The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
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.
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?
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!"
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!"
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!"
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.
Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"
Excuse me, but I have always endorsed same-sex marriage rights. I realize society isn't ready for the radical idea that the government needs to get out of our bedrooms entirely.
And a lack of a marriage contract does not mean a couple can't raise children. More and more people are choosing to cohabitate without marriage for lots of different reasons, and many raise children just fine. In fact, most homosexual couples raise children without a marriage license (which, unfortunately, is harder for them due to them being denied the right to assign their own legal childcare rights to each other).
Allowing government to be the ultimate validator of a relationship does not guarantee a stable home for a family. If it did, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
Lack of a marriage contract complicates everything if the relationship dissolves. Disposition of assets accumulated during the relationship becomes a very sticky wicket. Custody issues are made more difficult. I know women and men both who's spouses attempted to abscond with everything. Without a marriage certificate, they would have spent much more time in court establishing their rightful claim. The government is pulled into these messes, and so it behooves the government to provide a shortcut through the mire.
I agree, you should be able to assign rights outside of marriage, but getting rid of marriage altogether, would be a disaster.
No, not really.
You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.
For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.
That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.
No, not really.
You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.
For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.
That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.
You can do that now it's just expensive and time consuming to draw up legal documents for each individual right that a spouse assumes. With a marriage document bam....someone has a list of rights conveyed to them with a 50 dollar marriage license (may vary by state). It's convient.
You can do that now it's just expensive and time consuming to draw up legal documents for each individual right that a spouse assumes. With a marriage document bam....someone has a list of rights conveyed to them with a 50 dollar marriage license (may vary by state). It's convient.
And you have to execute each document separately.
Marriage is a one stop, all-purpose contract. In addition to marriage, what you suggest, fine, but not in place of it. It exists now for the purpose of status and protection, for a reason.
That's how it is now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just have a standard contract for a particular issue just like we do for marriage. If the person feels like it, then they can take more time and make their own.
There's no reason it has to take any more time than just signing the dotted line. Just because it does now doesn't mean that's how it must be.
Are you arguing against marriage? Or just the ability to file documents to cover people not in a marriage?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?