• 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!

United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage

Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

They are government contracts that establish relationships of legal kinship. They are very much akin to adoption paperwork and/or birth certificates, which do much the same thing, just with less laws that pertaining to those relationship statuses.

They also allow the government to make gay marriage illigitimate. Even when too much government gets in the way of yall's agenda, you can't see that big government is bad.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It does once the signatures are put on it and it is filed with the state, just like any other contract, it has to be signed to be valid. You don't need an actual "ceremony", particularly not a religious one, to be married.

True! A good friend of mine lived with his girlfriend for a decade or more. When she got pregnant, as planned, and about a month before the baby was due, they decided they might as well get married so dad had full legal rights. They could do this with lawyers, or take 30 minutes out of a lunch hour and do all they needed done for the cost of getting a marriage license. Being practical people, they went to the courthouse on their lunch hour, and dad gained dozens or hundreds of legal rights and responsibilities with a signature and $20 or whatever it cost back then.

The wife in particular didn't care about "Marriage" - her parents were both married and divorced multiple times so the "glow" was off the "sanctity of marriage" for her. They DID care that dad could make decisions for the child, if she died there was no doubt who the legal guardian for the child became, that while home caring for the child for a few years, she could join his very nice benefits package at work, etc. Some of those SS couples can get with a lawyer, but many others are explicitly denied them by laws against SSM.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Gay marriage harms the moral fabric of society because it promotes sodomy.
Yeah, I don't see it.

There is no moral requirement to have sex exclusively for procreative purposes, or for everyone to have children, or to have as many children as physically possible.

"Natural ends" are irrelevant. Reproduction solely for the sake of reproduction is not an ethical principle. It is a choice that an individual can make, and a biological impulse, but there is no requirement to reproduce so that your children can reproduce, and their children can reproduce, and so on.

If I have sex purely to engage in pleasure, this in and of itself causes no harm. It does not stop me from having sex at some other time in order to procreate. It does not convince me not to have children at some later date. It does not change my neighbor's mental calculus about whether or not s/he should have children.

One of the problems that California's Prop 8 had in court, by the way, was precisely this issue -- its defenders were incapable of explaining how any straight marriages were actually harmed, let alone altered, by allowing same-sex marriage.

It's not a zero-sum game. The decision to pursue sex for pleasure does not prevent or exclude sex for procreation. No harm, no foul, no justification for regulation.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I agree with you on that. When our forefathers got married, they didn't get a license. They had a wedding ceremony, and they were married. Marriage licenses were invented in Medieval Europe as a way For the Church to extort money from people, but in the colonies which later became the United States, it began as a way to separate the races. Each state had their own rules, and most states did not grant licenses to a couple, one of whom was white, and the other not.

Beyond that, I would argue that marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and the government has no business regulating it.

I believe marriage licenses should be treated as a contract and obtained through an attorney, taking the government totally out of the equation.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

They also allow the government to make gay marriage illigitimate. Even when too much government gets in the way of yall's agenda, you can't see that big government is bad.

Not anymore than the government refusing to recognize a private contract between people.

Marriage isn't going anywhere. Too many people want it and need it for it to disappear. It may change over time, but it isn't going away so it is pointless to think it is a "bad" thing. It is simply a way to make government just a little more efficient, especially if it is actually used as it should be, in accordance with all our laws, especially the US Constitution. This isn't "big government". It is, for once, government actually trying to be efficient and do so in a way that actually benefits all parties. It is merely flaws in our laws, that are currently being worked on, that are the problem.

I prefer not to throw out the baby with the bath water simply because the bath gets dirty.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I believe marriage licenses should be treated as a contract and obtained through an attorney, taking the government totally out of the equation.

Will never happen though, a pipe dream like "World Peace". So in the meantime gays will continue fighting for SSM and they will win. The right looks more and more foolish each year when it fights against SSM.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I believe marriage licenses should be treated as a contract and obtained through an attorney, taking the government totally out of the equation.

Why? As it is right now, the marriage license is the most efficient contract we have and it is very little different than a birth certificate or adoption records. The government would still have to recognize them for recognition. They are mainly about that legal kinship establishment, legal spousehood. The same thing that would come from a private document but would unnecessarily cost many much more money to do just because some are too ignorant to recognize the entire situation.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

They also allow the government to make gay marriage illigitimate. Even when too much government gets in the way of yall's agenda, you can't see that big government is bad.

There is nothing 'bad' about the state recognizing marriage. It makes life easier, more predictable for families, creditors, the children, care providers (hospitals, doctors), schools, etc. Essentially a marriage contract says, "That big list of contractual rights and responsibilities over there, that stuff that tells society and the family who is responsible, what happens to kids if one parent dies, who can make healthcare decisions, who owes what, etc. - the state incorporates ALL that and grants this couple that very, very long list of contractual rights and obligations with this simple set of two signatures and a nominal fee."
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I believe marriage licenses should be treated as a contract and obtained through an attorney, taking the government totally out of the equation.

Why should there be a license at all? If 2 people want to marry, they should just do what our own forefathers did, and consider themselves married, and **** the attorneys, the government, and all the other vampires.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Will never happen though, a pipe dream like "World Peace". So in the meantime gays will continue fighting for SSM and they will win. The right looks more and more foolish each year when it fights against SSM.

How is removing a government authority like obtaining world peace? One requires a law being passed and the other requires people to fundamentally change.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

There is nothing 'bad' about the state recognizing marriage. It makes life easier, more predictable for families, creditors, the children, care providers (hospitals, doctors), schools, etc. Essentially a marriage contract says, "That big list of contractual rights and responsibilities over there, that stuff that tells society and the family who is responsible, what happens to kids if one parent dies, who can make healthcare decisions, who owes what, etc. - the state incorporates ALL that and grants this couple that very, very long list of contractual rights and obligations with this simple set of two signatures and a nominal fee."

The problem with it is that the government is in charge of the contract and can change it at any time without the input from those held to it.

Of course, I'm against all licensing by the state as it provides the state an outlet to regulate people and control property.
 
NC's new law is. It has made it illegal to perform a marriage when the couple doesnt have a marriage liscense. This means church's cant perform purely religious ceremonial marriages.

Ah, thank you for that. Yes, that is obviously unconstitutional. It is one thing for the state to not recognize as legally binding the actions of a church, it is a whole different ballgame when the state tries to make a religious practice illegal.

The state should never compel someone to act in contradiction to their faith.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Why should there be a license at all? If 2 people want to marry, they should just do what our own forefathers did, and consider themselves married, and **** the attorneys, the government, and all the other vampires.

The same reason we have birth certificates and adoption records, because people take advantage of situations that are not written out. What would stop someone from stepping in when a person cannot say otherwise and claim to be another person's spouse without a marriage license? Do you have to wait for someone else to come and verify that yes, this is their spouse, their loved one, their mate? Take the movie "Overboard" for example. They didn't demand to see his marriage license nor even verify that they were legally married and he simply took her out of the hospital and made her his "wife" because she couldn't remember any differently and no one else came to claim her. Is that right? What would stop anyone from making a claim that there was a misunderstanding about their relationship status despite spending many years together because one simply didn't want to share possessions despite their situation together? A marriage "license" (contract) provides proof that "yes, these two people are agreeing to be together as spouses and accept those laws pertaining to being spouses with each other". Just as adoption records prove that a person has agreed to take on the responsibility of being a parent toward a child, to give that child the legal recognition of "child" to that adult and the adult legal recognition of "parent" over that child.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I believe marriage licenses should be treated as a contract and obtained through an attorney, taking the government totally out of the equation.

That makes no sense from a market perspective. Marriages are standard contracts, often with extensive case law to resolve ambiguities that inevitably arise, so it's very easy for third parties of all sorts to know their rights and responsibilities when dealing with "married" couples. Your way, a creditor has to see, read, interpret, and/or modify his contract to comply with the 1000s of potentially unique contracts for 'married' couples. What's gained by that, except a LOT more work for attorneys?
 
I have to read more about that. No Church should ever be forced to conduct any ceremony it does not beleive in, nor prevented from performing a service it does. Why havent I heard about this outrage? I watch Fox all the time.
Ah, thank you for that. Yes, that is obviously unconstitutional. It is one thing for the state to not recognize as legally binding the actions of a church, it is a whole different ballgame when the state tries to make a religious practice illegal.

The state should never compel someone to act in contradiction to their faith.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I am a UCC member. I remember many many years ago our Pastor talking about wanting do the first SSM in Indiana. He is long since retired.

UCCers unite!
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

How is removing a government authority like obtaining world peace?

It's like world peace because it isn't going to happen. World Peace is not going to be obtained and neither is the government getting out of marriage.

One requires a law being passed and the other requires people to fundamentally change.

Yeah, the government is going to just "remove" itself from marriage and thus is going to remove itself from getting money from licenses, etc.

I have a bridge in Iraq to sell you real cheap if you think lawmakers are going to vote to get government out of marriage. Just send me $50 million dollars and I'll send you the deed. Promise :roll:
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

That makes no sense from a market perspective. Marriages are standard contracts, often with extensive case law to resolve ambiguities that inevitably arise, so it's very easy for third parties of all sorts to know their rights and responsibilities when dealing with "married" couples. Your way, a creditor has to see, read, interpret, and/or modify his contract to comply with the 1000s of potentially unique contracts for 'married' couples. What's gained by that, except a LOT more work for attorneys?

Exactly! Every cry I've ever heard about government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all fails to recognize that marriage is so ingrained into so many parts of our lives that we would still need to set up a lot of different protections in some other way and it would make things much more complicated for not only the couple, but also their families and anyone who currently gives some benefit based on two people being married, including creditors, lawyers, police officers, hospitals, the military, the government (still), and many others. It makes the entire thing simply cost a whole lot more with less protections and more complications, in essence, less efficient and more costly with no actual benefits.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It's like world peace because it isn't going to happen. World Peace is not going to be obtained and neither is the government getting out of marriage.


Yeah, the government is going to just "remove" itself from marriage and thus is going to remove itself from getting money from licenses, etc.

I have a bridge in Iraq to sell you real cheap if you think lawmakers are going to vote to get government out of marriage. Just send me $50 million dollars and I'll send you the deed. Promise :roll:

Then you're arguing that people are indeed powerless to remove the government from their lives once they have involved themselves in it. Why even be interested in politics at all if that is your view?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

So why isnt this a big outrage? The gooberment tellin the church what it can and cant do. Can you imagine the shrill screams from the RWers if the gooberment said they had to conduct SSMs in all chruchs?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I believe marriage licenses should be treated as a contract and obtained through an attorney, taking the government totally out of the equation.


It takes the government out of the "creation" equation.

It does not take the government out of the "recognition" equation.



It last count there were 1,138 rights, responsibilities and benefits tied to legal recognition of Civil Marriage. Figure 300 or so per State and that's over 16,000 actions by government contingent on recognition of Civil Marriage.



>>>>
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Then you're arguing that people are indeed powerless to remove the government from their lives once they have involved themselves in it. Why even be interested in politics at all if that is your view?

It's not that people are powerless, it is that the majority DON'T want to do it. It's been that way for decades and decades to come. Yes, the minority that wants the change IS powerless as long as the Dems and Reps are in charge.

Year after year after year we see the left and right put their faith in Dems and Reps and they ALWAYS let us down. It's the reality that unless there is a collapse of government entirely or an invasion, no, there will not be any significant change.

But hey, you keep hoping for candy and lolipops with the Dems and Reps ok?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

The problem with it is that the government is in charge of the contract and can change it at any time without the input from those held to it.

Of course, I'm against all licensing by the state as it provides the state an outlet to regulate people and control property.

First of all, this government does have to respond to all those married couples out there who have a vested and direct interest in the change - this isn't obscure corporate tax law we're talking about. And if you don't like the changes, you can amend the contract with that same lawyer you'd like to waste time and money drawing up the standard version, or not get married at all.

Libertarians just have an ideological opposition to all things government. It's tough to debate against that, because libertarians ignore the benefits and only see the "control!!!" part, which they oppose on ideological grounds, not practical ones. The rest of us are quite happy to get a standard contract, with well defined rights and obligations, for a filing fee. I guess you'd rather spend a month reading drafts of this 100 page document, discussing terms with your spouse like a business contract, (of course she's need her own lawyer...) revisions, etc. and then presenting this long document every time you want to get a credit card, mortgage, go sign your child up for school (does YOUR contract require you both sign the papers???) etc.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It's not that people are powerless, it is that the majority DON'T want to do it. It's been that way for decades and decades to come. Yes, the minority that wants the change IS powerless as long as the Dems and Reps are in charge.

Year after year after year we see the left and right put their faith in Dems and Reps and they ALWAYS let us down. It's the reality that unless there is a collapse of government entirely or an invasion, no, there will not be any significant change.

But hey, you keep hoping for candy and lolipops with the Dems and Reps ok?

You were actually right the first time. There is two problems with getting government out of anything.

1. Government doesn't give up authority once it has that authority unless you give it something else in exchange that it benefits from to a greater degree.

2. The people to a large degree want a very large government that involves itself in every outlet of the peoples lives. Sure, they might want things like pot to be legal, but they don't want to be left alone on decisions regarding pot.

Marriage is just more of the same really. People feel as if they benefit from government being involved and feel that without it they would get abused. Of course, there is no reason to expect that any of that makes sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom