View Poll Results: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 52.17%
  • No

    20 43.48%
  • Maybe

    0 0%
  • Other

    2 4.35%
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74

Thread: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

  1. #41
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    There is a significant difference between promoting stable families and promoting married families, as evidenced by the divorce rate. Personally, I think it would be far easier to establish the kind of relationship upon which a stable family can be founded if one were to do so without a cookie-cutter approach.
    I say that the high divorce rate is one of the several symptoms of exactly the sort of ills that we have brought upon ourselves by devaluing marriage and family to the degree that we have. Even as badly as we have so far damaged the institution of marriage, I think it clearly remains the case that a family founded on a married couple, in general, is going to be more stable than one that is not; and this would be much more true if we still properly upheld, respected, and protected marriage in the manner that we currently are failing as a society to do.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  2. #42
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,535
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    Not at all. No religion as of now is going to marry a gay couple, this doesn't solve anything.
    You would be incorrect. There are several religious groups, including several Christian faiths, who are perfectly willing to marry same sex couples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    When property or children are involved, or if there is a divorce or requirements of division, the state only needs to get involved to enforce the private marriage contracts, like any other contract. No need for an official government issued license.
    There is no such thing as a "private marriage contract" in most marriages. You presume that marriage simply awards all the benefits that the State recognizes. Try dealing with property claims, parental rights, medical visitation and determinations when in-laws challenge a spouse they dislike.

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Not in the least. Medical decisions, insurance policies, banking, parental rights and responsibilities can all be managed without a state-recognized marriage. I'm not sure how state-recognized marriage impacts someone's ability to move here and eventually become a citizen.

    The issue with same-sex couples wasn't so much the rights, responsibilities and protections -- civil unions could've covered that. It was about being truly equal and having that equality recognized by having their relationship sanctioned identically to opposite-sex couples. A nation in which the state does not license marriage would have seen no such inequality.
    You are incorrect in both points. The first issue of rights and benefits are State protected by a variety of inheritance, marital property, and marital rights laws. Absent them, a spouse has no real rights to any beyond acceptance of custom or belief. This can be challenged by any interested party (child, parent, close relative, creditors, etc.)

    In the second issue: Civil unions, being mere "contracts" can, and often are, challenged in civil courts by the relatives of the deceased or ill spouse. Marriage rights are clearly recognized and are not absent extreme circumstances.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationshp?
    WTF is "contractually defined relationship"?

    As I have proposed, there are no tax breaks, benefits, etc, except those relating to children. These can be claimed whether married or not. In the case where the parents are not married or no longer married, then they switch off which years they claim the children as dependents. If there is no child support, then only the parent providing support can claim the children. The primary exception would be a spouse who does not have employment but is the primary care provider for the children. There can also be dependent family members. The legal recognition of marriage simply provides the legal structure to define family members. In the case of married, but no children/dependent family members, or even if those are present but both spouses work, they get the same benefits and are taxed the same as a single person.

    Without the need to provide primary care for children, and in rare cases, other dependent family members, there is no reason to extend benefits, tax breaks, etc to a spouse who can work and no reason not to. The current structure was built at the time when women rarely entered the work force and were dependent upon their husbands. Since we can be equal in the work force now, and often are, then there is no longer a basis for married people to have any different benefits, tax breaks, etc except when children/dependent family care interferes with one spouses ability to be employed.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  4. #44
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,014

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Yes, governments should not only recognize marriages they should only recognize marriages performed by state sanctioned officials. In the Netherlands for example people go and marry at the city registrars office first and then they can marry in the church afterwards. The church marriage is purely a private ceremony with no legal consequences, the real marriage is when the registrar signs the signed and witnessed marriage license.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  5. #45
    Guru

    HonestJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,485

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Not in the least. Medical decisions, insurance policies, banking, parental rights and responsibilities can all be managed without a state-recognized marriage. I'm not sure how state-recognized marriage impacts someone's ability to move here and eventually become a citizen.
    They could be managed without formal legal recognition of the relationships but you loose the consistency. Currently, a legal spouse is always recognised as next of kin, relevant to medical or end-of-life decisions. Without that, it is luck of the draw as to whether a hospital will recognise the relationship (and as I said, homosexual couples and even unmarried heterosexual couples can face this issue).

    The immigration aspect is if a foreigner marries a citizen. Currently that tends to grant a right (or at least strong favour) to their immigrating. Without state recognition of marriage, you loose that.

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    The issue with same-sex couples wasn't so much the rights, responsibilities and protections -- civil unions could've covered that.
    Yes, it did. That supports the point of having state recognition of relationships in general. This isn't an argument between marriage and civil partnership, it's between the state recognising or not recognising any such relationships.

    Not I'm not making a definitive argument here, only pointing out some of the arguments from the opposite direction.

  6. #46
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    I say that the high divorce rate is one of the several symptoms of exactly the sort of ills that we have brought upon ourselves by devaluing marriage and family to the degree that we have. Even as badly as we have so far damaged the institution of marriage, I think it clearly remains the case that a family founded on a married couple, in general, is going to be more stable than one that is not; and this would be much more true if we still properly upheld, respected, and protected marriage in the manner that we currently are failing as a society to do.
    I keep hearing about the "devaluing" of marriage, but I can never seem to get a straight answer on what exactly that means. Furthermore, while the divorce statistic is a hard number, I can never seem to get other hard numbers which illustrate how the problem is the "devaluing" of marriage.

    What this means, ultimately, is that the institution of marriage continues to be promoted both by the bureaucracy and by hysterical politicians despite its high failure rate and a complete lack of hard evidence as to why it fails so often and what might make a better alternative.

    Never fear, politicians will continue to sing the praises of marriage in front of the cameras because it will continue to be a cheap way to score votes for the foreseeable future.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #47
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    You are incorrect in both points. The first issue of rights and benefits are State protected by a variety of inheritance, marital property, and marital rights laws. Absent them, a spouse has no real rights to any beyond acceptance of custom or belief. This can be challenged by any interested party (child, parent, close relative, creditors, etc.)
    Everything I listed out as being manageable without a state-recognized marriage can in fact be managed without such a union. Furthermore, civil unions in a number of states (most prominently California) has the same benefits as marriage absent Federal recognition (which would've been absent no matter what you called them, unions or marriage) and therefore interstate recognition:

    Although the program enjoys broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.
    Domestic partnership in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    In the second issue: Civil unions, being mere "contracts" can, and often are, challenged in civil courts by the relatives of the deceased or ill spouse. Marriage rights are clearly recognized and are not absent extreme circumstances.
    Marriages can be challenged just as much as are civil unions -- after all, anyone can sue anyone for anything. The real question is, how often and under what circumstances are the challenge of a civil union successful?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  8. #48
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    WTF is "contractually defined relationship"?
    I thought that the term was self-explanatory, but okay. I'm talking about a relationship legally defined by a contract written and signed by the participants, backed up with a variety of forms like medical proxies and whatnot. Such a relationship would allow the participants to define the entry into, boundries of, and exit from the relationship however they choose. There could be 2 participants or 2 dozen.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    As I have proposed, there are no tax breaks, benefits, etc, except those relating to children.
    And the spousal deduction. You said, "There is should be no real tax benefit other than the number of dependents that can be claimed. If not married, then only one of the two biological parents should be able to claim dependent children and no one claims "spouse" as a dependent."

    Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationship?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #49
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    They could be managed without formal legal recognition of the relationships but you loose the consistency. Currently, a legal spouse is always recognised as next of kin, relevant to medical or end-of-life decisions. Without that, it is luck of the draw as to whether a hospital will recognise the relationship (and as I said, homosexual couples and even unmarried heterosexual couples can face this issue).
    You can work around that if you plan in advance and fill out the right forms.

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    The immigration aspect is if a foreigner marries a citizen. Currently that tends to grant a right (or at least strong favour) to their immigrating. Without state recognition of marriage, you loose that.
    I'd be okay with that.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  10. #50
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    01-03-14 @ 10:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    642

    Re: Should the state recognize marriage at all?

    Are we going to change our laws before marriage is a thing of the past?
    A surviving spouse would not be entitled to benefits of any kind, which in a lot of cases would pose a great hardship especially when children are involved.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •