• 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
clownboy said:
There is already a compromise in place - civil unions. The compromise was struck and now one of the parties wants to renegotiate for the whole enchillada. Modius operandi for the gay movement. Compromise more and they'll be back at the table asking for more before the ink is dry.
Click to expand...

that wasnt a compromise because it wasnt equal

it factually doesnt grant as many rights and protections
it wasnt as binding
and even if it was equal, equal but the same is still discrimination
 
Ikari said:
I would support the abolition of the Marriage License. But so long as the Marriage License exists as it does, a government recognized and issued contract, they cannot discriminate against same sex couples wishing to engage in that contract.
Click to expand...

Devil's advocate, for lack of a better phrase. How should the government treat:

- Couples who wish to marry but have the same parents or are an uncle and an adult niece.
- Couples who wish to marry but barely know each other if at all but intend to get to know each other very well once the other one gets here from Thailand.
- Couples who wish to marry but one is already married to somebody else.

I'm honestly not trying to be unkind. Just trying to find consistency in the argument that the government has no place applying an outdated moral code in the view of some to marriage when their job is to treat all with equality and offer all equal access to the benefits of marriage without prejudice.

As an FYI: I'm not exactly comfortable myself with government being the arbitrator of morality. Although I support morality, what if the government decides at some point something is virtuous with which I disagree and has the power of force to establish its will on those who disagree?
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What comes immediately to mind is some tax rights (some of which I don't feel should exist). Also co-parenting rights. Some people parent with a non-romantic partner (and rarity is not a good argument against legality).

Also, while it's *possible* to designate a lot of these rights, it is sometimes time-consuming and expensive when it doesn't need to be.

What parts of a marriage contract can be altered by pre-nup varies by state, but most won't let you change whatever you want. Even if they did, though, it's still expensive and time-consuming.



A spouse has a right to whatever they agree on. Like I said, I'm not out to take anything from anyone. I'm out to allow everyone to have equal and un-coerced access to their rights.

I don't understand why it's so important to you to keep it as an institution that applies only to romantic relationships of the type you approve.
Click to expand...

Which tax rights? I can't address what you aren't saying. There is a marriage tax "penalty" as well. A couple is taxed at a higher rate than a two single people.

As to co-parenting, is that something that cannot be obtained? How about adoption?

Which of them is time consuming? A will? It is for married couples too. Again, please be specific.

Ok, if they agree one should have the right to cut out the other from their 401k, they can do that. Just with approval of spouse and all of that goes away if they remain single. It's right there on the form, "Who do you designate as beneficiary of this account upon death?". Easy.

I have agreed, designating legal rights shouldn't be so difficult or expensive. Though I sure would like to have a laundry list of what you are referring to.

Why is it so important to you to abolish an institution you will, by your own declaration, never partake in? You want one or more other people you are not related to, to have rights over your finances and life (I'm assuming because you haven't specified what applies to you). I think those are pretty important designations and so there are hoops, but I agree, they shouldn't be impediments.
 
Smeagol said:
Devil's advocate, for lack of a better phrase. How should the government treat:

- Couples who wish to marry but have the same parents or are and uncle an an adult niece.
- Couples who wish to marry but barely know each other if at all but intend to get to know each other very well once the other one gets here from Thailand.
- Couples who wish to marry but one is already married to somebody else.

I'm honestly not trying to be unkind. Just trying to find consistency in the argument that the government has no place applying an outdated moral code in the view of some to marriage when their job is to treat all with equality and offer all equal access to the benefits of marriage without prejudice.

As an FYI: I'm not exactly comfortable myself with government being the arbitrator or morality. Although I support morality, what if the government decides at some point something is virtuous with which I disagree and has the power of force to establish its will on those who disagree?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point here. What does any of that have to do with what I said? A brother and sister want to get married? Don't give a ****. People who don't know each other want to get married? Don't give a ****. Cheating? Polygamy? Don't give a ****. Though there are logical arguments against people of very close relation getting it on given the understanding of science and genetics. And there's arguments against polygamy given that almost every instance of polygamous society in the modern world has been one built on oppression, sexism, subjugation, and exile. Also Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till it denounced polygamy; so there's precedent for that one.

But none of this would matter if there were no marriage license. Think the Founders had to ask government's permission to be married? Think again.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
But it's unnecessarily complicated and expensive to do so in a lot of cases, and there's no reason it should be.
Click to expand...

But that same complication would happen without the catch all for marriage. Only with the legal status of marriage, that cost and complication can be skipped. I don't disagree that there can be all sorts of alternatives to marriage, and that they should be as simple and inexpensive as possible, and that everyone should have access to those alternatives, but it seems that doing away with marriage wouldn't improve anything.
 
Ikari said:
I don't understand your point here. What does any of that have to do with what I said?
Click to expand...

Addressing your concern with discrimination.

A brother and sister want to get married? Don't give a ****. People who don't know each other want to get married? Don't give a ****. Cheating? Polygamy? Don't give a ****. Though there are logical arguments against people of very close relation getting it on given the understanding of science and genetics. And there's arguments against polygamy given that almost every instance of polygamous society in the modern world has been one built on oppression, sexism, subjugation, and exile. Also Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till it denounced polygamy; so there's precedent for that one.

But none of this would matter if there were no marriage license. Think the Founders had to ask government's permission to be married? Think again.
Click to expand...

ALL of those types of marriages are presently banned in the United States. Would it be only logical and fair to allow those as well?
 
Smeagol said:
Would it be only logical and fair to allow those as well?
Click to expand...

If you ended the marriage license, how would you regulate it?
 
Henrin said:
I know I didn't over much to work with, but you could say more than you are.
Click to expand...

You have marriage, a fundamental element of every single society on the face of the planet, back into perpetuity, and you magically think that all of the people who are married are going to vote themselves out of benefits they receive for being married, based on your say so?

Seriously? I guess I didn't realize how delusional some libertarians actually are!
 
Ikari said:
If you ended the marriage license, how would you regulate it?
Click to expand...

My question was based on the premise that marriage licenses would still be government issued and as long as they are no one should be denied equality.
 
Gina said:
How do they come to terms? Via lawyers and courts. Judges can block block the sale of property. Freeze liquid assets and prevent a parent from fleeing with children. All of that comes before terms are agreed to.
Click to expand...

The same way anyone else does. Why is marriage somehow needed to deal with any of these issues? Do people out of marriage not have children, not share a deed to a house, not deal with share assets? Yes, they do and just how do you think they manage without a marriage contract? I don't see why its all of a sudden different because of marriage.

Are you saying, though, that contracts aren't necessary to protect parties from damage? That is the point I addressed in the quoted response.
Click to expand...

To the most part people should be left to their own devices to deal with private matters and the state should handle any claims as unchanged until those parties ask for a change. I don't see why the state has to be the middle man until a decision is made.
 
Smeagol said:
My question was based on the premise that marriage licenses would still be government issued and as long as they are no one should be denied equality.
Click to expand...

Then if you wish to infringe upon one's right to contract, you have to come up with proper argument to excuse the use of government force. Ergo, you don't want it legal, you produce the argument.
 
Cephus said:
You have marriage, a fundamental element of every single society on the face of the planet, back into perpetuity, and you magically think that all of the people who are married are going to vote themselves out of benefits they receive for being married, based on your say so?

Seriously? I guess I didn't realize how delusional some libertarians actually are!
Click to expand...

People are selfish and this problem will have to finish to its natural end until anything changes. The same as it ever was. When the government puts in motion a power it usually never goes away until that government does. Nothing ever will change there. People want power, they want easy advantages, and they surely want a nanny.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
People are selfish and this problem will have to finish to its natural end until anything changes. The same as it ever was.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you admit that ending government involvement in marriage is just a pipe dream. Gotcha.
 
Cephus said:
So in other words, you admit that ending government involvement in marriage is just a pipe dream. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between knowing what is right and knowing what is possible. :cool: I'm not simply going to change my position because people are weak and refuse to accept the right answer. The answer is always going to be right regardless of popular opinion and I have no reason what so ever to change my opinion when it is right.
 
AGENT J said:
that wasnt a compromise because it wasnt equal

it factually doesnt grant as many rights and protections
it wasnt as binding
and even if it was equal, equal but the same is still discrimination
Click to expand...

Can you prove any of that? On the first count, California has a civil union law that confers every entitlement (they're not rights) that the state confers to the married. If you want equity in federal entitlements, go for a federal civil union law.

On the second, how so? AFAIK it's every bit as much a binding contract as your marriage license. At least in California. Civil union legislation varies by state.

And the third begs the question, so you're not after equality here but the title?
 
Smeagol said:
Addressing your concern with discrimination.



ALL of those types of marriages are presently banned in the United States. Would it be only logical and fair to allow those as well?
Click to expand...

I think that is a fair question. Marriage in the western world anyway, has pretty much been defined by the church and the bible. The reason for only one wife, the outlaw of polygamy was because the church and the Christian faith thought of it as a heathen life style, perhaps the same as the homosexual life style and gay marriage. But since it has been part of America's history since Columbus set foot here with the exception of the Mormons, monogamy has been accepted as the norm. Although there may have been more than a couple of the Indian tribes that practiced Polygamy.

So if this secular government is going to do away with one religious value, gay marriage. It ought to away with the other religious value, polygamy. It seems only fair.
 
clownboy said:
Can you prove any of that? On the first count, California has a civil union law that confers every entitlement (they're not rights) that the state confers to the married. If you want equity in federal entitlements, go for a federal civil union law.
Click to expand...

In fact the courts even ruled the benefits of marriage are not rights. I do however enjoy how people keep saying that getting rid of the benefits are somehow violating their rights.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...


Actually I think I'd prefer that myself. I like to minimize the impact of government on people's private lives as much as possible.

Then again, there's this compromise I've been offering to pro-SSMers...

Give me universal Constitutional Carry (no permit, open/concealed, anywhere normally open to the public, every state and city of USA) and I'll give you full-fledged gay marriage. :mrgreen:

I like it myself. If you support my personal liberty issue, I'll support yours.... :)
 
Henrin said:
The same way anyone else does. Why is marriage somehow needed to deal with any of these issues? Do people out of marriage not have children, not share a deed to a house, not deal with share assets? Yes, they do and just how do you think they manage without a marriage contract? I don't see why its all of a sudden different because of marriage.



To the most part people should be left to their own devices to deal with private matters and the state should handle any claims as unchanged until those parties ask for a change. I don't see why the state has to be the middle man until a decision is made.
Click to expand...

People outside of marriage have more problems dealing with these issues. A judge won't freeze liquid assets, block sale of property and prevent a parent from fleeing with their children until standing has been established. Not just any ole person can show up at the courthouse and demand any of that. Under a marriage, the relationship is established and rights are already granted. It's plainly obvious what is different under marriage. Certainly to the state.

So, you advocate taking no responsibility to protect one's self? Via a contract? How does the state establish who is what to whom and how long a relationship has been a relationship and then judge what is appropriate without there being a piece of paper? Hundreds of not thousands of pieces of paper, that's how. If you don't agree with marriage, don't do it. Then you can spend time and money settling up with your relationship if it dissolves.
 
Gina said:
People outside of marriage have more problems dealing with these issues. A judge won't freeze liquid assets, block sale of property and prevent a parent from fleeing with their children until standing has been established. Not just any ole person can show up at the courthouse and demand any of that. Under a marriage, the relationship is established and rights are already granted. It's plainly obvious what is different under marriage. Certainly to the state.

So, you advocate taking no responsibility to protect one's self? Via a contract? How does the state establish who is what to whom and how long a relationship has been a relationship and then judge what is appropriate without there being a piece of paper? Hundreds of not thousands of pieces of paper, that's how. If you don't agree with marriage, don't do it. Then you can spend time and money settling up with your relationship if it dissolves.
Click to expand...

That's not a problem in states like California that already have civil unions.
 
clownboy said:
That's not a problem in states like California that already have civil unions.
Click to expand...

Fine and dandy as long as the same rights as a marriage are conferred. :)
 
Henrin said:
In fact the courts even ruled the benefits of marriage are not rights. I do however enjoy how people keep saying that getting rid of the benefits are somehow violating their rights.
Click to expand...

It violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
 
Gina said:
Fine and dandy as long as the same rights as a marriage are conferred. :)
Click to expand...

They are. The problem is federal (portability, the IRS, etc.). Had the pro-SSM folk not been so set on the title all this time, DOMA may never have passed. I think it's a good possibility we would have had a federal civil union legislation by now.
 
clownboy said:
They are. The problem is federal (portability, the IRS, etc.). Had the pro-SSM folk not been so set on the title all this time, DOMA may never have passed. I think it's a good possibility we would have had a federal civil union legislation by now.
Click to expand...

I understand, SSM felt it would be separate but equal. As long as a couple can have one or the other, I don't have a problem.
 
Gina said:
People outside of marriage have more problems dealing with these issues. A judge won't freeze liquid assets, block sale of property and prevent a parent from fleeing with their children until standing has been established. Not just any ole person can show up at the courthouse and demand any of that.
Click to expand...

All true and I have no problem with any of it.

Under a marriage, the relationship is established and rights are already granted. It's plainly obvious what is different under marriage. Certainly to the state.
Click to expand...

So your argument is only that it is easier? Hmm..

So, you advocate taking no responsibility to protect one's self? Via a contract? How does the state establish who is what to whom and how long a relationship has been a relationship and then judge what is appropriate without there being a piece of paper?
Click to expand...

They don't. They deal with established claims of property and other matters they are already involved in. Other items they would have no reason to care about.

Hundreds of not thousands of pieces of paper, that's how.
Click to expand...

So basically you are saying people can't do anything on their own? Argh..so silly. If people can't even deal with a TV they need to fall off a cliff on accident.

If you don't agree with marriage, don't do it. Then you can spend time and money settling up with your relationship if it dissolves.
Click to expand...

Well when you go through the government to get your benefits it becomes my business. If you don't like my opinion, then consider taking your life out of the public eye. Just a thought.

Btw, I have no problem with people wanting to form their own contracts if they desire to do so. That however has very little to do with how it is now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom