• 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!

Same sex marriage compromise

Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

  • I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

  • I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise

    Votes: 19 28.4%

  • I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

  • I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 36 53.7%
  • Total voters
    67
disneydude said:
And if California tried to outlaw guns....guess what.....the Supremacy clause would prohibit it. As for marriage being a fundamental right....see Loving v. Virginia. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I assure you that supremacy clause is not a catch all that allows the federal government to do whatever it pleases. Just like always the power needs to be listed.
 
Henrin said:
Federalist 33
Federalist 44

You're wrong. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

LOL...You might need a refresher on your history. The Federalist Papers are not the law of the land, the Constitution is. You are aware, are you not, that the Federalists also opposed the formation of the Bill of rights? Yeah....they lost that argument as well.
 
disneydude said:
And if California tried to outlaw guns....guess what.....the Supremacy clause would prohibit it. As for marriage being a fundamental right....see Loving v. Virginia. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

So, since 1967 all state's marriage laws must have added SSM provisions? What about polygamy as a "legitimate" form of marriage?

What the Bible says about polygamy
 
Henrin said:
I assure you that supremacy clause is not a catch all that allows the federal government to do whatever it pleases. Just like always the power needs to be listed.
Click to expand...

I never said it did. However, The Supremacy clause trumps state power when dealing with either enumerated rights or fundamental rights are defined by the SCOTUS. That's just the way it is.....sorry.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So, since 1967 all state's marriage laws must have added SSM provisions? What about polygamy as a "legitimate" form of marriage?

What the Bible says about polygamy
Click to expand...

There certainly is a good argument to be made for polygamy. As long as we are talking about consenting adults. That issue remains to be seen. But I would absolutely support it.
 
disneydude said:
I never said it did. However, The Supremacy clause trumps state power when dealing with either enumerated rights or fundamental rights are defined by the SCOTUS. That's just the way it is.....sorry.
Click to expand...

That argument is a great deal different than your original argument.
 
CanadaJohn said:
What must be considered, however, is that if the Supreme Court determines that same sex marriage is constitutional because it's a civil rights abuse otherwise, what's to stop single people from claiming the same civil rights abuse because they are being discriminated against based on their marital status?
Click to expand...
What stops them now? I don't see how SSM changes this issue. Maybe you could do a new poll on ‘Does government recognition of any marriages etc. abuse single people?’
(Oh, I should have looks at how many posts have been made.)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If we are doing so much win-win then why do we need a federal gov't that must borrow over $3 billion per day in order to do so? I agree that SSM will not destroy the country, yet it will not save it either. So far, 8 states and DC, have allowed some form of SSM but that does not create a nationwide right or mean that the other states now have less rights to govern themselves, as they see fit. Just what does handing out gov't cash to single parent "families" do to promote stability? How has increasing the out of wedlock childbirth rate, aided by direct gov't subsidiy, helped to create a stable society?
Click to expand...

They are not borrowing that money for marriage. And SSM might save marriage as they might actually marry. ;)

The right is not in who has allowed, how many or how little, but in the right to equality.
 
Cyrylek said:
Now, there are plenty of people who think of "marriage" as somethng entirely different: a sacrament. Not a contract between two people, but a communion between two people and a deity. Let them think whatever they think, and let them have the word, for crying out loud! What's the damage?
Click to expand...

So why can't it be both? It's both right now. It's very difficult not to hear this "government out of marriage" answer as wanting to change what marriage is so gays can't join the party. You say let the religious have the word marriage, but why do they deserve it more than the secular or gays? It's still asserting special treatment for one group other another.
 
Henrin said:
What do you mean no authority? The contract is the governments contract and their terms are the ones that must be followed. If that is not authority then exactly what is? If I write a contract for my employees do I not come up with the terms of that contract? Yes, and by doing so that does give me a certain level of authority.
Click to expand...

The contract is between individuals, not the government. It is filed so as to affirm the contract, not to give the government anything. I may get a break on my taxes, again for encouragement, but the government doesn't control it in any real way. In fact, you don't even have to register it, or officially marry. But you may, and are encouraged to have stable relationships that build family and community. Horrible stuff, I know, but hardly heavy handed government interference.
 
Boo Radley said:
The contract is between individuals, not the government. It is filed so as to affirm the contract, not to give the government anything. I may get a break on my taxes, again for encouragement, but the government doesn't control it in any real way. In fact, you don't even have to register it, or officially marry. But you may, and are encouraged to have stable relationships that build family and community. Horrible stuff, I know, but hardly heavy handed government interference.
Click to expand...

You really can't be serious. They are the party that has complete control on the terms of the contract and is the arbiter of all things contained in that contract. How is that not authority and control over marriage? You can't really cover any more angles of the contract, sorry.
 
Paschendale said:
So why can't it be both? It's both right now. It's very difficult not to hear this "government out of marriage" answer as wanting to change what marriage is so gays can't join the party. You say let the religious have the word marriage, but why do they deserve it more than the secular or gays? It's still asserting special treatment for one group other another.
Click to expand...

What "party"? There's no party to join.

I am married for a long time now. We (two atheists coming from dramatically different cultural backgrounds) never had bothered to register our relationship with any government or church. She doesn't need a sanction from the Japanese consulate or any Shinto temple to be what she is to me; and I don't need a certificate from Uncle Sam (or any Sam's mini-mes on the municipal level), or from the RCC - despite being ("genetically, historically") as Catholic as they get.

If at some point we decide to formalize our union, for whatever reason, why should we insist on the uniform semantics?

(Not that I can imagine any such necessity: my will and all corollary papers are in good order, and the rest of our de facto family is taken care of).
 
Gina said:
Only you haven't specified what you offer instead.
It's the governments business when it ends and dissolution of accumulated assets have to be divvied up and one side, isn't so keen to share equally. Then a court (the state) becomes involved.
Click to expand...

This is a nonsensical "debate" topic. Courts have to decide divisions of property and parental rights towards children of parents and legal guardians who aren't married all the time. The existence of a marriage license rarely is relevant, but when it is then statutes explain what the relevancy is.

Divisions of property and issues of children should be exactly the same - whether the parents are married or not, straight or gay, and in terms of property however many people are in the failed relationship.

Courts decide all manners of civil disputes without specific statutes, and if there are no specific statutes then the principles of "common law" is the relevant law for the court to use.

Courts involving in the economics and parentage issues in relationship break ups is NO reason for government to be involved in deciding what relationships are allowed, rewarded, punished or will be recognized by government - no more than the government has any reason to involve in private contracts - though will decide contract disputes later if brought to court.
 
Paschendale said:
So why can't it be both? It's both right now. It's very difficult not to hear this "government out of marriage" answer as wanting to change what marriage is so gays can't join the party. You say let the religious have the word marriage, but why do they deserve it more than the secular or gays? It's still asserting special treatment for one group other another.
Click to expand...

In the western world marriage was a church affair for thousands of years. Here in the U.S. the state or states didn’t really get involved in marriage or begin keeping records until the mid 1800’s. Marriages were recorded in the family bible and the church in which the ceremony was performed. The state of Kentucky was the last state to start keeping track or recording who was married around 1916. Until that time, this a church function.

It was the 16th amendment which allowed the income tax to become legal where being married actually resulted in a benefit. The amendment was ratified in 1913. As for inheritance, wills ruled the day and still do. There are still many very religious people and some churches who will not recognize you ware married unless it was in a church ceremony.

So in reality, those who are not married in a church ceremony with the churches blessing are still viewed as living in sin. Those of us married outside of the church one could say we have a civil union. A civil union recognized by the states and the federal government for income tax purposes. But we have continued to use the term marriage.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Why would they be weaker? Is the law all of a sudden going to mean less?

Your second line is just... you know, you should try reading what I post.
Click to expand...

1.) because if marriage is abolished they will have to use the new system that is currently factually weaker, has already discussed those other contracts are not as binding in court has marriage has been in history
2.) that doesnt answer the question

do you honestly think goverment can abolish marriage, replace it with other contracts nd get it right even in 10 years?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) because if marriage is abolished they will have to use the new system that is currently factually weaker, has already discussed those other contracts are not as binding in court has marriage has been in history
2.) that doesnt answer the question

do you honestly think goverment can abolish marriage, replace it with other contracts nd get it right even in 10 years?
Click to expand...

You have some kind of legal apocalypse going on in your head that has nothing to do with what I proposed.

There is no reason it would or needs to be weaker. And you haven't even explained what that means.

All it has to do is remove all of the qualifiers on getting married, as a start.

And by the way, when the hell did "it's too haaard" become a good argument, even assuming it actually was that hard?
 
Gina said:
1. Ok.
2. It's easier to dissolve than co-habitating.
3. What? No they don't in messy divorces. In order for a judge to properly dispense a settlement, they have to know when a relationship was established in order to determine the fair share each litigant is entitled. As in the example I was gave that you responded to. If spouse A agreed to put Spouse B through school with the understanding they would then share in the increased earning power of Spouse B and then is offered a settlement much less, it goes to court. If they aren't married, then A will have one whopper of a time establishing claim to those shared assets to the court (state).
4. No. The court will be forced to review the paper. I can't believe you are being this obtuse. Have you never had to or know someone who had to provide proof of ownership or share in property? The judge doesn't take your word for it. A marriage certificate cuts to the chase.
5. Marriage confers government benefits, in and of itself? Like the marriage penalty tax? Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

All your arguments amount to "it's hard". All the things you mentioned happen all the time outside of a marriage contract and to the most part its not really all that much harder. Sure, certain parts are harder, but its still is something courts do all the time and are perfectly capable of handling without a government issued marriage contract.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
What stops them now? I don't see how SSM changes this issue. Maybe you could do a new poll on ‘Does government recognition of any marriages etc. abuse single people?’
(Oh, I should have looks at how many posts have been made.)
Click to expand...

Whether it's valid or not, my point was related to the traditional government social engineering involved in promoting traditional marriage and procreation as government policy through tax and and other benefits accruing to those in the traditional nuclear family. If you provide through the courts that traditional marriage discriminates against those who wish to marry a same sex partner, what's to stop the next step being providing the tax and benefit advantages to singles who are live-in, commonlaw couples of either sex who just don't have the government issued married paper or as well to those who are just roommates of either sex.

You can't design social engineering around the traditional nuclear family yet have the courts determine that other arrangements, currently same sex marriage, are of equal legal status.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Whether it's valid or not, my point was related to the traditional government social engineering involved in promoting traditional marriage and procreation as government policy through tax and and other benefits accruing to those in the traditional nuclear family. If you provide through the courts that traditional marriage discriminates against those who wish to marry a same sex partner, what's to stop the next step being providing the tax and benefit advantages to singles who are live-in, commonlaw couples of either sex who just don't have the government issued married paper or as well to those who are just roommates of either sex.

You can't design social engineering around the traditional nuclear family yet have the courts determine that other arrangements, currently same sex marriage, are of equal legal status.
Click to expand...

But is the very concept of a standard nuclear family a notion of social engineering?
 
Cyrylek said:
The ideal solution would be "civil unions for everyone" - with marriage (holy matrimony) left to churches, synagogues and mosques, where it belongs.

But since nobody is promoting such solution, gay marriage it is.
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest, I've never felt great about government involved validating the sacred institution of marriage. Compare to government declaring a baptism valid. Just my humble perspective.
 
Smeagol said:
To be perfectly honest, I've never felt great about government involved validating the sacred institution of marriage. Compare to government declaring a baptism valid. Just my humble perspective.
Click to expand...

That's just the way it goes. Without the Federal government to validate it, any state can invalidate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom