Same sex marriage compromise

zstep18 said:

We probably shouldn't go by what marriage means in the Bible.


Or should we not get into the fact that the Bible says that a virgin who is raped must marry the rapist?

Click to expand...

Nor did I say that we should. Again you are butting into a conversation you don't understand...

In relation to the emboldened quote, I would like for you provide that text for me please, since I have never ran across that.

Bonzai said:

Gee, I wonder who else's "rights" should be thrown to the discretion of the mob ?.......................

Click to expand...

HAHA I'm trying to understand whether you're intentionally ignoring every time I point out the flaws in your logic and if you're intentionally trying to annoy me or not? Because clearly Paschendale was not in any way wrong about anything he said....:doh :damn :screwy

Lightning said:

My nose is out of your business. If you like to smoke poles, by all means brother go ahead. I really don't care. State government?? I really don't understand you're argument here? In fact, there is no argument, it sounds like you're a zealous high school student who has no understanding of debate or the Constitution, which is kind of a DUH since you are a "Socialist".

You obviously have no constitutional understanding as I've stated before, you're trying to use a limited precedent set by the SCOTUS to eliminate racism and to eliminate the constant labeling of people who are not white inferior to society, to sexual preference by certain individuals.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm a third year law student (graduating in 6 weeks), who will be published in the upcoming law review and has written legislation that was enacted into law in the District of Columbia. What's your extensive legal and judicial experience again? Have you even read Lawrence or Griswold? Do you plan to cite some precedent to support your 10th amendment claim?

Paschendale said:

Which is exactly what separate but equal means. And that is an unconstitutional approach.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I will have to disagree with you here. If I have two books that are exactly the same in content but one is titled "Marriage" and the other is titled "Civil Union" they are still exactly the same book. If I give you an orange and I have an orange, but my orange is called "Civil Union" while yours is called "Marriage", but otherwise they are are exactly the same right down to weight, size, color, etc. Then they are still the same

Now I will agree with you that pretty much anything that occurred during the Jim Crow era was unconstitutional, and despite being labeled "separate but equal", they were anything but. I am NOT talking about doing anything like that. I'm talking about taking marriage law, photocopying it, and then taking whiteout to the top of one and relabeling it "Civil Union". Not separate but equal. Same with a different cover.

Lightning said:

Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.

Click to expand...

And Judaism has been around a lot longer than the 1st century as have other religions/spiritual beliefs. Your point? Marriage has been a part of multiple religions throughout history and has NOT always been just man and woman. Mainly, yes; always no. Marriage was around BEFORE Christianity in civil, religious (non-specific) and societal forms. Christianity did not have marriage as part of their doctrine UNTIL the 13th century. They allowed people to marry, but it wasn't part of their oversight.

Secondly, you are confusing the right to codify sexual preference which is what we are talking about here, to the elimination of racism in this country. Two completely different things.

Click to expand...

I am noting that your argument of one group pushing a belief set (and I'm not talking religiously) on another larger one is invalid UNLESS you can maintain that argument across the board. By your argument, then if 4/5 of the country wants blacks enslaved as non-citizens, who are the other 1/5 to push freedom and citizenship of the blacks on the rest? And then by that same argument, what happens when the amount of people wanted SSM becomes 51%? Do you accede then that it is time to allow SSM?

Lightning said:

HAHA I'm trying to understand whether you're intentionally ignoring every time I point out the flaws in your logic and if you're intentionally trying to annoy me or not? Because clearly Paschendale was not in any way wrong about anything he said....:doh :damn :screwy

Click to expand...

You really don't get it.................If it's ok to commit a crime against me, then it's ok to commit a crime against anyone.......................

Lightning said:

Nor did I say that we should. Again you are butting into a conversation you don't understand...

In relation to the emboldened quote, I would like for you provide that text for me please, since I have never ran across that.

Click to expand...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Paschendale said:

Actually, I'm a third year law student (graduating in 6 weeks), who will be published in the upcoming law review and has written legislation that was enacted into law in the District of Columbia. What's your extensive legal and judicial experience again? Have you even read Lawrence or Griswold? Do you plan to cite some precedent to support your 10th amendment claim?

Click to expand...

For a "law student", you display a severe abridgement in reading comprehension. If you were to come to my classroom I would've failed your ass because you don't know how to properly comprehend text. Do you plan on providing your diplomas, acceptance letters, LSAT scores etc. to prove this laughable claim. And if it is true, may God help the future of the American judicial system.

Bonzai said:

You really don't get it.................If it's ok to commit a crime against me, then it's ok to commit a crime against anyone.......................

Click to expand...

When did we start talking about crime? I'm confused now, because I don't know where our conversation has turned too maybe because I've largely ignored it which would be my fault.

Lightning said:

When did we start talking about crime? I'm confused now, because I don't know where our conversation has turned too maybe because I've largely ignored it which would be my fault.

Click to expand...

My human rights have been violated. Rectify it, or I am supporting the violation of anyone and everyone's human rights on any basis whatsoever................................

Bonzai said:

My human rights have been violated. Rectify it, or I am supporting the violation of anyone and everyone's human rights on any basis whatsoever................................

Click to expand...

What are you talking about??

maquiscat said:

Sorry but I will have to disagree with you here. If I have two books that are exactly the same in content but one is titled "Marriage" and the other is titled "Civil Union" they are still exactly the same book. If I give you an orange and I have an orange, but my orange is called "Civil Union" while yours is called "Marriage", but otherwise they are are exactly the same right down to weight, size, color, etc. Then they are still the same

Now I will agree with you that pretty much anything that occurred during the Jim Crow era was unconstitutional, and despite being labeled "separate but equal", they were anything but. I am NOT talking about doing anything like that. I'm talking about taking marriage law, photocopying it, and then taking whiteout to the top of one and relabeling it "Civil Union". Not separate but equal. Same with a different cover.

Click to expand...

Keeping your standard in mind, explain to me how separate drinking fountains, or a separate place on the bus are unconstitutional, but separate types of marriage aren't. They were, in theory, exactly the same. That was the legal principal by which blacks and whites had to drink from separate fountains. It was exactly the idea of photocopying and labeling one "whites only" and the other "blacks only".

Let me give you a fantastic example. Car rental companies allow the renter on the form, and a spouse, to drive the rental car. A spouse through marriage, not through civil union. Are you really suggesting that the government should impose that businesses have to treat two different legal statuses exactly the same, curtailing their liberty to operate as they see fit, instead of merely not discriminating against people?

Lightning said:

What are you talking about??

Click to expand...

Life................It's just so tragic....................

Paschendale said:

Keeping your standard in mind, explain to me how separate drinking fountains, or a separate place on the bus are unconstitutional, but separate types of marriage aren't. They were, in theory, exactly the same. That was the legal principal by which blacks and whites had to drink from separate fountains. It was exactly the idea of photocopying and labeling one "whites only" and the other "blacks only".

Click to expand...

I grant you the point and concede that using the orange example actually hurt my argument. However, I maintain my point in light of the difference between solid objects and an more intangible "item" such as law. The book example is more apt. It doesn't matter what you label a bible, the message is still the same. It doesn't matter what you label the law the effect is still the same.

Let me give you a fantastic example. Car rental companies allow the renter on the form, and a spouse, to drive the rental car. A spouse through marriage, not through civil union. Are you really suggesting that the government should impose that businesses have to treat two different legal statuses exactly the same, curtailing their liberty to operate as they see fit, instead of merely not discriminating against people?

Click to expand...

Now this takes me to a completely different area, as I see a major difference in how government should and shouldn't interact with the citizenry and how the individuals within the citizenry would and shouldn't interact with each other. I am a firm believer that individuals and business should be allowed to discriminate IF they choose to do so. This is a stance that is NOT at all like the Jim Crow laws in that those laws FORCED businesses to discriminate, which I find equally wrong. Also please do not take my position of what I think the law should allow with how I would run my business or what businesses I would frequent. What I think is right and what I think should be legal may or may not coincide with one another. So in the example not only would I support a business' right that disallows the partner in a civil union to be added onto the rental, I also support a business' right that disallows a spouse in a marriage to be added onto the rental. Conversely, and more in line with your question, if the law states that a person HAS to be added if they hold the married status, then that law should have been copied into the civil union law. All of that is irrelevant since the company can make the policy that they will allow whomever they wish as another driver, and will maybe add the spouse of one marriage but not the spouse of another.

AGENT J said:

1.) and yet when put to the test marriage was more binding than anything and civil unions and domestic partnerships failed this test.
2.) well this is what im asking, nothing as been able to do this like marriage has so why do you think this new system that would could do it?
3.) "rermove the romantic context" we can do that now and people do already

Click to expand...

That is because we as a society decided to stop challenging marriage as a gold standard of contracts. No other reason. But if too many more people like me pop up, that won't last long.

People do it, but the problem is that it's not very flexible and it doesn't really allow for complex legal assignment. It also leaves a lot of people with perfectly valid rights or tax claims completely out in the cold. It's better to simply remove it from that context completely, because then there is no reason to keep denying people customization for their legal needs.

Gina said:

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.

Click to expand...

The tax code is insane as per relationship status, and a lot of these things -- penalties and perks both -- just shouldn't exist.

But overall, single people get bled like a sacrificial lamb compared to marrieds, when it comes to taxes. This is true even in home sharing situations. Why? Why don't people who share resources to pay for their living, regardless of relationship status, get these tax credits? And why are they so incredibly steep?

But, you know, come to think of it, why the hell is the tax rate lower for a couple, and why should it be lower for non-romantic house sharers? They spend less money on living. Single people are the ones spending most of their income on the basics.

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

Click to expand...

As the tribulations of gay couples have shown, it is exceptionally expensive for a non-familiar member to get joint custody without marriage, even if both parties want it. Sometimes the courts simply deny it outright. One partner adopts/has the child, and the other partner if forced to essentially adopt it.

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

Click to expand...

See above. Also, like I said, altering provisions in a marriage license is sometimes impossible, and sometimes costly and timely due to basically having to start from scratch. I would see each of these issues with a "standard" license for simplicity.

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.

Click to expand...

Because I feel it is unjust for the government to wield such power over our personal relationships. It's just begging for bigotry, which is exactly the reason it was implemented as a legal institution in the first place, and it's still carrying out that purpose today.

The entire idea of making romantic relationships legal on the BASIS that they are romantic was flawed and a huge over-reach right from the get-go.

If you want your marriage to have a traditional set of marriage rights, go and be merry.

But the question is, why do you feel it's so important for the government to know you're in a relationship?

Goshin said:

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....

Click to expand...

Sure. Spit on it.

Paschendale said:

Keeping your standard in mind, explain to me how separate drinking fountains, or a separate place on the bus are unconstitutional, but separate types of marriage aren't. They were, in theory, exactly the same. That was the legal principal by which blacks and whites had to drink from separate fountains. It was exactly the idea of photocopying and labeling one "whites only" and the other "blacks only".

Let me give you a fantastic example. Car rental companies allow the renter on the form, and a spouse, to drive the rental car. A spouse through marriage, not through civil union. Are you really suggesting that the government should impose that businesses have to treat two different legal statuses exactly the same, curtailing their liberty to operate as they see fit, instead of merely not discriminating against people?

Click to expand...

Another example would be if when African-Americans were granted the right to vote and otherwise equality, it was also declared that when the Constitution was written, "all men" did not include blacks, so historically it would be inaccurate to call blacks "men" and "women" - plus this would offend non-blacks who are entitled to their historic traditions. So all government forms and legal contracts of any kind could not refer to black people as "man" or "woman." Rather, African-Americans could ONLY be referred to "Negro" and "Negroes."

That's certainly a fair compromise for slaves to have equal legal status, right?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

The tax code is insane as per relationship status, and a lot of these things -- penalties and perks both -- just shouldn't exist.

But overall, single people get bled like a sacrificial lamb compared to marrieds, when it comes to taxes. This is true even in home sharing situations. Why? Why don't people who share resources to pay for their living, regardless of relationship status, get these tax credits? And why are they so incredibly steep?

But, you know, come to think of it, why the hell is the tax rate lower for a couple, and why should it be lower for non-romantic house sharers? They spend less money on living. Single people are the ones spending most of their income on the basics.



As the tribulations of gay couples have shown, it is exceptionally expensive for a non-familiar member to get joint custody without marriage, even if both parties want it. Sometimes the courts simply deny it outright. One partner adopts/has the child, and the other partner if forced to essentially adopt it.



See above. Also, like I said, altering provisions in a marriage license is sometimes impossible, and sometimes costly and timely due to basically having to start from scratch. I would see each of these issues with a "standard" license for simplicity.



Because I feel it is unjust for the government to wield such power over our personal relationships. It's just begging for bigotry, which is exactly the reason it was implemented as a legal institution in the first place, and it's still carrying out that purpose today.

The entire idea of making romantic relationships legal on the BASIS that they are romantic was flawed and a huge over-reach right from the get-go.

If you want your marriage to have a traditional set of marriage rights, go and be merry.

But the question is, why do you feel it's so important for the government to know you're in a relationship?

Click to expand...

1. Which tax credits? Please S&M. I'm trying to understand but you are not being specific. The tax rate is not lower for marrieds. There is a marriage "penalty" in fact.

The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples, where spouses are making approximately the same taxable income, filing one tax return ("married filing jointly") than for the same two people filing two separate tax returns if they were unmarried (i.e., filing as "single", not "married filing separately"). The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates.The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples, where spouses are making approximately the same taxable income, filing one tax return ("married filing jointly") than for the same two people filing two separate tax returns if they were unmarried (i.e., filing as "single", not "married filing separately"). The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates.

Click to expand...

2. I agree, it should be less expensive and more easily accomplished.
3. You haven't been specific here either. Which issues? Above you are speaking of taxes or adoption.
4. But the fact is you can make legal all your needs. I have agreed, it should be made easier and less costly. I

As I've stated at length throughout this thread and to you directly, if a couple wants to commit to a long term relationship, a marriage grants rights and protections and in order to do that, the government has to know. Sticking with the 401k situation, unmarried, but having helped a partner to obtain an education that will reap a high paying job with the understanding there would be a benefit to the helping partner, that partner can be left in the dust with nothing but that verbal promise. A marriage gives that partner the right to their share of what was gained during the relationship. It is foolish to enter such a partnership without protection. The government enables that protection. A person is welcome to sue for such, but good luck without a contract.

I wish you would just make a list. It would make this easier to discuss. I don't understand what power the government wields over your relationship. Don't get married. It's all good. It just so happens relationships where people agree to be together and work for the benefit of each other as a pair and possibly raise children, are romantically formed and all parties need legal protection.

Lightning said:

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.

Click to expand...

When they legalized interracial marriages, they didn't argue that nobody should be married in order to stop blacks and whites from intermarrying, did they? No, they just gave them the same rights that everyone else had. I honestly doubt that anyone who isn't a libertarian, and that makes it the vast majority, would tell anyone who suggested we stop giving them benefits for being married, would tell that individual where to shove it.

Gina said:

1. Which tax credits? Please S&M. I'm trying to understand but you are not being specific. The tax rate is not lower for marrieds. There is a marriage "penalty" in fact.

Click to expand...

One example (there are hundreds -- singles paying more is a cumulative thing, not a matter of a single law or bracket) is that the income threshold is a lot lower for paying income tax for singles. Singles pay income tax once they pass the poverty threshold. Marrieds don't.

Being single costs more in taxes over time. Like I said, there's no single law, or even a handful of laws. It's a thousand little penalties over the course of ones single years.

2. I agree, it should be less expensive and more easily accomplished.
3. You haven't been specific here either. Which issues? Above you are speaking of taxes or adoption.
4. But the fact is you can make legal all your needs. I have agreed, it should be made easier and less costly. I

As I've stated at length throughout this thread and to you directly, if a couple wants to commit to a long term relationship, a marriage grants rights and protections and in order to do that, the government has to know. Sticking with the 401k situation, unmarried, but having helped a partner to obtain an education that will reap a high paying job with the understanding there would be a benefit to the helping partner, that partner can be left in the dust with nothing but that verbal promise. A marriage gives that partner the right to their share of what was gained during the relationship. It is foolish to enter such a partnership without protection. The government enables that protection. A person is welcome to sue for such, but good luck without a contract.

I wish you would just make a list. It would make this easier to discuss. I don't understand what power the government wields over your relationship. Don't get married. It's all good. It just so happens relationships where people agree to be together and work for the benefit of each other as a pair and possibly raise children, are romantically formed and all parties need legal protection.

Click to expand...

If marriage offered no advantages, I doubt gay people would be fighting so hard for it. After all, it was actually family-oriented republicans who first pushed for it -- not gays. It wasn't until gay relationships were able to function more "above board" that they realized what a huge disadvantage it was in terms of child care, medical care, taxes, etc.

I also know straight couples who were against marriage who wound up getting married for these exact reasons.

I gave you another specific example in the form of the difficulties of child custody which you haven't addressed, by the by.

I am not arguing against having a contract. I am arguing against tying that contract to a relationship status. I don't know how many different ways to say it.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

One example (there are hundreds -- singles paying more is a cumulative thing, not a matter of a single law or bracket) is that the income threshold is a lot lower for paying income tax for singles. Singles pay income tax once they pass the poverty threshold. Marrieds don't.

Being single costs more in taxes over time. Like I said, there's no single law, or even a handful of laws. It's a thousand little penalties over the course of ones single years.



If marriage offered no advantages, I doubt gay people would be fighting so hard for it. After all, it was actually family-oriented republicans who first pushed for it -- not gays. It wasn't until gay relationships were able to function more "above board" that they realized what a huge disadvantage it was in terms of child care, medical care, taxes, etc.

I also know straight couples who were against marriage who wound up getting married for these exact reasons.

I gave you another specific example in the form of the difficulties of child custody which you haven't addressed, by the by.

I am not arguing against having a contract. I am arguing against tying that contract to a relationship status. I don't know how many different ways to say it.

Click to expand...

I did address the child custody, two replies ago. I suggested adoption. You commented it was difficult and I agreed, it should be made easier. The only way to protect the child and each parent's rights, that I can see, is adoption.

I said, it just so happens that the relationship forms on a romantic basis. What you have it tied to?

Gina said:

I did address the child custody, two replies ago. I suggested adoption. You commented it was difficult and I agreed, it should be made easier. The only way to protect the child and each parent's rights, that I can see, is adoption.

I said, it just so happens that the relationship forms on a romantic basis. What you have it tied to?

Click to expand...

Nothing. It's your personal legal arrangements, no one has any place asking you why, and you can call it whatever you want.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Nothing. It's your personal legal arrangements, no one has any place asking you why, and you can call it whatever you want.

Click to expand...

Then what do you propose to execute the legal arrangement? A series of legal filings? You can do that now.

Gina said:

Then what do you propose to execute the legal arrangement? A series of legal filings? You can do that now.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to start this whole posting loop over again with you.

1. Not always.
2. Not easily, when you can.
3. It's none of the government's business.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I'm not going to start this whole posting loop over again with you.

1. Not always.
2. Not easily, when you can.
3. It's none of the government's business.

Click to expand...

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.