• 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!

Republican Steve King wants an abolish civil marriage in the United States

should civil marriage be aboloshed in favor of holy matrimony only?

  • Yes, because it will stop gay marriage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, because everybody in the US should be part of a religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, because most people in the US do not want there to be gay marriage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care, I am already married and I do not plan to re-marry

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am unmarried and will never marry, I hate being shackled to some man/woman

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    35

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
29,957
Reaction score
14,680
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.

Representative Steve King says:

"So I'm calling upon the states, just abolish civil marriage, let's go back to holy matrimony the way it began, do that alone,". "In the next few days I'll be introducing legislation to do just that."


So what do we think? In a nation that is getting less religious, he wants to abolish the right of people to have a civil marriage purely because he wants to stop gays from marrying.

Here are a few problems with what he proposes (IMHO)

1. how is this going to play with the supreme court by discriminating against non-religious people who would be unable to marry anymore due to this fool's possible proposal

2. and this is a biggie some priests do marry gays and lesbians in a holy matrimony!!!!!!!!!!. So his big plan to make gay marriage impossible is in fact achieving nothing. He is just making a total ass of himself.

3. the republican party does at some time want another president from their party in the white house because attitudes like this will not go down well with the voters (who are largely in favor of gay marriage).

Steve King also said: "It's not the will of the people to have same sex marriage, now there's no point in having civil marriage in this country whatsoever,".

He does have internet right? He does know that the opinion polls show that a big majority of Americans support gay marriage? Or is he just totally out of touch with reality?

But here is the question, do you agree with republican Steve King, civil marriage has to be abolished in the US in favor of holy matrimony only?
 
Representative Steve King says:

"So I'm calling upon the states, just abolish civil marriage, let's go back to holy matrimony the way it began, do that alone,". "In the next few days I'll be introducing legislation to do just that."

palpy.jpg
 
I voted: "No, because people should be free to also have no religion and be able to marry" but that's only because that's pretty much the current situation and expectation.

But basically I dont believe the govt should be involved in marriage at all and should not confer any benefits or privileges.
 
The voting options are suspect, so I did not vote.

But as a note for the thread, this is just a play on words. We have long since passed the point of "holy matrimony" (or, marriage in a context) being something without the State. We have too much conditional government recognition and benefit attached to marriage to simply abolish it now. We are talking about everything from licensing, to legal status, to conditions of estate, to even tax code and it would all have to be undone. It is simply not practical to make such a legislative effort just because of disagreement with the SSM ruling.

We can debate all day long about the government being involved in marriage in any sense, but this plan by Steve King is just political grandstanding foolishness devoid of reality on where we are with this subject.
 
The "Taking our ball and going home" amendment.
 
The "Taking our ball and going home" amendment.

We knew a kid who tried that. He always had the hardest time coming to grips with the fact that the ball was never his.
 
As for Christian protestant beliefs: Martin Luther is the one that first said Marriage is a civil matter, and that it can be ordained by Christ in the church, but it is first of all a civil matter.

Jews get married. Muslims get married. Agnostics get married. Atheists get married. It isn't JUST a Christian union. People were getting married LONG before Christ was born.

Marriage is a civil contract between two people. People can live together and have children without getting married. The Marriage license guarantees that the civilian court will arbitrate any disagreements between the parties of the marriage. Unmarried people do not have the same protections in court that married people do.
 
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.

Representative Steve King says:

"So I'm calling upon the states, just abolish civil marriage, let's go back to holy matrimony the way it began, do that alone,". "In the next few days I'll be introducing legislation to do just that."


So what do we think? In a nation that is getting less religious, he wants to abolish the right of people to have a civil marriage purely because he wants to stop gays from marrying.

Here are a few problems with what he proposes (IMHO)

1. how is this going to play with the supreme court by discriminating against non-religious people who would be unable to marry anymore due to this fool's possible proposal

2. and this is a biggie some priests do marry gays and lesbians in a holy matrimony!!!!!!!!!!. So his big plan to make gay marriage impossible is in fact achieving nothing. He is just making a total ass of himself.

3. the republican party does at some time want another president from their party in the white house because attitudes like this will not go down well with the voters (who are largely in favor of gay marriage).

Steve King also said: "It's not the will of the people to have same sex marriage, now there's no point in having civil marriage in this country whatsoever,".

He does have internet right? He does know that the opinion polls show that a big majority of Americans support gay marriage? Or is he just totally out of touch with reality?

But here is the question, do you agree with republican Steve King, civil marriage has to be abolished in the US in favor of holy matrimony only?


Actually, I've been saying this for years. Civil marriage is ridiculous and should have no place in society.

My reasoning is different though..... I'm a single guy, and I pay taxes. If I were a married guy, I would pay less taxes. That, to me, isn't fair... and for that reason and that reason alone, I don't believe the government (especially the IRS) should be involved in marriage
 
As for Christian protestant beliefs: Martin Luther is the one that first said Marriage is a civil matter, and that it can be ordained by Christ in the church, but it is first of all a civil matter.

Jews get married. Muslims get married. Agnostics get married. Atheists get married. It isn't JUST a Christian union. People were getting married LONG before Christ was born.

Marriage is a civil contract between two people. People can live together and have children without getting married. The Marriage license guarantees that the civilian court will arbitrate any disagreements between the parties of the marriage. Unmarried people do not have the same protections in court that married people do.

Civil courts should have nothing to do with marriage. The entire concept of alimony is garbage. No adult should have to give another adult human being a weekly allowance.... the entire concept is so dated and sexist it's ridiculous.


A relationship is between two people and two people alone.... and, if they want, their church/synagogue/god/etc. The government really doesn't belong in the discussion.
 
Civil courts should have nothing to do with marriage. The entire concept of alimony is garbage. No adult should have to give another adult human being a weekly allowance.... the entire concept is so dated and sexist it's ridiculous.


A relationship is between two people and two people alone.... and, if they want, their church/synagogue/god/etc. The government really doesn't belong in the discussion.

I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, they do, because of children that are produced in the marriage and not everyone is honorable enough to take care of their kids.

And that's just one of many reasons why marriage is seen as a civil contract, and why even Martin Luther understood it needed to be so.
 
I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, they do, because of children that are produced in the marriage and not everyone is honorable enough to take care of their kids.

And that's just one of many reasons why marriage is seen as a civil contract, and why even Martin Luther understood it needed to be so.

I still believe in child support. I don't believe in alimony. And Martin Luther was alive hundreds of years ago, times have clearly changed.

Alimony harkens back to a day when women couldn't work or take care of themselves. A divorced woman would move back in with her father. Today.... a woman is capable of taking care of herself just as a man is, so there is no reason for archaic and ancient civil marriage contracts
 
I still believe in child support. I don't believe in alimony. And Martin Luther was alive hundreds of years ago, times have clearly changed.

Alimony harkens back to a day when women couldn't work or take care of themselves. A divorced woman would move back in with her father. Today.... a woman is capable of taking care of herself just as a man is, so there is no reason for archaic and ancient civil marriage contracts

I agree with you about alimony.

However, I've been with the same woman for going on 36 years now, so I don't think I'll be paying any alimony. Or at least... I hope not.
 
I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, they do, because of children that are produced in the marriage and not everyone is honorable enough to take care of their kids.

And that's just one of many reasons why marriage is seen as a civil contract, and why even Martin Luther understood it needed to be so.

And it's one of the clear reasons why SSM is a benefit to society overall...it protects the children in those families...both when together and in divorce. In hospital, for benefits, custody, inheritance, legal guardianship, etc.
 
I agree with you about alimony.

However, I've been with the same woman for going on 36 years now, so I don't think I'll be paying any alimony. Or at least... I hope not.

Alimony may be outdated today *in some cases* but in the past it protected families....because it was usually the man that cheated on the woman and back then, women often didnt have careers. So they dumped the families and the families had no means of support. Of course there were exceptions but in general, it's true. Even if she cheated, they still took the kids into account and the need for support for a mortgage or rent. And if she went out to find work, then childcare.
 
It's just like Jesus said, when the government forces you to share your toys, thou shalt break them and go home.
 
I want to vote "NO" but I can't decide which no response fits my reason.

I am not sure what is meant by "civil marriage" unless he means the issuing of marriage licenses. If that's the case then he is essentially advocating a position that would ultimately deny ALL couples the current privileges and immunities that are protected by law.

Sure, you could still go through with any ceremony you wish, religious or otherwise, and then begin to live with each other. I suppose that in the few states with "Common-law" marriage laws you could retain some rights. But otherwise you would just be two people living together calling yourself married.

It would literally be exactly the way it was for same-sex couples prior to the SCOTUS decision, only now in every state of the Union for opposite-sex couples too.

It wouldn't work.
 
Last edited:
I want to vote "NO" but I can't decide which no response fits my reason.

I am not sure what is meant by "civil marriage" unless he means the issuing of marriage licenses. If that's the case then he is essentially advocating a position that would ultimately deny ALL couples the current privileges and immunities that are protected by law.

Sure, you could still go through with any ceremony you wish, religious or otherwise, and then begin to live with each other. I suppose that in the few states with "Common-law" marriage laws you could retain some rights. But otherwise you would just be two people living together calling yourself married.

It would literally be exactly the way it was for same-sex couples prior to the SCOTUS decision, only now in every state of the Union for opposite-sex couples too.

It wouldn't work.

I think he does mean that no marriage licenses should be handed out by the government and that the only recognized marriage should be one that was done in a church.
 
I'd have no problem with government getting out of marriage and granting all couples civil unions instead, but I don't really see the need for a change from the status quo. Especially after the most recent SCOTUS ruling, people want to have government recognizes marriages, so let them.
 
Actually, I've been saying this for years. Civil marriage is ridiculous and should have no place in society.

My reasoning is different though..... I'm a single guy, and I pay taxes. If I were a married guy, I would pay less taxes. That, to me, isn't fair... and for that reason and that reason alone, I don't believe the government (especially the IRS) should be involved in marriage

Well, the powers that be have decided that "the family is the cornerstone of the country and needs tax breaks". And making it no longer civil marriage will not change the fact that married people will get tax breaks because the "holy matrimony" talked about here does not exclude that. King does not want to stop people getting tax breaks, he wants to stop gays getting married, that is the whole point of this proposal he wants to introduce in congress. Only church weddings are allowed in future to prevent gays from marrying in front of a judge or non-religious marriage service.
 
Well, the powers that be have decided that "the family is the cornerstone of the country and needs tax breaks". And making it no longer civil marriage will not change the fact that married people will get tax breaks because the "holy matrimony" talked about here does not exclude that. King does not want to stop people getting tax breaks, he wants to stop gays getting married, that is the whole point of this proposal he wants to introduce in congress. Only church weddings are allowed in future to prevent gays from marrying in front of a judge or non-religious marriage service.


Limiting Civil Marriage to being based on only recognizing ceremonies performed by religious organizations will not stop gays from getting married.

Churches and other religious organizations have been marrying same-sex couples for decades.


It would violate the constitution though because it would exclude atheist from being able to enter in to the same legal relationship.


>>>>
 
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.

Steve King has spent his entire adult life in "crazy mode".
 
Actually, I've been saying this for years. Civil marriage is ridiculous and should have no place in society. My reasoning is different though..... I'm a single guy, and I pay taxes. If I were a married guy, I would pay less taxes. That, to me, isn't fair... and for that reason and that reason alone, I don't believe the government (especially the IRS) should be involved in marriage

Ah the 'I have no one to play with so ya'll can't play' school of thought. ;)

If you ever convince someone of equal or opposite sex to wed, you'll appreciate the tax bennies of marriage and dependents as a family isn't cheap to raise and wages rarely are boosted per child...

I'd wager a shiny nickel you'd be one of the first ones to decry removing the tax bennies if you did marry as you seem far more self centered than willing to understand something called the greater good.

Are you planning on staying single or is it a temporary condition you want the entire tax code to be changed for?
 
Civil courts should have nothing to do with marriage. The entire concept of alimony is garbage. No adult should have to give another adult human being a weekly allowance.... the entire concept is so dated and sexist it's ridiculous. A relationship is between two people and two people alone.... and, if they want, their church/synagogue/god/etc. The government really doesn't belong in the discussion.

You seem quite focused on yourself and being cheap. Marriage is between two people- until it is three or more people. Some of us call the additions children, dependents or tax breaks given your POV. Dunno how much the dreaded government is tasked with deciding alimony but do know it has a full plate getting dads to play for their kids once the marriage ends. The term dead beat dad isn't dated, sexist...

Try to expand your POV to include more situations...
 
Back
Top Bottom