View Poll Results: Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes

    15 22.73%
  • Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used

    25 37.88%
  • The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples

    21 31.82%
  • Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.

    5 7.58%
Page 15 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 345

Thread: Civil Unions

  1. #141
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Marriage cannot just be a state level issue because it is recognized by the federal government and across all states. If it wasn't then you would have a case.

    When something affects all of the states then the federal government must make sure that it is applied equally across all states. That is their job.
    The Federal government has addressed this issue.

  2. #142
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    03-10-09 @ 07:08 AM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    44

    Re: Civil Unions

    Not disputing the above comments,

    but look at what this site says (credentials? I don't know if this is true)

    "On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits."

    source: Legal and economic benefits of marriage

    That is a big difference. No wonder why they are fighting for it, yeah?
    My English is not always perfect, so please, try not to go nuts as I lack infallible grammar and spelling.

  3. #143
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,230

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The Federal government has addressed this issue.
    And the DOMA is being challenged:

    Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the group that won the right for same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts in 2003, has filed suit in federal district court on behalf of eight couples and three surviving spouses who have been denied federal benefits such as Social Security spousal payments and the right to file joint tax returns with the IRS.

    <snip>

    GLAD is only going after the section of DOMA that denies federal recognition of legal same-sex marriages, arguing that the federal government recognizes all other marriages licensed by the states even though the laws governing which different-sex couples can marry varies widely from state to state. The group noted that the federal government does not itself license any marriages, "only states do."

    GayCityNews - Major Challenge to DOMA From Massachusetts

  4. #144
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    And the DOMA is being challenged:
    Part of it, yes.
    Doesnt change the fact that Federal government -has- addressed the issue.

  5. #145
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,783

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Marriage cannot just be a state level issue because it is recognized by the federal government and across all states. If it wasn't then you would have a case.
    Wrong. States retain certain rights that the federal government has no jurisdiction over...certain state taxes, usage of revenues, repair of roads and infrastructures (mind you that they get much of their funds from the federal level, but it is still up to the state to implement these things). So, if a certain state, such as Texas, wants to ban gay marriage, another state like California might not want to do so, and it is a state's right issue to be voted on by residents of that state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    When something affects all of the states then the federal government must make sure that it is applied equally across all states. That is their job.
    Not according to the Constitution. The powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, gives all power not directed to the National government, to the State level, or to the people, period.

    "The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. 7 and 28 U.S.C. 1738C. The law has two effects:

    No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
    The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
    The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
    - Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So changes and the powers of the state to recognize marriage will remain as they are.

    Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-09-09 at 02:50 PM.


    No Lives Matter

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Civil Unions

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and joins a nuptial contract with a goose,

    call it a marriage, because it's not the state's job to brand the consensenting interactions with any moralistic labels.

    Leave the moralizing to the people that care, and make sure those people don't have the power to interfere in the lifestyle choices of anyone else.

    I don't care what two adults do in their bedrooms, or if they do it on their couches. I don't care if they get married, or not. None of my business. No one else's business, either, as far as I can tell.

    For those of you who oppose using the simple word "marriage" to describe the simple process, how are you, personally, being hurt by what those two people are doing?

  7. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Wrong. States retain certain rights that the federal government has no jurisdiction over...certain state taxes, usage of revenues, repair of roads and infrastructures (mind you that they get much of their funds from the federal level, but it is still up to the state to implement these things). So, if a certain state, such as Texas, wants to ban gay marriage, another state like California might not want to do so, and it is a state's right issue to be voted on by residents of that state.



    Not according to the Constitution. The powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, gives all power not directed to the National government, to the State level, or to the people, period.

    Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.


    According to the Constitution:

    "Article IV - The States
    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

    Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.

    "Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".

    Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.

  8. #148
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,783

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and joins a nuptial contract with a goose,

    call it a marriage, because it's not the state's job to brand the consensenting interactions with any moralistic labels.

    Leave the moralizing to the people that care, and make sure those people don't have the power to interfere in the lifestyle choices of anyone else.

    I don't care what two adults do in their bedrooms, or if they do it on their couches. I don't care if they get married, or not. None of my business. No one else's business, either, as far as I can tell.

    For those of you who oppose using the simple word "marriage" to describe the simple process, how are you, personally, being hurt by what those two people are doing?
    Well instead of having everyone who disagrees with you post all over again. Why don't you take some initiative and actually read the thread as your question has been addressed ad nauseum.


    No Lives Matter

  9. #149
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,783

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    According to the Constitution:

    "Article IV - The States
    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

    Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.
    Not in the case of the DOMA, it basically says "no" although hopefully the law suit will change that.

    So Article IV no longer applies, and so far the DOMA has been upheld.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    "Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".

    Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.
    This does not apply to "marriage" as no ones rights are being infringed according to the Federal Government.

    Please explain how I am a "bigot" by pointing out the law as it stands?
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-09-09 at 03:04 PM.


    No Lives Matter

  10. #150
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    27,067

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So changes and the powers of the state to recognize marriage will remain as they are.

    Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    According to the Constitution:

    "Article IV - The States
    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

    Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.

    "Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".

    Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.
    Thanks Scarecrow. This is exactly what I was thinking of.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 15 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... 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
  •