• 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!

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?


  • Total voters
    105
Muslims are allowed to have 4 wives. Some extremist sects of the Mormon faith allow multiple wives. Should we treat them as second class citizens too?

Why would we? If there was a campaign to bring back polygamy, I'd vote for it. I think it's stupid for women but I believe in equal rights and personal liberty. Choice.

However any legislation IMO would only be able to accord them the same tax breaks/benefits as couples, no more, no less.
 
Why would we? If there was a campaign to bring back polygamy, I'd vote for it. I think it's stupid for women but I believe in equal rights and personal liberty. Choice.

However any legislation IMO would only be able to accord them the same tax breaks/benefits as couples, no more, no less.



:lamo


For years now I've been saying that people are going to start arguing that, and been called a Slippery-Slope-Fallacymongerer for it :lol:
 
If you voted "Never" do you really think SSM will never come to pass nationally? Or is that just a protest vote against something you know is inevitable?
 
:lamo


For years now I've been saying that people are going to start arguing that, and been called a Slippery-Slope-Fallacymongerer for it :lol:

I dont see it as a slippery slope issue because it's between consenting adults. I dont see it happening but if there were enough people that supported it, I could not say it was wrong, immoral (again, I think it's dumb for women but that's their problem).

Just IMO, slippery slope applies to things like marrying your dog...which cannot consent. Or pedophiles being allowed to marry children. Again, consent.
 
:lamo


For years now I've been saying that people are going to start arguing that, and been called a Slippery-Slope-Fallacymongerer for it :lol:

I disagreed with anyone argueing against polygamy following SSM. I know that even other restrictions to marriage might be brought up but if the marriage has to do with people or things that cant consent then it wont be the same arugement and I wont support it.
 
I dont see it as a slippery slope issue because it's between consenting adults.

I made the same argument. It's not a slippery slope - there is no slope.
 
Are people required to celebrate every time same sex marriage is legalized somewhere if they support same sex marriage?

Lursa was crossing her fingers. I found that odd. I just don't see why the average person would be excited about it even if they did support it. I find that very strange. That's all.

But now every single state (I think ND was the last and they just filed) has approved or is processing this legislation. Or has court challenges open.

Is it going to take more than 5 yrs for those remaining court challenges to be resolved?

It's just IMO but I believe all the remaining court challenges will be resolved in favor of SSM so then we'd see nationwide SSM in 5 yrs or less.

(Fingers crossed)
 
Lursa was crossing her fingers. I found that odd. I just don't see why the average person would be excited about it even if they did support it. I find that very strange. That's all.

We're excited about it because it means more equality within our country and some of us value that, very highly. We feel that people should not get treated unfairly because of things such as sexuality, especially not by the government. Legal marriage is controlled by the government.
 
We're excited about it because it means more equality within our country and some of us value that, very highly. We feel that people should not get treated unfairly because of things such as sexuality, especially not by the government. Legal marriage is controlled by the government.

I"m pretty psyched about pot being legalized here too and I dont use it. I see it as progress and something that will lessen crime and tax $$ being sucked out of my pocket. And as a stroke for personal liberty and against hypocrisy (much like SSM)
 
I"m pretty psyched about pot being legalized here too and I dont use it. I see it as progress and something that will lessen crime and tax $$ being sucked out of my pocket. And as a stroke for personal liberty and against hypocrisy (much like SSM)

For pot, I'm more reserved. I support legalizing it for medical use completely (although I would prefer that we actually research things like vaporizers, which would likely be at least a little better than smoking it), and for decriminalizing it. I also support working on getting farms set up that are sustainable. But, I don't think pot being legalized is going to be as "great" as some believe. There are going to be some major issues, and the cost is going to be pretty high, to begin with at least. There is no doubt that the federal government (once they do realize the inevitable change here) is going to want to tax it, as are the states that legalize it.
 
You say nothing like the IRS scandal has happened in the US before?
Wrong. It's already happened.

In 2012, two women filed a law suit in New Jersey court because a Methodist Church prevented their SS civil union ceremony from being performed in a pavilion owned by said NJ Methodist Church. The pavilion had been rented out only for marriages because
it's a religious structure of that NJ Methodist Church, and SS civil unions are not recognized according to the United Methodist Church Book of Disipline.

Due to the NJ Methodist Church's refusal to rent the pavilion for SS union, New Jersey punished the NJ Methodist Church, and revoked its tax free status in NJ.


Link to support this claim?

Here is what really happened...

1. It wasn't a Church, here is a list of Methodist Churches in the United States, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not on it -->> Methodist Church Directory.

2. If it were a Church, then Church property would have already been exempt from property taxes as are the grounds of other Churches. However they were not, the OGCMA facilities were not receiving the religious exemptions for property taxes, which is why the applied for a special exemption under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.

3. As part of that program they agreed to make the pavilion open to the public, they reneged on their word and so the Special Tax Exemption for public places was withdrawn.

4. In addition to the initial application, this community group had to periodically re-certify their application and so they repeatedly said the Pavilion would be open to the public for the property tax exemption.

From the recent ruling:

"The relevant facts for purposes of the cross-motions are substantially undisputed." In other words the OGCMA agreed and did not dispute the facts as presented regarding the denial of services to members of the public nor what they agreed to under the Green Acres Program.

"At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, but respondent also hosted community and charitable events and rented the space for weddings." The respondents acknowledged that the pavilion was used for events other than religious services.

"This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability." In the 18-years that the OGCMA had received the special exemption under the Green Acres Program, no one remembered an application for use ever being denied unless the pavilion was already booked.

"In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2)." Green Acres Program = Open for Public Use. Deny the public use of the facility when it would be otherwise available is a violation of the participation requirements of the program.

"Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation." The township pointed out that future use by the public might conflict with religious poilicies, the OGCMA said (to paraphrase), nope - the public will have access without reservation. They then reapplied for the same special exemption every 3-years for the next 15-years. New Jersey implemented legal recognition for Same-sex Civil Unions in 2003. Let's see, renewal of the program applications would have occured in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 - so AFTER Civil Unions were made legal in 2003, they still applied for the exemption in 2004 instead of letting it lapse so they could be more selective on public utilization.

"Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application." As the Judge points out. What matters in the case are the conditions applicable to 2007. It's not the Judges fault the OGCMA applied for the wrong exemption. The fact remains that as long as they applied for the Green Acres Program exemption, they were bound by it's rules. Don't want to play by those rules, apply for a different exemption (which is what they did after the fact).

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1



Here's an example from Boston, Massachusetts in 2006. Boston Catholic Services ran an adoption agency placing children with families. The Catholic Church announced, rather than submitting to Massachusetts' law requiring the agency place children with SSM couples, that Boston Catholic Services would be closed down because a current 2003 Vatican document described SSM adoptions as gravely 'immoral'.


Not factually accurate. Catholic Charities was not required by law to place adoptive children with same-sex couples, the Bishops of Massachusetts CHOOSE to get out of providing the service under government contract. If they wanted to provide private services they are free to do so.

Catholic Charities of Boston could have continued to provide adoption services as a private agency. During the time in question Catholic Charities operated under a state contract taking in approximately $1,000,000 for it's adoption program from the taxpayers (Source: Catholic News Service 3/13/2006).

Catholic Charities still operates in other parts of Massachusetts.

Catholic Charities providing adoption...

Massachusetts Adoption Agencies, Professionals, Services, Centers in
Massachusetts Adoption Directory

Catholic Charities Center of the Old Colony Area
686 N. Main Street
Brockton, MA 02301
(508) 587-0815

Catholic Charities of Cambridge and Somerville
270 Washington Street
Somerville, MA 02143
(617) 625-1920

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Worcester
10 Hammond Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1513
(508) 798-0191
Fax: (508) 797-5659

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Worcester, Inc.
53 Highland Avenue
Fitchburg, MA 01420
(978) 343-4879

Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc.
783 Slade Street, PO Box M South Station
Fall River, MA 02720
(508) 674-4681
Fax: (508) 675-2224​

If private agencies can't provide placement on their religious beliefs how come other Catholic Charities in the state can still provide adoption services?



>>>>
 
You split hairs when you say an agency that wishes not to indulge in the SSM ideology is still allowed to receive monetary funding from private agencies. For one, this monetary assistance is not as great as can be received from the gov't. For two, the funds the gov't obtains for its promotions of SSM comes from taxes from you and me.

The gov't IS promoting a SSM ideology. Last I checked (and it was recent), a majority of Americans are against gay marriage. This contradicts the propaganda of many SSM advocates, that a majority of Americans are for gay marriage. Most Americans are for equal rights for gays. Most Americans don't see gay marriage as an equal rights issue for gays. Only judges.. er.. ideologues do. Even over the wishes of those in the state they attempt to 'service'.

Why should SSM advocates even care if a majority of Americans accept gay marriage as an equality issue for gays? They heartily accept the oligarchic decisions of ideological judges.
Besides, these judges seem incapable of nullifying their current precedent (that gays, for the sake of equality, deserve marriage) after they nullified their previous precedent (that, for the sake of equality, gays didn't deserve marriage... but a union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage).
 
Last edited:
You split hairs when you say an agency that wishes not to indulge in the SSM ideology is still allowed to receive monetary funding from private agencies. For one, this monetary assistance is not as great as can be received from the gov't. For two, the funds the gov't obtains for its promotions of SSM comes from taxes from you and me.

The gov't IS promoting a SSM ideology. Last I checked (and it was recent), a majority of Americans are against gay marriage. This contradicts the propaganda of many SSM advocates, that a majority of Americans are for gay marriage. Most Americans are for equal rights for gays. Most Americans don't see gay marriage as an equal rights issue for gays. Only judges.. er.. ideologues do. Even over the wishes of those in the state they attempt to 'service'.

Why should SSM advocates even care if a majority of Americans accept gay marriage as an equality issue for gays? They heartily accept the oligarchic decisions of ideological judges.
Besides, these judges seem incapable of nullifying their current precedent (that gays, for the sake of equality, deserve marriage) after they nullified their previous precedent (that, for the sake of equality, gays didn't deserve marriage... but a union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage).

A majority of Americans support same sex marriage. It must not have been that recent.

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

The majority have been in support of same sex marriage consistently for at least a year now. And most Americans, particularly young Americans absolutely do see same sex marriage as an equal rights issue.

Poll Numbers Indicate Gay Marriage Is a Civil Rights Issue

Civil Rights

The precedent that same sex marriage was not a civil rights issue was set over 40 years ago, long before support for same sex marriage was even at 25%, before any country, let alone US state allowed same sex couples to marry, before sodomy laws were struck down, before even DOMA, and even before homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder.
 
You split hairs when you say an agency that wishes not to indulge in the SSM ideology is still allowed to receive monetary funding from private agencies. For one, this monetary assistance is not as great as can be received from the gov't.

The implication was that Massachusetts banned private adoption agencies from placing children with same-sex couples. That is not true as there are many Catholic Charities still functioning in Massachusetts. They were not banned from running the agency as they saw fit, it was just that they couldn't expect the taxpayers to fund them any more.

For two, the funds the gov't obtains for its promotions of SSM comes from taxes from you and me.

And the funds the gov't obtains comes from homosexuals whose dollars to which they were not allowed equal services.

Last I checked (and it was recent), a majority of Americans are against gay marriage.

Must of been awhile since you checked.

The last 4 SSCM general election ballot initiatives were lost by the anti-marriage equality group.

In addition consistent polling (on a national level) has shown a shift in acceptance of SSCM.


y0ffodnhgeejsgoevfw40w.png





>>>>
 
1.)You split hairs when you say an agency that wishes not to indulge in the SSM ideology is still allowed to receive monetary funding from private agencies. For one, this monetary assistance is not as great as can be received from the gov't. For two, the funds the gov't obtains for its promotions of SSM comes from taxes from you and me.

2.)The gov't IS promoting a SSM ideology.
3.)Last I checked (and it was recent), a majority of Americans are against gay marriage.
4.) This contradicts the propaganda of many SSM advocates, that a majority of Americans are for gay marriage.
5.) Most Americans are for equal rights for gays.
6.) Most Americans don't see gay marriage as an equal rights issue for gays.
7.) Even over the wishes of those in the state they attempt to 'service'.

8.) Why should SSM advocates even care if a majority of Americans accept gay marriage as an equality issue for gays? They heartily accept the oligarchic decisions of ideological judges.
Besides, these judges seem incapable of nullifying their current precedent (that gays, for the sake of equality, deserve marriage) after they nullified their previous precedent (that, for the sake of equality, gays didn't deserve marriage... but a union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage).

1.) you are the only onw splitting hairs your dishonest inaccurate stories were proven wrong and there's no rights violation in reality.
2.) factually false they are simply protecting rights
3.)wrong again, check again because the majority of americans are for equal rights but whats even better is it doesnt matter. Its nice the majority of americans are not hateful bigots on this topic but since its a rights issue it doesnt matter
4.) polls show they are but again see #3
5.) correct which is equal rights
6.) not true and this would make them idiots since they are the same
7.) yes OVER that state because the state has not right to violate individual rights
8.) as far as i know they dont its just a bonus
9.) thats wouldnt be equal

do you have any arguments that are accurate, based on facts or actually matter to equal rights?
 
But now every single state (I think ND was the last and they just filed) has approved or is processing this legislation. Or has court challenges open.

Is it going to take more than 5 yrs for those remaining court challenges to be resolved?

It's just IMO but I believe all the remaining court challenges will be resolved in favor of SSM so then we'd see nationwide SSM in 5 yrs or less.

(Fingers crossed)

Functionally though, both our points is that the judicial system is causing it much faster than the legislative process.
 
Functionally though, both our points is that the judicial system is causing it much faster than the legislative process.

That may be true. However just IMO...how long should people have to wait for their rights? If it is the right thing to do, then they should not have to wait at all. It took 100 yrs from the end of the Civil War to end Jim Crow and unfortunately, I dont believe it's completely removed yet.

Sometimes it's a matter of momentum in society. Should that be ignored?
 
That may be true. However just IMO...how long should people have to wait for their rights? If it is the right thing to do, then they should not have to wait at all. It took 100 yrs from the end of the Civil War to end Jim Crow and unfortunately, I dont believe it's completely removed yet.

Sometimes it's a matter of momentum in society. Should that be ignored?

I agree that gay marriage should be available nation wide right now. Frankly, it should have been available from the beginning as there was no rational reason to be against it. The ideology for the Defense of Marriage act was just bigotry and if we apply the same logic given to deny gays the right to marry, such as inability to have children we'd have to bar many straights from getting married as well. Notice we don't do that. Fundamentally the only reason people are against Gay Marriage is because they find it icky for some reason or another.
 
Back
Top Bottom