family came and took the house and one in court because of course those things arent as binding as marriage.

i was just giving you this example to explain where im coming from, im not down with the idea of starting from scratch or using something weaker at all.
Click to expand...
This is a symptom of what I am talking about. If the government has no control of recognition of legal marriage, then a SSM performed by either a consenting church or justice of the peace would have all legal benefits of a heterosexual marriage. The house gifted by a partner's family would go to the spouse, and the family of the deceased partner would have no legal recourse unless they could prove bad faith in the contract. I know it sounds like I'm "loopholing" here but I'm actually arguing for simplicity, everyone's rights start at the equal footing so all laws fall in compliance. It may not sound like it but I am being proactive, I'm arguing for getting the government out of the debate entirely and putting SSM into the same catagory as heterosexual marriage, IOW, everyone married gets the same legal standing.

3.) im confused again, you are talking ssm now about you mentioned religion, where in the us is government needed for religious marriage.
Click to expand...
U.S. government is not part of the licensing equation, but that falls to state and local. Basically under my idea the marriage license is stricken from the books, in La. for example whether you get married civilly or in a house of faith you must have a license. It's not that you are confused so much as it's a confusing process, I'm arguing for the removal of some of the things getting in the way for this debate.

4.) again but you want to erase all the historical precedence and binding history and use many and multiple contracts i wouldn't want that. Why make it harder and add confusion to a process that already works.

seems to me the best solution is get rid of the licenses (if what i said earlier is true) and keep its national recognized and the work is done in those two steps already.
Click to expand...
Here is my argument in a nutshell. Any church that wants to accept homosexual marriage and perform the ceremony should feel free to do so, any that don't shouldn't be compelled or pressured. The government is bound by law to recognize SSM and perform the ceremony because of equal rights laws, there is no argument against that IMO because the law is clear. Once a ceremony is performed the government should be compelled to recognize it at all levels, no exceptions.

The only things that I think the government should have any considerable authority over are these;
1) Child brides - Should remain a felony
2) Multiple marriage - Don't ban it but there should be some fiscal requirements. i.e. - 15 wives and a hundred children, you damn well better support that family.
3) Non-human marriage - Only putting this out there because it was a silly slippery slope argument but this should be self explanatory. no ****ing way.
 
Cardinal said:
How would that enforced if it doesn't recognize the legitimacy of that contract. Case in point: gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Pretty simple really. We have the right to contract in the U.S. which is why you may do anything from joining the military to getting married to buying your own insurance. Contracts only require court interference when they are bad faith, it's not IMO super complicated.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)It's sold as "public safety" because of requirements to get blood tests for STDs and a few other reasons, but it really serves two purposes, create a taxable event(the license) and allows for control of who gets married. It applies to secular and religious ceremonies.

2.) This is a symptom of what I am talking about. If the government has no control of recognition of legal marriage, then a SSM performed by either a consenting church or justice of the peace would have all legal benefits of a heterosexual marriage. The house gifted by a partner's family would go to the spouse, and the family of the deceased partner would have no legal recourse unless they could prove bad faith in the contract. I know it sounds like I'm "loopholing" here but I'm actually arguing for simplicity, everyone's rights start at the equal footing so all laws fall in compliance. It may not sound like it but I am being proactive, I'm arguing for getting the government out of the debate entirely and putting SSM into the same catagory as heterosexual marriage, IOW, everyone married gets the same legal standing.

3.) U.S. government is not part of the licensing equation, but that falls to state and local. Basically under my idea the marriage license is stricken from the books, in La. for example whether you get married civilly or in a house of faith you must have a license. It's not that you are confused so much as it's a confusing process, I'm arguing for the removal of some of the things getting in the way for this debate.

4.) Here is my argument in a nutshell. Any church that wants to accept homosexual marriage and perform the ceremony should feel free to do so, any that don't shouldn't be compelled or pressured.
5.) The government is bound by law to recognize SSM and perform the ceremony because of equal rights laws, there is no argument against that IMO because the law is clear. Once a ceremony is performed the government should be compelled to recognize it at all levels, no exceptions.

6.The only things that I think the government should have any considerable authority over are these;
A) Child brides - Should remain a felony
B) Multiple marriage - Don't ban it but there should be some fiscal requirements. i.e. - 15 wives and a hundred children, you damn well better support that family.
C) Non-human marriage - Only putting this out there because it was a silly slippery slope argument but this should be self explanatory. no ****ing way.
Click to expand...


1.) ok with it not being used anymore
2.) again though what you want to happen and what would probably happen are two different things.
that woman lost her house because the judge that day decided the family should have it since it was in the family before her. She lost it based on what ever family/historical opinions the lawyer going after the house. Under a marriage she wouldnt have lost because she still would have been family since marriage basically makes you one person under the law.

SO this new category you want still sounds like more work and less security. "in theory"

3.) no what you are talking about is a church preforming a LEGAL marriage. No license is needed if its just a religious marriage. My chruch could marry me right now if it wants government has no role with it. Now if i want my marriage to be legally recognized then government does. Thats what im saying. You are mixing the two.

legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage unless the part involved wants them too.

4.) agree and this is the case right now and this right is protected
5.) agreed again unfortunately this issues hasnt been pushed enough and its ot the case yet
6A.) agreed but dont see this changing due to current minor and contract laws
6B.) also agree that the logistics are a hurdle for this but would also support it
6C.) agreeed meaningless slipper slope that is also already protected due to contract VS animals/non-humans
 
Voting 'never' is kind of ridiculous. You may not want it, but it's clearly going to happen at some point.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) ok with it not being used anymore
Click to expand...
Cool, I actually insist we strike it, but that's just semantics at the end of the day.

2.) again though what you want to happen and what would probably happen are two different things.
that woman lost her house because the judge that day decided the family should have it since it was in the family before her. She lost it based on what ever family/historical opinions the lawyer going after the house. Under a marriage she wouldnt have lost because she still would have been family since marriage basically makes you one person under the law.

SO this new category you want still sounds like more work and less security. "in theory"
Click to expand...
Ah, but think about this, that attorney was able to exploit the way marriage law stands because the government has say over whether a same sex couple is recognized or not. I'm arguing that the government has no legal say so that attorney would have no case. We are actually speaking of the same thing, government law getting in the way, I want to take that legal authority away from them and compel them to recognize good faith marriages.

3.) no what you are talking about is a church preforming a LEGAL marriage. No license is needed if its just a religious marriage. My chruch could marry me right now if it wants government has no role with it. Now if i want my marriage to be legally recognized then government does. Thats what im saying. You are mixing the two.

legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage unless the part involved wants them too.
Click to expand...
Simple fix, the marriage is good faith it must be upheld legally. Take away the government say so.

4.) agree and this is the case right now and this right is protected
Click to expand...
Now to make it legally recognized, that is where I'm going. The government MUST be compelled to recognize it, they should have no say so in the matter.

5.) agreed again unfortunately this issues hasnt been pushed enough and its ot the case yet
Click to expand...
The problem is everyone has an agenda be it religious objection, civil rights fighters, and couples who are vested in the fight. Those like myself who aren't effected(I am Catholic but I just don't see it as my place to tell other churches how to conduct their business) but see the issue as it stands are just busy fighting other battles right now. When you have a hot button like this nothing gets solved because the two sides aren't capable of agreeing. It's so simple and we could put this issue to rest with cool heads and a little bit of thought.
6A.) agreed but dont see this changing due to current minor and contract laws
Click to expand...
iirc There are instances where a minor may marry, but it requires parent/guardian approval or legal emancipation. These aren't very young minors but if it's a 17 year old and the parents are on board it's debateable though I don't recommend it. For extreme minors, never, no way.
6B.) also agree that the logistics are a hurdle for this but would also support it
Click to expand...
Works for me.
6C.) agreeed meaningless slipper slope that is also already protected due to contract VS animals/non-humans
Click to expand...
It's what I like to call a desperation move, put the argument into the realm of the ridiculous in hopes of scoring cheap points.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)Cool, I actually insist we strike it, but that's just semantics at the end of the day.

2.)Ah, but think about this, that attorney was able to exploit the way marriage law stands because the government has say over whether a same sex couple is recognized or not. I'm arguing that the government has no legal say so that attorney would have no case. We are actually speaking of the same thing, government law getting in the way, I want to take that legal authority away from them and compel them to recognize good faith marriages.

3.) Simple fix, the marriage is good faith it must be upheld legally. Take away the government say so.

4.)Now to make it legally recognized, that is where I'm going. The government MUST be compelled to recognize it, they should have no say so in the matter.

The problem is everyone has an agenda be it religious objection, civil rights fighters, and couples who are vested in the fight. Those like myself who aren't effected(I am Catholic but I just don't see it as my place to tell other churches how to conduct their business) but see the issue as it stands are just busy fighting other battles right now. When you have a hot button like this nothing gets solved because the two sides aren't capable of agreeing. It's so simple and we could put this issue to rest with cool heads and a little bit of thought.
iirc There are instances where a minor may marry, but it requires parent/guardian approval or legal emancipation. These aren't very young minors but if it's a 17 year old and the parents are on board it's debateable though I don't recommend it. For extreme minors, never, no way.
Works for me.
It's what I like to call a desperation move, put the argument into the realm of the ridiculous in hopes of scoring cheap points.
Click to expand...

1.) yeah im fine with no license just typical stuff that needs done for a contract
2.) but again since you want to rid the system of a contract that deems two people one, that lady "potentially" still loses her house.
sorry just seems like a hard way to achieve something less effective and secure
3.) good faith? no thanks that wouldnt work still to many people that dont care about you or me. Id rather keep the marriage the way it is, drop the license and treat people equally.
4.) But its already the case in general and when its made equal its dont. Why do it the long way?
%.) i totally disagree without it being the same as it is now and the government just making it equal i dont see it being fixed at all. Its the only way to make the agendas meaningless.
1 contract, no licenses, make it equal. Less red tape less people with their hands and loopholes all over it etc.

but just incase im misunderstanding tell me a quick outline

marriage is gone, everybody can equally enter into what ever excising contracts and new contracts they want (besides marriage) its on a good faith system and not regulated by government?

is that right?

6a.) yes but you understood lol
6b.) good
6c.) yeah they just did that somewhere i forget where, the state allowed SSM based on equality but people insisted that churches not be able to be forced be also written in, which was just stupid because that right already exists.
 
Redress said:
That is just not going to happen any time soon. There is not nearly enough support for something like that. I could see as more and more states decide to allow SSM, that some on the traditional marriage side start to back it more and more in a last ditch effort to deny the word marriage for SSM couples, but I can't see it getting any kind of real traction.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, but the Libertarian approach to no Federal "marriage" is IMO, the best choice. The sooner everyone accepts that marriage is a secular contract, the better.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yeah im fine with no license just typical stuff that needs done for a contract
Click to expand...
Basically, the person officiating the wedding signs the marriage certificate, then it's recognized. I see that as the simplest way to go about it.

2.) but again since you want to rid the system of a contract that deems two people one, that lady "potentially" still loses her house.
sorry just seems like a hard way to achieve something less effective and secure
Click to expand...
I think we have a misunderstanding here. I don't want to rid the marriage contract system, just get government out of the regulation of it. Basically stripping all levels of government from having the right to not legally recognize a marriage but rather compelling them to do so, IOW the woman would keep her house because the government MUST recognize the marriage as legitimate, so she would have the first legal claim on the estate.
3.) good faith? no thanks that wouldnt work still to many people that dont care about you or me. Id rather keep the marriage the way it is, drop the license and treat people equally.
Click to expand...
That is a good faith contract. Basically bad faith is when a contract is entered into for dishonest reasons, for marriage it could be anything from breaking vows(infidelity, abuse) to entering into the marriage for financial gain in a dishonest manner, like marrying just so the person will die and leave the estate to the spouse, but not having the other person's knowledge.
4.) But its already the case in general and when its made equal its dont. Why do it the long way?
Click to expand...
IMO my way is the shortest, one simple sentence compels the government to legally recognize marriages, unless it's a child marriage or something else we all could agree is not acceptable, and by all I mean normative behavior; this would exclude pedophiles, bestiality, etc.

%.) i totally disagree without it being the same as it is now and the government just making it equal i dont see it being fixed at all. Its the only way to make the agendas meaningless.
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of it, government is out except for benefits, they have no choice.

1 contract, no licenses, make it equal. Less red tape less people with their hands and loopholes all over it etc.

but just incase im misunderstanding tell me a quick outline
Click to expand...
I'll simplify it, all marriages must be recognized equally. Same sex and heterosexual marriages either enjoy the same benefits or benefits are struck, and I would love to see the government try to strike benefits for that many couples, there would be an electoral beating like we've never seen in our lifetimes.

marriage is gone, everybody can equally enter into what ever excising contracts and new contracts they want (besides marriage) its on a good faith system and not regulated by government?

is that right?
Click to expand...
Well, contracts are an individual right barring laws that restrict certain terms so it stands to reason that we strike the govenrment terms and go back to pure marriage contract between consenting individuals.
 
Henrin said:
Why do you keep going back to the idea that the state would not respect your private contract?
Click to expand...

Because they have consistently failed to recognize private contracts of many couples they didn't agree with. There have been several court cases concerning same sex couples alone where they refuse to grant a divorce and allow the couple to simply live apart unmarried because of the "principle" that they don't recognize the marriage, aka the contract. The states have shown that they don't want to recognize contracts that they consider "wrong".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom