• 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
That's not a problem in states like California that already have civil unions.

Even with these 'civil unions', there are still laws that only apply to married couples, or are more advantageous for 'married' couples.
 
It violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

What? My post was about the court ruling the benefits of marriage are not rights.
 
1.)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.

2.)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?

1.)did you just say that its equal in California but then say not federally and you want proof? LMAO
2.) because there have been cases where marriage rights have been overturned by family when it came to property, money, kids etc etc that marriage is more successful against
3.) no, i want equality and history proves there is no such thing as equal but different LMAO
 
Even with these 'civil unions', there are still laws that only apply to married couples, or are more advantageous for 'married' couples.

Meh, not so much in California. Each state that has civil union legislation rolls it slightly differently. As I said, the federal stuff is a different matter.
 
1.)did you just say that its equal in California but then say not federally and you want proof? LMAO

No, I want proof California's civil union law doesn't confer every state entitlement as marriage. If you wish the same in the federal arena, start stumping for federal civil union legislation.

2.) because there have been cases where marriage rights have been overturned by family when it came to property, money, kids etc etc that marriage is more successful against

Again prove that happens in California to those with a civil union there.

3.) no, i want equality and history proves there is no such thing as equal but different LMAO

Interesting. Never been in the military? Separate standards for gender. Have you ever seen the entrance requirements for your local fire personnel - there are two separate but equal standards, one for men, one for women. Rinse and repeat for police.
 
All true and I have no problem with any of it.



So your argument is only that easier? Hmm..



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.



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



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.

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?
 
Meh, not so much in California. Each state that has civil union legislation rolls it slightly differently. As I said, the federal stuff is a different matter.

Saying that same-sex couples can have a civil union but not a 'marriage' still perpetuates the idea that same-sex couples are different and can be treated differently.
 
1.)No, I want proof California's civil union law doesn't confer every state entitlement as marriage. If you wish the same in the federal arena, start stumping for federal civil union legislation.



Again prove that happens in California to those with a civil union there.



Interesting. Never been in the military? Separate standards for gender. Have you ever seen the entrance requirements for your local fire personnel - there are two separate but equal standards, one for men, one for women. Rinse and repeat for police.

1.) again if they dont have all (state and fed) the benefits then its not equal :shrug:
2.) its happened in many places whether you believe it or not I dont care because your biased is obvious.

Cant remember if it has specifically happened in Cali but again that is meaningless also. if its nationally not equal, its not equal.

BUT i promise when im less busy and i actually care about proving facts to you ill post the links, they are already here in multiple places including at lease two of my equal rights threads i started

3.) an argument that your opinion of inequality exists elsewhere is meaningless to the debate LMAO
also if they are different they are not equal LMAO
 
Saying that same-sex couples can have a civil union but not a 'marriage' still perpetuates the idea that same-sex couples are different and can be treated differently.

he isnt interested in facts
 
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.

There's a difference between simply claiming something is right and demonstrating it is actually so. Let me know when you're able to do the latter.
 
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.

I believe that is what will happen...The SCOTUS will throw it back to the states where it belongs.
 

I believe that is what will happen...The SCOTUS will throw it back to the states where it belongs.

Not according to the 14th Amendment.

Marriage isn't solely a religious institution.
 
Saying that same-sex couples can have a civil union but not a 'marriage' still perpetuates the idea that same-sex couples are different and can be treated differently.

It portrays that all opposite sex marriages are blessed by God and all gay marriages aren't. That is the distinction.
 
It portrays that all opposite sex marriages are blessed by God and all gay marriages aren't. That is the distinction.

Are all 'atheist' marriages blessed by God? What about all Jewish marriages? Muslim? Hindu?
 
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?

Interesting point. Being single myself, there never seems to be any government benefit to me, yet I support other people's kids education (amongst other things) through my taxes.

On the flipside, I never have to deal with the toilet seat left up. :2razz:
 
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 best compromise is to create a civil union domestic partnership for SS like marriage, the one OS couples already have.

Both types of civil union domestic partnerships would have the same recognition by government and private enterprise.

The compromise?

The SS couples civil union domestic partnership would be call homarriage, not marriage.

I think that's a compromise where everyone wins.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/155092-help-me-understand-anti-ssm-argument-3.html#post1061593200
... I have no problem with SS couples in a committed monogamous romantic relationship stating thusly in ceremony and then receiving all the federal, state, and local government treatment afforded to OS committed monogamous romantic couples who've stated thusly in ceremony.

The latter, however, is marriage.

The former, is not.

Thus the former, SS couples, need to come up with a different name, a name for their relationship other than "marriage", because, by definition, "marriage" is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

It's simply illiterate to refer to such SS couples as "married", and doing so just dumbs us all down.

My suggestion is that SS couples coin the phrase "homarrige" to apply to their relationship. That's similar to the difference between "man" and "woman".

By keeping the two separate with appropriate and different words, we maintain intelligent literacy, and, we maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples by definition: marriage.

And, we do so without any government discrimination against SS committed monogamous romantic couples, which is really the bottom-line of the matter from the beginning.

SS activist agitators, who disrespectfully attempt to hijack marriage from the vast majority (OS couples in the time-honored cultural tradition), rather than take a more respectful albeit longer approach to solving the problem, have caused animosity between SS and OS couples .. which will not end well if vote-pandering politicians acquiesce to statutes allowing SS couples to be "married".

Had SS activists taken the "homarriage" route from the get-go, stumping for federal, state, and local changes in statutes to create a domestic partnership civil union on the books that's just like marriage but appropriately different only in name -- calling that domestic partnership civil union between SS couples "homarriage" -- this problem would have been solved long ago.

Instead SS activist agitators riled up SS couples with the ludicrous notion they should be allowed to claim the term "marriage".

Now there's simply a lot of hurt feelings on both sides .. and the real bottom-line solution -- to get government recognition of all couples in a domestic partnership civil union -- is now a struggle that, if it continues with SS couples hijacking the term "marriage", will create a win-lose situation instead of the win-win scenario the creating of the "homarriage" domestic partnership civil union would have created.

SS couples would do well to accept reality, that they are not "a man and a woman as husband and wife", and stop trying to pretend that they are, stop ludicrously immagining that they should be afforded the same designation as OS couples that, by definition, simply does not apply to them.

It is simply wrong to steal from one group to satisfy another.

I mean, what if cat owners wanted to enter their cats in a dog show? And they ludicrously got legal approval to do so? It really wouldn't be a dog show anymore, and dog owners would be understandbly and justifiably pissed.

A cat is not a dog.

A SS couple is not a OS couple.

A cat does not belong in a dog show.

A SS couple does not belong in a marriage.

We need to be intelligent first, and if that means we can't be emotionally irrational, well then, so be it, I would say.

Acceptance is really for the best. ...
 
The best compromise is to create a civil union domestic partnership for SS like marriage, the one OS couples already have.

Both types of civil union domestic partnerships would have the same recognition by government and private enterprise.

The compromise?

The SS couples civil union domestic partnership would be call homarriage, not marriage.

I think that's a compromise where everyone wins.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/155092-help-me-understand-anti-ssm-argument-3.html#post1061593200

Why should it be separate but equal to "marriage"? Marriage is not solely a religious institution.
 
Why should it be separate but equal to "marriage"?
I clearly explained why in the quote part of my post.

They should be separate and separately named because they are similar but not identical.


Marriage is not solely a religious institution.
Religion or the lack thereof in the matter is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
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?

Interesting issue ...

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the premier antidiscrimination employment law in the United States, does not prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of their marital status. Although some employees or applicants have attempted to make indirect marital status discrimination claims under Title VII by arguing, for example, that adverse action was taken against them because of their sex, federal law does not prohibit marital status discrimination by private sector employers.

Private sector employees seeking a remedy for such discrimination must pursue state remedies. Nearly half of the states in the union forbid at least some form of marital status discrimination in the workplace. Although these laws generally forbid directly adverse employment actions like terminations on the basis of marital status, they generally do not prevent employers from providing full family benefits to married employees, while providing only single benefits to single employees.
 
Damn it all, I had a post and the computer ate it. I'll try again, but some of the good stuff is just gone. :pout: Also some of what I had said has been said by others now so I won't bother to repeat it.

I'm also going to go backwards this time.

It violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Equal protection of what? I can argue that everyone is equally protected in their right of marrying a member of the opposite gender. Or that everyone is protected in their right to marry a member of their same race (going back a few years). It's depending on how you're defining the right as to whether it's protected or not. Personally I say that the right is to be able to marry ANYONE who is legally an adult, and is able to give consent, regardless of anything. Others, like Objective J if I am remembering and reading correctly, argue that the right to marry any race/skin color is seperate from a right to marry any gender. Therefore allowing SSM is not granting equal rights but estabishing a new right.

Though there are logical arguments against people of very close relation getting it on given the understanding of science and genetics.

Those arguments are not applied consistantly though, especially in the light of the SSM arguments. What does our undersatnding of the genetic interaction of consangous(sp) couples have to do with couples where one or both are sterile or with couples who are the same gender? Your argument now fails.

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.

Only the ones that make the news. If there is no conflict then why should they report on it? However, let's now look at those marriages as shown on Sister Wives. Do those marriages look like they are built on oppression? Subjugation? Exile? Not unless you have definitions of these things that are way out there. Sexism? Well that one is open to a little more subjectiveness than the others, but is nowhere near what you see out of the religious whackos in Arizonia. I have no doubt that we could find families to be on Brother Husbands, but somehow I don't think the ratings would be enough to maintain it even through one season. Now there's sexism for you.

Polygamy actually has a much more straight-forward counter-argument: it often involves force. It should be illegal in any democracy for the same reason rape and slavery are.
Polyamory is polygamy where the partners are equal.

Do NOT even try this. You cannot take the example of a small group of people who are using the practice of polygamy, specifically polygyny, as an excuse to engage in reprehensible behavior as an indicator of the practice in and of itself. By that basis I can argue that marriage is equally bad based upon domestic violence.
Polyamory is the practice of holding multiple relationships, some or all of which may or may not be marriage also. Polygamy is the practice of holding multiple marriages. Excluding any play partners/swinging partners I may have I could have a polygamous marriage to two wives and another husband and also have polyamorous relationships with yet another woman and another man. The marriage, which is obviously only social/religious in nature, is the key difference.

There are many polygamous marriages among the polyamorous community. Granted some will only call it a polyamorous marriage, but they are still, by definition, polygamous. And personally find it offensive that you would use such a small group to paint the rest of us by. That is no better than calling all Muslims terrorist based on Al Qaeda.


However, I oppose the reason for this compromise. No one in their right mind compromises with the losing party, they take their win and everything they can with it.

Bad reasoning. Of course it can be better to compromise with the losing party:

"Hey we're winning, but they are a compromise over the land."
"No one in their right mind compromises with the losing party! We will take our win and everything we can with it."
Later
"Well we won. There is nothing left here that is usable and the land is ruined for decades. But we won!"

Sometimes in trying to win it all you can destroy the very thing you are trying to win. Now is that what will/would happen in this case? Irrelavant to my point that you are making a bad argument in applying an absolute to a situational argument

Technically I could fly to whever you live now and probably marry you without any sort of romantic relationship. When SSM is allowed I could technically marry my best friend even though we don't have a non-romantic relationship.

Did you mean to write it this way? The way I read it I would think that you meant either "...even though we have a non-romantic relationship." or "...even though we don't have a romantic relationship." Otherwise I don't see the point of the word "technically".

The state did not always recognize marriage as an institution. The reason they started to was in order to discriminate against people. And they're still doing it now.

Incorrect. Governments throughout history, even the US's, have long since recognized marriages as an institution. They have not always tried to regulate it and issue licenses for it, but other laws were certainly in place since the early history of the US. So it has always been recognized.

It's very similar to how the Church reconized marriage, but didn't try to regulate it until the 13th century under Pope Innocent III. Reconizing something and trying to control or place stricter controls on it are two seperate things.

The unrealistic rarely do.

Nor do they provide answers when asked.

Which is why SSM is in court. It's not legitimate to bar same sex and earlier, interracial couples from marriage. I have a problem with polygamous relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

I have a problem with interacial relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

I have a problem with same sex relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

Why is your argument any more valid for polygamous relationships that it is for interracial or same sex? Now if you want to argue that is logistically detremental to just up and eliminate the ban against outright it at this time, I can agree with you. A lot more would need to be done and figured out on a logistic legal basis before we could allow polygamy again. But your argument just falls flat.

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.

Not sure here. Are you arguing that marriage is only a legal status?

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!"

The state at best is only paying lip service to the concept of a stable family life and stable relationship. In a world of 55 hour marriages, can we really say that the state actually cares?

As to the "scorched earth" policy, the "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!" stance would actually be the proponents of SSM and the opponents would be more like "If I can't have it as I define it, NO ONE CAN!"

And the stuff posted after I started my responses:

Interesting. Never been in the military? Separate standards for gender. Have you ever seen the entrance requirements for your local fire personnel - there are two separate but equal standards, one for men, one for women. Rinse and repeat for police.

Hell we can go as simple as restrooms for "seperate but equal". Although given some of the nice stuff I've seen in women's restrooms, they seem a little more equal than men.

However, I will say that if the wording and the weight of the two laws were exact except for one being titled "marriage" and the other being titled "civil union" then we don't have "seperate but equal". We have a difference of label.
 
It portrays that all opposite sex marriages are blessed by God and all gay marriages aren't. That is the distinction.

But, "God" doesn't **** anyways, so what does he know about sex ?....................
 
I clearly explained why in the quote part of my post.

So, we shouldn't consider a civil union a marriage because we should quote "maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples"

Should we have maintained "respect for the time-honored cultural tradition" of prohibition of interracial marriages?

My suggestion is that SS couples coin the phrase "homarrige" to apply to their relationship. That's similar to the difference between "man" and "woman".

Should we have coined the phrase "intermarriage" between interracial couples since those marriage clearly showed a difference between the status quo?
 
Never, ever, ever, ever going to happen, nobody is going to vote to give up the benefits they get from being married.

Thats what they said back in the 1800's and early 1900's about lifting a ban on segregation and interracial marriages. Hell, I would give up those benefits. The federal government has no legal basis whatsoever to decided what marriage is and what marriage is not. That's why I am willing to bet that DOMA will fall.
 
I have a problem with interacial relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

I have a problem with same sex relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

Why is your argument any more valid for polygamous relationships that it is for interracial or same sex? Now if you want to argue that is logistically detremental to just up and eliminate the ban against outright it at this time, I can agree with you. A lot more would need to be done and figured out on a logistic legal basis before we could allow polygamy again. But your argument just falls flat.

I didn't want to go into the reasons and derail my discussion with SmokeandMirrors.

Polygamy is demonstrably bad for society and the women and children of polygamus unions, while SS and interracial marriage are not. Polygamy puts pressure on females to marry younger and to older men. Often more than one of the wives and her children are on welfare because the husband's salary is insufficient. Very often in Mormon compounds, young men are kicked out because they compete with older men for young wives.
 
Not according to the 14th Amendment.

Marriage isn't solely a religious institution.

I don't recall the 14th saying anything about same-sex marriage....oh wait that's right it doesn't! It is a religious institution by the way. I would like for you to point where in the constitution it explicitly talks about marriage. Didn't think so.

The 10th however, does say that each state retains the ability to cover portions of law that are not covered by the Constitution. I agree with Perotista, where he says that states will retain the ability to make their own decisions, and as SSM slowly becomes more accepted and adopted by states, the federal government will that decide that all states have to recognize these unions as such.
 
Back
Top Bottom