• 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!

Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were different?

Would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage? See below


  • Total voters
    20
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

It would be entirely unrealistic for government to get out of marriage entirely. There are inheritance disputes, child custody issues, splitting assets in divorces, joint credit issues... all sorts of property and financial problems to sort out from marriage that courts are pretty well required for. Where there is ownership involved, there will need to be government involvement to help sort it out.

Secondly, the courts are ruling left and right that preventing two consenting adults from marrying is unconstitutional, so the scenario in the OP is unlikely to happen. SSM is 100% about civil rights. If marriage is a right, then it is a right that must be applied equally to everyone. There is absolutely no way around this. It has nothing to do with pushing an agenda, it has nothing to do with pandering to get votes, it has nothing to do with indoctrinating children, it has nothing to do with making being gay "cool". It's about equal rights. Period.

I see no reason for polyamory (thanks MistressNomad for the clarification between this and polygamy) to be illegal. It's complicated, in terms of inheritance and all those other issues I mentioned above, since it more resembles a corporation than a partnership, but it's not impossible to sort out. Again, these are consenting adults. The slippery slope fallacy about children and animals does not apply, since they are not legally able to enter into contracts, and thus cannot marry anyone. However, this discussion is not about any form of marriage besides SSM. There is no "if SSM is okay, then others have to be okay, too". It is an invalid argument.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It's not even a human institution. Many animals pair off, and do so for life. No single culture or religion can lay claim to marriage as its own. It has been a part of many (if not all) cultures that have existed throughout history in this world. To state that marriage is the sole providence of Christianity is ignorant and arrogant. Many Americans do not believe what some Christians in this country believe, and it is wrong to attempt to force us to comply with your beliefs. And NO, it is not the same in reverse. To prevent you from living how you wish would be to infringe on your religious rights, not to prevent you from stopping others from living how they wish. If you cannot handle that your neighbors do not believe as you do, then you have no place in the United States, a land where everyone is free to pursue whatever theological beliefs they choose.

These are my thoughts on what has been discussed in this thread.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

The only reason it's currently impractical is because we've been sticking government into marriage for so long. I do agree with you that under our current framework, it is impractical. But that framework can be changed at any time, and there are ways to streamline or or broaden its useage.

What if I want to assign some of those rights to a close friend, rather than a lover? What if I'd like to assign them to mutliple people for whatever reason? The only reason that's impractical is because it is currently only streamlined to work within marriage, and trying to do it outside marriage is extremely expensive. But we can change that any time we like, and whenever society is ready. The red tape doesn't have to be there.

Only technically can "that framework can be changed at any time". Yes single people should "assign some of those rights to a close friend"; but, they don't. People will continue to be stupid, but they can be assisted in making reasonable contracts at a very low cost to society compared to not assisting. I'm not suggesting taking rights away or having the government involved in marriage. Just adding options in a 'suggested contract' for marriage. This might be doable sooner. The red tape is not in the way, it’s actually a simple enabler. Red tape is requiring people to find a private lawyer to do it then having to take unique contracts with you at all times. Otherwise we agree, that happens so seldom to me. thx
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

It would be entirely unrealistic for government to get out of marriage entirely. There are inheritance disputes, child custody issues, splitting assets in divorces, joint credit issues... all sorts of property and financial problems to sort out from marriage that courts are pretty well required for. Where there is ownership involved, there will need to be government involvement to help sort it out.

Secondly, the courts are ruling left and right that preventing two consenting adults from marrying is unconstitutional, so the scenario in the OP is unlikely to happen. SSM is 100% about civil rights. If marriage is a right, then it is a right that must be applied equally to everyone. There is absolutely no way around this. It has nothing to do with pushing an agenda, it has nothing to do with pandering to get votes, it has nothing to do with indoctrinating children, it has nothing to do with making being gay "cool". It's about equal rights. Period.

I see no reason for polyamory (thanks MistressNomad for the clarification between this and polygamy) to be illegal. It's complicated, in terms of inheritance and all those other issues I mentioned above, since it more resembles a corporation than a partnership, but it's not impossible to sort out. Again, these are consenting adults. The slippery slope fallacy about children and animals does not apply, since they are not legally able to enter into contracts, and thus cannot marry anyone. However, this discussion is not about any form of marriage besides SSM. There is no "if SSM is okay, then others have to be okay, too". It is an invalid argument.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It's not even a human institution. Many animals pair off, and do so for life. No single culture or religion can lay claim to marriage as its own. It has been a part of many (if not all) cultures that have existed throughout history in this world. To state that marriage is the sole providence of Christianity is ignorant and arrogant. Many Americans do not believe what some Christians in this country believe, and it is wrong to attempt to force us to comply with your beliefs. And NO, it is not the same in reverse. To prevent you from living how you wish would be to infringe on your religious rights, not to prevent you from stopping others from living how they wish. If you cannot handle that your neighbors do not believe as you do, then you have no place in the United States, a land where everyone is free to pursue whatever theological beliefs they choose.

These are my thoughts on what has been discussed in this thread.

Excellent points.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

Only technically can "that framework can be changed at any time". Yes single people should "assign some of those rights to a close friend"; but, they don't. People will continue to be stupid, but they can be assisted in making reasonable contracts at a very low cost to society compared to not assisting. I'm not suggesting taking rights away or having the government involved in marriage. Just adding options in a 'suggested contract' for marriage. This might be doable sooner. The red tape is not in the way, it’s actually a simple enabler. Red tape is requiring people to find a private lawyer to do it then having to take unique contracts with you at all times. Otherwise we agree, that happens so seldom to me. thx

Well, one example of it being expensive I can think of is gay couples having kids. Even if the child biologically belongs to one parent through IVF or whatever, the other parent has to formally adopt the child to be the other parent - a process that costs thousands of dollars. If they were married, this would be implied. There's no reason other than the current framework that this contract couldn't be freed up and made easier. Just apply the marriage clause to anyone who agrees to be the other parent.

But yeah, we generally agree. It is not as simple as "just changing it." Like anything, society as a whole has to get behind that before it could happen. And it would require a huge re-working of our current system, and as such, I don't think it's practical for a very long time.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I've asked this question before in other threads: What happens if gay marriage passes in a state and ministers in that state refuse to perform the ceremony. Do they violate the ministers First Amendment Rights and make it mandatory that they perform the ceremony or strip them of their ministerial license, or do they put a special provision in the law that allow's the minister to refuse. You know that many ministers are going to refuse to perform the ceremony. I'm thinking about putting a poll up to see what reaction I get to the question.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I've asked this question before in other threads: What happens if gay marriage passes in a state and ministers in that state refuse to perform the ceremony. Do they violate the ministers First Amendment Rights and make it mandatory that they perform the ceremony or strip them of their ministerial license, or do they put a special provision in the law that allow's the minister to refuse. You know that many ministers are going to refuse to perform the ceremony. I'm thinking about putting a poll up to see what reaction I get to the question.

Ministers have always had the right to refuse to perform a marriage. Who cares? You don't have to have your wedding performed by a member of the clergy and you have no right to their religious endorsement.

The courts have already settled these issues.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?

Nope, I think it's stupid to amend the Constitution for something like this. The States can figure it out for themselves.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.

Oh no, that liberal agenda!!

Wrong. Most of us expected and accepted that some churches will refuse to do it. Whatever. There will be plenty more who will be willing to, and the church, not being the state, is allowed to do that.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I've asked this question before in other threads: What happens if gay marriage passes in a state and ministers in that state refuse to perform the ceremony. Do they violate the ministers First Amendment Rights and make it mandatory that they perform the ceremony or strip them of their ministerial license, or do they put a special provision in the law that allow's the minister to refuse. You know that many ministers are going to refuse to perform the ceremony. I'm thinking about putting a poll up to see what reaction I get to the question.

This is a question that has been answered repeatedly. The state and individuals have no legal right to force a church to perform a wedding. Churches are perfectly free to turn down any one for any wedding ceremony.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.


True dat just like the guberment has forced the KKK to accept black members! Damn facist marixist guberment!
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.

No law against interracial marriage is enforceable.

Straw man. There is no liberal agenda to force churches to do any such thing. Why do you think there is no push to force Catholics to allow female priests?
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

No law against interracial marriage is enforceable.

Straw man. There is no liberal agenda to force churches to do any such thing. Why do you think there is no push to force Catholics to allow female priests?


You apparently haven't heard the latest about St. Xavier University. The NLRB is trying to Unionize them because they are not "Catholic enough."
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

No, I wouldn't support a Constitutional marriage amendment that forced gay marriage to be legal. States issue marriage licenses. The federal government should tell the states how they need to issue out licenses or who can qualify for one. It's a states rights issue, not a federal one. I support the rights of states to define marriage according to the morality of the populace who votes. That right should not be denied.
 
The Right has gotten some flack for wanting a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But the GLBT community definitely has a dogmatic definition of marriage in mind as well. It is a social contract between two consenting adults. Even the mention of Polygamy just angers the pro-gay marriage crowd.

So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?

No way. Because I believe gays want one main thing. Normalcy. And in order to get it, they need SSM, and once they get that, they're going to demand that churches perform SS marriage ceremonies.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

You apparently haven't heard the latest about St. Xavier University. The NLRB is trying to Unionize them because they are not "Catholic enough."

I had not heard about it, but it is not relevant. The exception is minisiterial.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

No way. Because I believe gays want one main thing. Normalcy. And in order to get it, they need SSM, and once they get that, they're going to demand that churches perform SS marriage ceremonies.

And then, us liberals are going to make it illegal to not be gay, and then there won't be any more kids, and then the US will die, and then the terrorists will get our nuclear weapons, and then the world will end. That is our plot, oh yes. How clever of you to figure it out.
 
And then, us liberals are going to make it illegal to not be gay, and then there won't be any more kids, and then the US will die, and then the terrorists will get our nuclear weapons, and then the world will end. That is our plot, oh yes. How clever of you to figure it out.

Actually, you just came up with that, since you typed it out,
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

Actually, you just came up with that, since you typed it out,

No no no. That has been our plan in the Gay Mafia Illuminati, Bilderberg Branch all along. Be afraid, be very afraid.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I would favor an amendment to establish marriage as being between two individuals. That is limiting the ability of the government to infringe upon the rights of individuals

I am not in favor of an amendment to establish marriage as being between one man and one woman. That is using the constitution to limit the rights of the individuals, something not specifically done since prohibition.

One kind of amendment falls in line with what our constitution represents, one is so vilely against its very purpose that it disgusts me to be on the same side ideologically as the people trying to push it.

Gender Discrimination is a higher form of discrimination and a more protected form of discrimination than "Discrimination against the number of partners one wants to have" .There's also far more state interest in disallowing polygamous marriage than same sex marriage.

People get upset when polygamy or bestiality is thrown into the mix because its an attempt to suggest that somehow the arguments, context, and issues related to same sex marriage must be exactly the same as those two issues, when in reality they're not even close, which is why its an obvious and unquestionable distraction not honest debate.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

One kind of amendment falls in line with what our constitution represents, one is so vilely against its very purpose that it disgusts me to be on the same side ideologically as the people trying to push it.

Dayum, you can turn a phrase...
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

No, I wouldn't support a Constitutional marriage amendment that forced gay marriage to be legal. States issue marriage licenses. The federal government should tell the states how they need to issue out licenses or who can qualify for one. It's a states rights issue, not a federal one. I support the rights of states to define marriage according to the morality of the populace who votes. That right should not be denied.

If this theory had been applied to the civil rights movement, there would still be states enforcing laws against interracial marriage, supporting forced segregation of the races, and denying the vote to certain races.

This isn't a states' rights issue. It's a civil rights issue and a constitutional issue. Is marriage a right? If the answer is yes, and most judges have thus far agreed that it is, then it is a right that the federal government must assure is applied equally to all citizens, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. The federal government has already decreed that it is against federal civil rights laws to discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation. When homosexuals are denied the same rights as others based solely upon their sexual orientation, that is an violation of federal civil rights laws and is illegal.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.

No it isn't illegal in Kentucky, not since 1969 and the Loving v VA decision. Although there were laws on the books even up to 2003 (including a state amendment in Alabama banning interracial marriages), it has been illegal for any state to refuse to allow or recognize an interracial marriage for about 40 years.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

The Right has gotten some flack for wanting a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But the GLBT community definitely has a dogmatic definition of marriage in mind as well. It is a social contract between two consenting adults. Even the mention of Polygamy just angers the pro-gay marriage crowd.

So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?

Your question, after a few hypothetical contortions, ends up asking if we are for or against and amendment allowing SSM.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

The state handles contractual disputes. God has nothing to do with it.

God has to do with everything. But you missed the point by a mile.
 
Back
Top Bottom