• 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
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's already a secular contract as is. There is nothing religious about the civil marriage contract. Even those clergy that perform the wedding must sign the marriage license, the contract. And they have to be registered with the state to show they actually can sign the contract legally.

Religion does not own the word marriage.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neither of you have thought this through. You want individual state rights, but then when one state refuses to recognize the contract of another another, you expect the state courts to overrule their own state's decisions? This is very, very poorly thought out.
 
Cardinal said:
Neither of you have thought this through. You want individual state rights, but then when one state refuses to recognize the contract of another another, you expect the state courts to overrule their own state's decisions? This is very, very poorly thought out.
Click to expand...
Not at all, according to contract law states must honor legal contracts which is what marriage is. The current problem is that same sex marriages are not legally recognized as legitimate contracts so it's as simple as taking that authority away from the government and compelling it to recognize the contract. This is a contract rights discussion and not a state's rights issue, contract rights trump state's rights absent laws prohibiting contract items. State's cannot interfere with a contract between individuals in the interstate commerce sense which is one of the few powers the federal can enforce legitimately.
 
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 bump*
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not at all, according to contract law states must honor legal contracts which is what marriage is. The current problem is that same sex marriages are not legally recognized as legitimate contracts so it's as simple as taking that authority away from the government and compelling it to recognize the contract. This is a contract rights discussion and not a state's rights issue, contract rights trump state's rights absent laws prohibiting contract items. State's cannot interfere with a contract between individuals in the interstate commerce sense which is one of the few powers the federal can enforce legitimately.
Click to expand...

You're essentially asking that states operate according to a good faith measure, believing that one state won't just decide to up and negate the contract of another state (remember..."state rights"?). This is fantastically implausible. As Roguenuke already pointed out states are already refusing to recognize the marriage licenses from other states, so we already have present, demonstrable evidence that your theory doesn't work. Fortunately, we have a system to deal with this problem: the one we already have (with legalized gay marriage of course).
 
Cardinal said:
You're essentially asking that states operate according to a good faith measure, believing that one state won't just decide to up and negate the contract of another state (remember..."state rights"?). This is fantastically implausible. Fortunately, we have a system to deal with this potential problem: the one we already have (with legalized gay marriage of course).
Click to expand...
Contracts must be honored unless they are bad faith, this is why you can keep insurance that you bought in one state should you have to move to another. I get what you're saying about lack of reciprocity, but don't see how a court can uphold dishonoring a legal contract unless there is a government component like not recognizing it's legitimacy. Basically I'm saying that's why the government needs to have that authority stripped and compulsory honoring of legal contracts.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Contracts must be honored unless they are bad faith, this is why you can keep insurance that you bought in one state should you have to move to another. I get what you're saying about lack of reciprocity, but don't see how a court can uphold dishonoring a legal contract unless there is a government component like not recognizing it's legitimacy. Basically I'm saying that's why the government needs to have that authority stripped and compulsory honoring of legal contracts.
Click to expand...

Demonstrably unworkable. Until you can explain why removing the government from marriage is good for me, this is going nowhere. This is why your proposal has no traction -- no one can answer that question.
 
digsbe said:
On a federal level? Hopefully never.
Click to expand...

Your Star said:
Disgusting.
Click to expand...

No, speaking as someone who doesn't think the government should be controlling or restricting marriage at all (as marriage is really just a contract, and should require no license nor consent from any state agency, administrator, or bureaucrat, but should simply be honored and enforced as a voluntary contract), what's disgusting is wanting the Supreme Court to pretend that this is a federal matter under the U.S. Constitution as written.

As it always is whenever someone wants the body charged with upholding the rule of law to piss on the rule of law and do whatever they want... disgusting.

Judicial activism... and its advocacy... are completely disgusting.
 
Cardinal said:
Demonstrably unworkable. Until you can explain why removing the government from marriage is good for me, this is going nowhere. This is why your proposal has no traction -- no one can answer that question.
Click to expand...

It is good for you to be free to enter into voluntary contracts with whom you wish. It is bad for you to have your freedom restricted appropriate of nothing.

There is no reason why you should require a license to enter voluntarily into a contract with another person, and it shouldn't matter whether or not that person has any interest in occasionally boinking you or not.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
It is good for you to be free to enter into voluntary contracts with whom you wish. It is bad for you to have your freedom restricted appropriate of nothing.

There is no reason why you should require a license to enter voluntarily into a contract with another person, and it shouldn't matter whether or not that person has any interest in occasionally boinking you or not.
Click to expand...

Which sounds great right up until I go to a state that believes my marriage is illegitimate for whatever reason, and promptly considers it null and void.

Because that's what's happening.

As it stands I am currently suffering no discrimination at all, being heterosexual and all, so removing government from marriage does nothing for me. Can't see how it does anything for anyone else either (besides that it gives states the ability to discriminate based on sexual orientation, of course).
 
Cardinal said:
Demonstrably unworkable. Until you can explain why removing the government from marriage is good for me, this is going nowhere. This is why your proposal has no traction -- no one can answer that question.
Click to expand...
It works for everyone because they can't define the terms. If government has authority to say that two adults cannot get married because of x reason then they own the law on it. Once you remove the ability to define who qualifies it's an equal rights debate, meaning all adults have the legal right to have their marriage recognized by law. Now, because of freedom of religion a church gets to decide which marriages they will perform, because the government does not have a religious component they must follow civil rights law. It benefits you by benefitting all.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)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.) 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.) 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.

4.) That's the beauty of it, government is out except for benefits, they have no choice.

5.)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.

Well, contracts are an individual right barring laws that restrict certain terms so it stands to reason that we strike the government terms and go back to pure marriage contract between consenting individuals.
Click to expand...

1.) well unless getting the certificate is some kind of process there would have to be more to it dont you think? I mean as large of a scope as marriage is there has to at least be id, age citizenship vitrifaction etc.
2.) based on what? wouldnt there have to be a regulations or rules defining how marriage works legally?
i just dont understand how you grant all the legal benefits and rights almost 1200 alone on a federal level without the government involved.

and yes i did misunderstand you because i thought you wanted something new or just many other contracts trying to take the place of marriage. But again how does it work without the government.
3.) it seems like you are saying that government will be involved in every way except regulating who can get married (barring beastyality, intimate objects and minors etc)
so I guess my question is, once gay marriage is legal everywhere why wont that accomplish the same thing.
4.) how are they out of it and granting all the rights at the same time secondly what keeps you in check and makes sure your honor my marriage. something like visitation rights at a hospital.

5.) again isnt this just gonna happen soon?

guess ill just ask this

what is your way going to accomplish that grant gays equal rights wont besides getting rid of the licenses that are needed in some areas
 
I would say less than 25 years. It's possible that a supreme court decision will make it nationally legal, but I doubt it. I think it will eventually happen though as the older generations that are most against it die off.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It works for everyone because they can't define the terms. If government has authority to say that two adults cannot get married because of x reason then they own the law on it. Once you remove the ability to define who qualifies it's an equal rights debate, meaning all adults have the legal right to have their marriage recognized by law. Now, because of freedom of religion a church gets to decide which marriages they will perform, because the government does not have a religious component they must follow civil rights law. It benefits you by benefitting all.
Click to expand...

*Sigh.* The above is not going to disguise the fact that states are right now discriminating against people, which is why the issue is at the USSC right now. Your vague assertions of freedom as well as your lack of tangible benefits are doing nothing to support your position.
 
Cardinal said:
*Sigh.* The above is not going to disguise the fact that states are right now discriminating against people, which is why the issue is at the USSC right now. Your vague assertions of freedom as well as your lack of tangible benefits are doing nothing to support your position.
Click to expand...

One can presume based upon your statement that you do not wish states to do so; if so that is an opinion, and it is one I share.

One can presume that you think the state governments do not have the authority to do so. Whether or not this presumption is the case, such a sentiment would be false. They do.

If you live in that state, work to make it otherwise. If you do not, it isn't really your concern anymore than it is your concern what laws or policies pass in France or Russia.
 
JayDubya said:
One can presume based upon your statement that you do not wish states to do so; if so that is an opinion, and it is one I share.

One can presume that you think the state governments do not have the authority to do so. That is false. They do.

If you live in that state, work to make it otherwise. If you do not, it isn't really your concern anymore than it is your concern what laws or policies pass in France or Russia.
Click to expand...

Or I can do nothing, let the Federal government ban discriminatory practices in all fifty states, and watch an episode of Family Guy afterwards.

Sure, I admit it sounds a little lazy, but as paths of least resistance go you really can't beat that.
 
Cardinal said:
Or I can do nothing, let the Federal government ban discriminatory practices in all fifty states, and watch an episode of Family Guy afterwards.

Sure, I admit it sounds a little lazy, but as paths of least resistance go you really can't beat that.
Click to expand...

The federal government has no authority to dictate anything regarding marriage. If it did what you suggest above, and you did or said nothing in opposition, you would be demonstrating that you have contempt for the rule of law.
 
JayDubya said:
The federal government has no authority to dictate anything regarding marriage. If it did what you suggest above, and you did or said nothing in opposition, you would be demonstrating that you have contempt for the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Not at all. If the rule of law protects civil liberties from the arbitrary and petty motivations of others to restrict those liberties, then I'm all for it.
 
Cardinal said:
Not at all. If the rule of law protects civil liberties from the arbitrary and petty motivations of others to restrict those liberties...
Click to expand...

It does in some cases. It doesn't in others. Where it doesn't, you can't just pretend it does and call it a day.
 
JayDubya said:
It does in some cases. It doesn't in others. Where it doesn't, you can't just pretend it does and call it a day.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're carrying on a conversation from another thread. I'm entirely consistent on this matter.
 
Cardinal said:
It sounds like you're carrying on a conversation from another thread. I'm entirely consistent on this issue.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm reading exactly what you're saying. You want to pretend that by the rule of law, as written, the federal government is empowered to dictate that gay marriage must be permitted in every state. Well, it's worse than that. You want the people who are supposed to protect the integrity of the rule of law to pretend along with you.

In short, the result you apparently want would lawfully require a Constitutional amendment.
 
roguenuke said:
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".
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever taken one of these cases to a higher court after they ruled marriage is a right? I'm very interested to know if they can rule against the right of a marriage contract after they ruled marriage is a right. I don't believe they can logically.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
1.) well unless getting the certificate is some kind of process there would have to be more to it dont you think? I mean as large of a scope as marriage is there has to at least be id, age citizenship vitrifaction etc.
Click to expand...
Nope, two names, vows, and a witness(ceremony performer) and it's a contract. It really can be that simple.
2.) based on what? wouldnt there have to be a regulations or rules defining how marriage works legally?
i just dont understand how you grant all the legal benefits and rights almost 1200 alone on a federal level without the government involved.

and yes i did misunderstand you because i thought you wanted something new or just many other contracts trying to take the place of marriage. But again how does it work without the government.
Click to expand...
That's why we have civil court, for when a contract is violated. As long as the contract is honored why regulate?
3.) it seems like you are saying that government will be involved in every way except regulating who can get married (barring beastyality, intimate objects and minors etc)
so I guess my question is, once gay marriage is legal everywhere why wont that accomplish the same thing.
Click to expand...
Sure, but then you still have the problem of the government running marriage, and then there is always the chance that once it's granted it can be taken away. The precedent should be government either recognizes marriage or doesn't, but they have no other compelling interest barring criminal activity.
4.) how are they out of it and granting all the rights at the same time secondly what keeps you in check and makes sure your honor my marriage. something like visitation rights at a hospital.
Click to expand...
Government cannot grant rights, they exist, the only things they can do is protect or limit rights. In the case of spouse visitation such as a hospital, they can protect rights by upholding civil rights law, in the case of marriage all they can do is limit a right, what can they add for protection?

5.) again isnt this just gonna happen soon?
Click to expand...
It might, but I don't see a gain through law to be a gain, I see a gain through forcing government to adhere to it's prohibitions as a true gain.

guess ill just ask this

what is your way going to accomplish that grant gays equal rights wont besides getting rid of the licenses that are needed in some areas
Click to expand...
As I have stated, they cannot do anything but protect the right if they are not empowered to decide the scope of marriage.
 
Cardinal said:
*Sigh.* The above is not going to disguise the fact that states are right now discriminating against people, which is why the issue is at the USSC right now. Your vague assertions of freedom as well as your lack of tangible benefits are doing nothing to support your position.
Click to expand...
You don't agree with what I'm saying, but I'm giving you proper contractual ways to do it.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)Nope, two names, vows, and a witness(ceremony performer) and it's a contract. It really can be that simple.
2.)That's why we have civil court, for when a contract is violated. As long as the contract is honored why regulate?
3.) Sure, but then you still have the problem of the government running marriage, and then there is always the chance that once it's granted it can be taken away. The precedent should be government either recognizes marriage or doesn't, but they have no other compelling interest barring criminal activity.
Government cannot grant rights, they exist, the only things they can do is protect or limit rights. In the case of spouse visitation such as a hospital, they can protect rights by upholding civil rights law, in the case of marriage all they can do is limit a right, what can they add for protection?

It might, but I don't see a gain through law to be a gain, I see a gain through forcing government to adhere to it's prohibitions as a true gain.

As I have stated, they cannot do anything but protect the right if they are not empowered to decide the scope of marriage.
Click to expand...

1.) i understand if COULD be that simply but i wouldnt want it that simple, things must be verified.
2.) civil court? no thanks i dont want something so large and important simply decided by judge judy lol ;)
not to mention how can civil court rule on federal rights and benefits? they are great if my plumber violates his contract but not so much other wise

3.) well see thats where we differ i have no problem with government protecting the 1200 or so rights as long as its equal.
4.)so my wife is in the hospital they wont let me see her you want me to go to civil court or fight for my civil rights in court?

SOrry LMR, id rather just have civil rights fought for and won in court then make the government recognize both marriages that way.
Just seems to flimsy and random the other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom