• 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!

In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

Cardinal said:
Going to a church to get my marriage performed would not be a perk -- it would be an additional obligation.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have to go to church to perform a marriage ceremony. There are plenty of non-religious organization that conduct various types of marriage ceremonies.

So, if thats not something you "want", then why not just call yourself "married" after getting a recognized civil union. Just like, under what I proposed, an opposite sex couple would do if they just went to a justice of the peace.

In essence, what you want is something that you're capable of achieving on your own. In fact, you can do that right now. If you're in a committed relationship, why not just call yourself "married?"
 
Fishstyx said:
You wouldn't have to go to church to perform a marriage ceremony. There are plenty of non-religious organization that conduct various types of marriage ceremonies.

So, if thats not something you "want", then why not just call yourself "married" after getting a recognized civil union. Just like, under what I proposed, an opposite sex couple would do if they just went to a justice of the peace.

In essence, what you want is something that you're capable of achieving on your own. In fact, you can do that right now. If you're in a committed relationship, why not just call yourself "married?"
Click to expand...

Why not just call yourself married. You can, you know.

Unless you're gay, of course.

So far, zero for zero on explaining to me how it would be any benefit to me to change from the status quo.
 
Cardinal said:
Why not just call yourself married. You can, you know.

Unless you're gay, of course.

So far, zero for zero on explaining to me how it would be any benefit to me to change from the status quo.
Click to expand...

If thats how you feel, you're so entrenched that you're missing the big picture.

So I'll try this simply for you since it appears to be flying right over your head.

1. Taking marriage out of the government and replacing it with a civil union would meet the need of legal recognition of a two people in a union as this is all the term "marriage" means in accordance with law.

2. If you so desire a "marriage ceremony," under this concept, you could find someone to perform it for you as there are churches and non-religious organizations that perform them. If you don't want that, thats your choice, you'd still be legally together in the eyes of the law with all the "perks" that come with it. Which would be the only real change that would occur as same sex couples can get married today. So if you don't see that as a "benefit," than not sure what else you want?

The impression I'm getting from you is that you want people who don't believe or agree with same marriage to be somehow forced to do so. Is that it?
 
Fishstyx said:
If thats how you feel, you're so entrenched that you're missing the big picture.

So I'll try this simply for you since it appears to be flying right over your head.

1. Taking marriage out of the government and replacing it with a civil union would meet the need of legal recognition of a two people in a union as this is all the term "marriage" means in accordance with law.

2. If you so desire a "marriage ceremony," under this concept, you could find someone to perform it for you as there are churches and non-religious organizations that perform them. If you don't want that, thats your choice, you'd still be legally together in the eyes of the law with all the "perks" that come with it. Which would be the only real change that would occur as same sex couples can get married today. So if you don't see that as a "benefit," than not sure what else you want?

The impression I'm getting from you is that you want people who don't believe or agree with same marriage to be somehow forced to do so. Is that it?
Click to expand...

No. I can get married now under the current status quo. Without the church. And you still can't explain how any change would benefit me. How many times have I asked you to explain the benefit of a change now? Five times? Six times, and still nothing?

Go back to the drawing board and think your position through a little longer. It's not fully baked yet.
 
Cardinal said:
No. I can get married now under the current status quo. Without the church.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've said that several times already. The benefit, all would receive the same recognition under the law which allows everyone the same rights and privileges that come with it.

If you feel that doesn't benefit you, then what do you want? Explain it.
 
Fishstyx said:
Yeah, I've said that several times already. The benefit, all would receive the same recognition under the law which allows everyone the same rights and privileges that come with it.

If you feel that doesn't benefit you, then what do you want? Explain it.
Click to expand...

See edit.

....
 
Cardinal said:
See edit.

....
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I explained five, six, seven times already. You're willfully ignoring it. Likely due to entrenchment as getting equal right isn't the issue but making those that don't agree with same sex marriage "pay for their opposition" and be forced to do something they view as counter to their beliefs.
 
Fishstyx said:
Yeah, and I explained five, six, seven times already. You're willfully ignoring it. Likely due to entrenchment as getting equal right isn't the issue but making those that don't agree with same sex marriage "pay for their opposition" and be forced to do something they view as counter to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

You can be recognized as married either way, what's your issue?
 
Cardinal said:
You're avoiding my question.
Click to expand...

I've answered, several times. You asked for benefits, I've provided you with them. You also ignored mine. If the changes that would occur aren't what you feel as benefits, what do you want then? Explain it as you've yet to do so.
 
Fishstyx said:
I've answered, several times. You asked for benefits, I've provided you with them. You also ignored mine. If the changes that would occur aren't what you feel as benefits, what do you want then? Explain it as you've yet to do so.
Click to expand...

I know you think you've answered it, but truth is I've given up because either I can't explain the question to you in a way you can understand or you're not capable of understanding it. I don't know, but either way I'm over it. So I've moved on to the part of your post which is probably more to the heart of the issue for you:

but making those that don't agree with same sex marriage "pay for their opposition" and be forced to do something they view as counter to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

So since your marriage is recognized as valid both under the status quo and in the change that you mention, what do you have to gain from this? Since you cannot explain to me what I have to gain from the change, maybe you'll stand a better chance of defining what's in it for you.

Bonus question! Why do you think you are legally obliged to recognize marriages you don't feel are legitimate?
 
"Three states where members of the clergy and justices of the peace today marry gay couples argued on Friday that it’s a violation of states’ rights for the federal government to then “unmarry” those people under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)."
Click to expand...
"Unmarry" means to annul or divorce so the argument really makes no sense. The IRS is under no obligation to provide tax benefits to a couple simply because the state they live in happens to classify their relationship in a certain way.

There are many examples where the IRS does not recognize State designations - child dependents, business classifications, not-for-profits, etc. Are we to believe the IRS is also emancipating children, dissolving businesses and forcing non-profits to make a buck because the tax code makes different classifications than the State?
 
Cardinal said:
I know you think you've answered it, but truth is I've given up because either I can't explain the question to you in a way you can understand or you're not capable of understanding it. I don't know, but either way I'm over it. So I've moved on to the part of your post which is probably more to the heart of the issue for you:
Click to expand...

I have answered it, you asked how it would benefit you. I answered that as simply as humanly possible.

:lamo When you say "you can't explain it because you wouldn't understand it" is a clear sign you've lost the argument. In fact, thats utterly ridiculous. Perhaps you can't explain it because I've already nailed your position. You don't want equal right, you want those that oppose same sex marriage to be punished for it. If thats the case, explain it.


Cardinal said:
So since your marriage is recognized as valid both under the status quo and in the change that you mention, what do you have to gain from this? Since you cannot explain to me what I have to gain from the change, maybe you'll stand a better chance of defining what's in it for you.

Bonus question! Why do you think you are legally obliged to recognize marriages you don't feel are legitimate?
Click to expand...

Nothing is in it for me. In fact, I have no dog in this hunt either way. Do I have to have a stake in order propose a compromise? In fact, thats generally where the best compromises come from. Again, I've explained the benefit to you ad nauseum, you're ignoring it.

As far as your bonus, I'm not legally obliged to recognize marriage at all as I offer nothing that would require the recognition in the first place so the question is irrelevant.
 
Deuce said:
Why do that?
Click to expand...
Because it appears to work well.

Why does religion get to own that word? I want to own that word.
Click to expand...
Religion doesn't own the word based on what he proposed.
No one owns the word is the point, including government.
You can say you're married all day long, you can make an organization that does so based on tradition and witness and ceremony, on an upside down cross, or a rightside up one.
It didn't assign any authority over marriage to anyone, I think was the point.

It was a proposal to remove the word Marriage, from government.

Again, that does not "give it" to religions.
 
Cardinal said:
What would be the benefit of this?
Click to expand...

Everyone, including gay/lesbians, can be equally treated legally as a union (or whatever word they use).
Anyone can still claim the mantle of Marriage, or "being married", through non-government institutions.

If marriage is a religious thing, embrace that. Get married in your church, before god, whatever. More power to you. This law would do NOTHING to prevent that.
Or, if you are an atheist, get married under the authority of your local non-secular community group, before the community.
Or, use the pagan rights of your pagan group, the traditional pagan marriage ceremony.

The benefit is it solves the political question, while retaining 99% of what people want.
 
Mach said:
Everyone, including gay/lesbians, can be equally treated legally as a union (or whatever word they use).
Anyone can still claim the mantle of Marriage, or "being married", through non-government institutions.

If marriage is a religious thing, embrace that. Get married in your church, before god, whatever. More power to you. This law would do NOTHING to prevent that.
Or, if you are an atheist, get married under the authority of your local non-secular community group, before the community.
Or, use the pagan rights of your pagan group, the traditional pagan marriage ceremony.

The benefit is it solves the political question, while retaining 99% of what people want.
Click to expand...

Well, before I get into the logistics of that, I'm confused about something: I thought the whole reason for any of this coming up in the first place was so that religious organizations didn't have to see the word "marriage" used for anyone but the religious. If, as you say, atheists, pagans and homosexuals can be "married" how does this change achieve that?
 
Cardinal said:
Well, before I get into the logistics of that, I'm confused about something: I thought the whole reason for any of this coming up in the first place was so that religious organizations didn't have to see the word "marriage" used for anyone but the religious. If, as you say, atheists, pagans and homosexuals can be "married" how does this change achieve that?
Click to expand...

My take on it is that couples go to some group that performs some ceremony and pronounces them "married". At that point, it becomes a meaningless word that anyone can use and all the retarded fights go away (over a word, seriously people!, its ... a ... word) because nobody has a monopoly on its usage.
 
megaprogman said:
My take on it is that couples go to some group that performs some ceremony and pronounces them "married". At that point, it becomes a meaningless word that anyone can use and all the retarded fights go away (over a word, seriously people!, its ... a ... word) because nobody has a monopoly on its usage.
Click to expand...

So essentially the idea is that while religious institutions feel they are forced to recognize the legitimacy of marriages that are conducted by the government, they would not feel that same obligation if the marriages were performed by any other institution?
 
Cardinal said:
So essentially the idea is that while religious institutions feel they are forced to recognize the legitimacy of marriages that are conducted by the government, they would not feel that same obligation if the marriages were performed by any other institution?
Click to expand...

There would be no force of law behind it, so they could do what they wanted.
 
megaprogman said:
There would be no force of law behind it, so they could do what they wanted.
Click to expand...

(bold mine)

What's the "what"? Not recognize other forms of marriage? They can do that now.
 
Cardinal said:
(bold mine)

What's the "what"? Not recognize other forms of marriage? They can do that now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Everyone is on an equal playing field at that point and we can drop the issue for something that is actually important.
 
megaprogman said:
Exactly. Everyone is on an equal playing field at that point and we can drop the issue for something that is actually important.
Click to expand...

#1. Everybody must go to the courthouse to get a marriage license. How is that not an "equal playing field?"
#2. Religious organizations already have the freedom to not perform marriage ceremonies for people they don't feel are deserving of them, and they are free to not recognize the legitimacy of other marriages they don't agree with. So what you are arguing for (or at least clarifying the position of) is a freedom they already have.
 
Cardinal said:
#1. Everybody must go to the courthouse to get a marriage license. How is that not an "equal playing field?"
Click to expand...

It would be a civil union license and government would not use the word marriage. Civil unions would be open to everyone, regardless of orientation.

Cardinal said:
#2. Religious organizations already have the freedom to not perform marriage ceremonies for people they don't feel are deserving of them, and they are free to not recognize the legitimacy of other marriages they don't agree with. So what you are arguing for (or at least clarifying the position of) is a freedom they already have.
Click to expand...

religious marriage would be separated out completely from the civil institution with different names and all. Then one could be married without the civil union and government would see it as two individuals. One could get a civil union without being married and receive the government benefits. One could do both. One could do neither.

The basic premise behind this idea is that some people attach all sorts of meaning to that particular word, marriage, so let them have the word and do what they want with it, and give everyone else the exact same freedom.
 
megaprogman said:
It would be a civil union license and government would not use the word marriage. Civil unions would be open to everyone, regardless of orientation.



religious marriage would be separated out completely from the civil institution with different names and all. Then one could be married without the civil union and government would see it as two individuals. One could get a civil union without being married and receive the government benefits. One could do both. One could do neither.

The basic premise behind this idea is that some people attach all sorts of meaning to that particular word, marriage, so let them have the word and do what they want with it, and give everyone else the exact same freedom.
Click to expand...

What you're talking about are what the proposed change would (and could) entail. I'm talking about what is, right now. As in, the concerns you outlined (equal playing field and the freedom to reject the legitimacy of other marriages) already exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom