• 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

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
 
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?

Yes. This is actually my preferred outcome.

I don't see why the government is in the business of rubber-stamping people's personal romantic relationships. What business is it of theirs?

I think the legal rights that are assigned to marriage (medical rights, childcare rights, etc) should be opened up to allow anyone to assign them to whomever they like. Only an individual can decide which people are the best to assign their own rights to, and a spouse may not be right for all of them.

I think "marriage" should only be a social ceremony, or a name someone chooses to assign to whatever collection of rights they have traded with their spouse. But the rights themselves should be completely separated from a person's relationship status.
 
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?

I'm thinking civil union? All the tax bennies etc.but no marriage certificate!

The govt probably has no business in it anyway.As a christian I do not

believe in gay marriage-but I don't make it my business.

Hate the sin but love the sinner!:peace
 
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"
 
Last edited:
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

Yep, this.
 
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?

I'm not aware of any particular wording in your constitution as it relates to marriage so I presume it's a states' rights issue but I could be wrong. However, I've been saying for years, and repeatedly here, there would be no controversy, gay people would be no more interested in a marriage certificate than straight people, if the government didn't use marriage as a tool of social engineering and a qualifier for certain government benefits and goodies.
 
I am fine either way to be honest as far as the government is concerned probably because there is no way in hell they would ever outlaw all marriage. I don't think marriage is a right by any stretch of the imagination, but I have no problem with states allowing it or disallowing SSM.
 
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"

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?
 
State sponsered marriage is convient. It basically acts as a large stack of legal documents for one person. The reality is a lot of people decide to spend their life with one person and share resources. I'd be fine with what S&M mentioned...some way to virtually label someone as having all the rights afforded to spouses now but not sure how that is anything other than calling marriage something else.
 
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"

Excuse me, but I have always endorsed same-sex marriage rights. I realize society isn't ready for the radical idea that the government needs to get out of our bedrooms entirely.

Since marriage isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I think all romantic relationships should be treated the same.

However, that is not my ideal world.

And a lack of a marriage contract does not mean a couple can't raise children. More and more people are choosing to cohabitate without marriage for lots of different reasons, and many raise children just fine. In fact, most childed homosexual couples raise children without a marriage license (which, unfortunately, is harder for them due to them being denied the right to assign their own legal childcare rights to each other).

Allowing government to be the ultimate validator of a relationship does not guarantee a stable home for children. If it did, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.
 
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"

qft, again.

No compromise. In addition to Fiddy's reasons, I will add, marriage establishes legal protection and status for each partner and any children as well.
 
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"

With respect to your editorial note, I personally don't care who gets married or doesn't get married as long as tax and government benefit policy has nothing to do with the marital status of citizens. To me, marriage should be no more benefit tax wise than being a card carrying member of the local golf club or any other legal contract you enter into with one person or a group of people. The fact that more than 50% of North American marriages end in divorce these days should tell anyone who's listening that marriage is a failed social concept but if you want to take the plunge, more power to you.
 
Excuse me, but I have always endorsed same-sex marriage rights. I realize society isn't ready for the radical idea that the government needs to get out of our bedrooms entirely.

Allow me to prevent this from starting right away. Here was the option indicated: "I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise."

If you do not fall into that territory, there is no usual issue.
 
And a lack of a marriage contract does not mean a couple can't raise children. More and more people are choosing to cohabitate without marriage for lots of different reasons, and many raise children just fine. In fact, most homosexual couples raise children without a marriage license (which, unfortunately, is harder for them due to them being denied the right to assign their own legal childcare rights to each other).

Allowing government to be the ultimate validator of a relationship does not guarantee a stable home for a family. If it did, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

Lack of a marriage contract complicates everything if the relationship dissolves. Disposition of assets accumulated during the relationship becomes a very sticky wicket. Custody issues are made more difficult. I know women and men both who's spouses attempted to abscond with everything. Without a marriage certificate, they would have spent much more time in court establishing their rightful claim. The government is pulled into these messes, and so it behooves the government to provide a shortcut through the mire.

I agree, you should be able to assign rights outside of marriage, but getting rid of marriage altogether, would be a disaster.
 
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?

That's a dumb idea. If you think for one second that the people who hate gay marriage would ever accept losing all of the benefits heterosexuals get by being married, you're out of your mind. You'd have rioting in the streets. It won't happen.
 
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?

First churches have been defining marriages in the west for thousands of years, then the states started to get involved in the mid 1800's. I am satisfied to let who get married or not, who defines marriages up to the church and the several states. What I am oppose to is having the federal government regulate and determine who can or can't be married. Regulating or defining marriage isn't a power of the federal government.

If the talking heads are correct, the SCOTUS will punt on California, return the case to the 9th circuit court which has already ruled the ban is unconstitutional. If this is true, then California will once again be a state that recognizes gay marriages. That is 10 states and I expect that number to increase to around 20 over the next several years. I can imagine in 10-15 years time that 30-40 states will have made gay marriage legal and congress will use their power under Article IV section 1 to ensure that all states recognize all other states marriages which is congress's right since marriages are a public record.

Tomorrow the SCOTUS hears arguments on DOMA, which I think is unconstitutional. But who knows what the judges think of it. Striking it down will lead to federal recognition of gay marriages from the states in which it is legal and pretty much make it nation wide. What will be mission is state benefits in those states which gay marriages is still illegal, but federal benefits will be had.

My opinion or opinions.
 
There is no legal or social precedent to gut the whole idea of marriage merely to prevent gays from having access to it. Marriage has always been a legal status. Laws about property, inheritance, and sex have been affected my legal marital status for thousands of years. If someone wants to have a relationship with all of those legal elements, without marriage, they're welcome to fill out the paperwork. You can have a relationship and call yourself whatever you want. Marriage is a legal status, and destroying that status over some people's desire to keep the label for themselves is absurd.
 
Lack of a marriage contract complicates everything if the relationship dissolves. Disposition of assets accumulated during the relationship becomes a very sticky wicket. Custody issues are made more difficult. I know women and men both who's spouses attempted to abscond with everything. Without a marriage certificate, they would have spent much more time in court establishing their rightful claim. The government is pulled into these messes, and so it behooves the government to provide a shortcut through the mire.

I agree, you should be able to assign rights outside of marriage, but getting rid of marriage altogether, would be a disaster.

No, not really.

You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.

For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.

That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.
 
No, not really.

You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.

For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.

That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.

You can do that now it's just expensive and time consuming to draw up legal documents for each individual right that a spouse assumes. With a marriage document bam....someone has a list of rights conveyed to them with a 50 dollar marriage license (may vary by state). It's convient.
 
No, not really.

You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.

For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.

That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.

And you have to execute each document separately.

Marriage is a one stop, all-purpose contract. In addition to marriage, what you suggest is fine, but not in place of it. It exists now for the purpose of status and protection, for a reason.
 
You can do that now it's just expensive and time consuming to draw up legal documents for each individual right that a spouse assumes. With a marriage document bam....someone has a list of rights conveyed to them with a 50 dollar marriage license (may vary by state). It's convient.

It shouldn't be expensive, and there's no reason it has to be time consuming.

You can have a pre-drawn standard set of rights for X situation, or you can personalize it if you want to take more time.

That's how marriage works. So why can't it work that way for people not in a relationship?
 
You can do that now it's just expensive and time consuming to draw up legal documents for each individual right that a spouse assumes. With a marriage document bam....someone has a list of rights conveyed to them with a 50 dollar marriage license (may vary by state). It's convient.

You beat me to it.
 
And you have to execute each document separately.

Marriage is a one stop, all-purpose contract. In addition to marriage, what you suggest, fine, but not in place of it. It exists now for the purpose of status and protection, for a reason.

That's how it is now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just have a standard contract for a particular issue just like we do for marriage. If the person feels like it, then they can take more time and make their own.

There's no reason it has to take any more time than just signing the dotted line. Just because it does now doesn't mean that's how it must be.
 
That's how it is now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just have a standard contract for a particular issue just like we do for marriage. If the person feels like it, then they can take more time and make their own.

There's no reason it has to take any more time than just signing the dotted line. Just because it does now doesn't mean that's how it must be.

Are you arguing against marriage? Or just for the ability to file documents to cover people not in a marriage?
 
Are you arguing against marriage? Or just the ability to file documents to cover people not in a marriage?

I am arguing against the concept of government getting to decide whether our relationships are legitimate.
 
Back
Top Bottom