What should civil marriage be in the US? (1 Viewer)

[Vandeervecken]

All Options In Poll Presume All Parties Are Legally Consenting Adults.

What should the civil contract called marriage be in the United States. A nations whose Constitution bans anything respecting an establishment of religion should obviously have more choices than those limited by the dominant religious group.

 

[Vandeervecken]

As civil marriage is nothing more than the incorporation of multiple people into one socio-economic unit, I see no rational reason to restrict it to the current one man and one woman.

Persons should be able to set their own contractual limits as to what their marriage is.

Sans a compelling state interest the government has no reason to stop this.

 

[aps]

I see your point. I'm not ready to see a marriage of 3 or more people. But I fully support allowing any two people to get hitched. Woo hoo!

 

[Vandeervecken]

I see your point. I'm not ready to see a marriage of 3 or more people. But I fully support allowing any two people to get hitched. Woo hoo!

I'm curious, if you see my point, how can you disagree with it?

 

[Kandahar]

As far as I'm concerned, a marriage should only be a contract in the eyes of the government, nothing more. With that said, I don't see any reason that any number of consenting adults of any gender shouldn't be allowed to enter into it. Now I'm fully aware that this would require the complete overhaul of a lot of federal laws on everything from child custody to immigration to income tax (which realistically means it's probably not worth the hassle), but in *theory* I don't see any fundamental reason that any number of consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to get married.

 

[Vandeervecken]

As far as I'm concerned, a marriage should only be a contract in the eyes of the government, nothing more. With that said, I don't see any reason that any number of consenting adults of any gender shouldn't be allowed to enter into it. Now I'm fully aware that this would require the complete overhaul of a lot of federal laws on everything from child custody to immigration to income tax (which realistically means it's probably not worth the hassle), but in *theory* I don't see any fundamental reason that any number of consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to get married.

I agree as to what it should be. I think all of those things need to get overhauled anyway!

 

[aps]

I'm curious, if you see my point, how can you disagree with it?

I don't agree with it--it's that simple. I can see how people get hooked on alcohol, but I don't agree with it. I can see how people could enjoy engaging in an orgy, but I don't agree with it. You get the picture.

 

[cherokee]

any two people over the age of 18.

 

[aquapub]

Copied from another gay poll thread:



Did you hear that Conservatives have been proven right about their "slippery slope" argument involving gay marriage? (i.e., if you legalize gay marriage, then the undefining of marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy)

Canada legalized gay marriage. Just recently, they were forced to eat their words on polygamy:


http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.lib...951627ba0a281b

 

[Engimo]

Copied from another gay poll thread:



Did you hear that Conservatives have been proven right about their "slippery slope" argument involving gay marriage? (i.e., if you legalize gay marriage, then the undefining of marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy)

Canada legalized gay marriage. Just recently, they were forced to eat their words on polygamy:


http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.lib...951627ba0a281b

And, as I said in the other thread, the problem with the slippery slope that many conservatives push is not the jump to the legalization of polygamy, it is the claim that gay marriage will lead to the legalization of necrophilia, bestiality, rape, paedophilia, etc - all of which are fundamentally different from the consenting contract between adults that homosexual or polyamorous marriage is.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Copied from another gay poll thread:



Did you hear that Conservatives have been proven right about their "slippery slope" argument involving gay marriage? (i.e., if you legalize gay marriage, then the undefining of marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy)

Canada legalized gay marriage. Just recently, they were forced to eat their words on polygamy:


http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.lib...951627ba0a281b

So?

If three people wish to get married, what do I care? I don't.

More importantly, why do you care?

 

[RightinNYC]

As civil marriage is nothing more than the incorporation of multiple people into one socio-economic unit, I see no rational reason to restrict it to the current one man and one woman.

Persons should be able to set their own contractual limits as to what their marriage is.

Sans a compelling state interest the government has no reason to stop this.

The compelling state interests of continuing the current tax, responsibility, and right structure that results from when two people enter into a contract is easily compelling enough to prevent the extension of legal civil unions into group affairs.

As a personal matter, by all means go ahead. But in a legal sense, two is it.

 

[RightinNYC]

So?

If three people wish to get married, what do I care? I don't.

More importantly, why do you care?

Well, I care because the state has an interest in collecting taxes and maintaining property rights, all of which would be harmed by expanding legal unions in this fashion.

You see how complicated issues of deadbeat parents, divorces, custody, and taxes are now, now imagine a group fo ten people who are all "married," with 7 or 8 kids all by different parents and mothers, some with jobs and some without, all wanting to get divorced, all wanting to move different ways.

The state has the right to pass laws to protect its interests, and in a case like this, group marriage would never be allowed.

 

[Vandeervecken]

The compelling state interests of continuing the current tax, responsibility, and right structure that results from when two people enter into a contract is easily compelling enough to prevent the extension of legal civil unions into group affairs.

As a personal matter, by all means go ahead. But in a legal sense, two is it.

LOL, that is not complelling state interest. Try again. "Right structure." LOL

So you are right becasue you are right. Laughable.

 

[RightinNYC]

LOL, that is not complelling state interest. Try again. "Right structure." LOL

So you are right becasue you are right. Laughable.

You misread. The state has a compelling interest in continuing the current tax structure, responsibility structure, and right structure (i.e. custody of children, survivors rights, etc).

And did you actually have a rebuttal for anything, or would you just prefer to snipe back and forth again?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well, I care because the state has an interest in collecting taxes and maintaining property rights, all of which would be harmed by expanding legal unions in this fashion.

You see how complicated issues of deadbeat parents, divorces, custody, and taxes are now, now imagine a group fo ten people who are all "married," with 7 or 8 kids all by different parents and mothers, some with jobs and some without, all wanting to get divorced, all wanting to move different ways.

The state has the right to pass laws to protect its interests, and in a case like this, group marriage would never be allowed.

So, because it might make a bureaucrat's life complicated, the freedom of individuals must be limited.

That's a wonderful reason!:doh

 

[Vandeervecken]

You misread. The state has a compelling interest in continuing the current tax structure, responsibility structure, and right structure (i.e. custody of children, survivors rights, etc).

The denial of rights for convenience is not a compelling state interest. Your argument didn't stand for interracial marriage, womens rights, and civil rights for non-whites, it is no more valid here.

Once again you demand that what is now is the only possible right structure. Your arrogance in that your idea is the only possible right structure is amusing, especially when your only argument for it is that changing things involves changing things.

And did you actually have a rebuttal for anything, or would you just prefer to snipe back and forth again?

Give us something other than your, "My structure is right and you are wrong," to rebut. Otherwise we will just make fun of your silly claims. Although that is like grenade fishing in an aquarium. Too easy.

 

[Kandahar]

So, because it might make a bureaucrat's life complicated, the freedom of individuals must be limited.

That's a wonderful reason!:doh

Our leaders need to pick their battles, and from a pragmatic perspective, reforming all of the necessary laws so that more than two people can get married just doesn't sound like a wise use of political capital. There's not that great of a demand for this freedom, and the political headache of trying to restructure all of the necessary laws just doesn't seem worth it.

Theoretically, of course, there's no reason to prevent more than two people from getting married. But realistically there's no reason to go through the hassle of changing the laws.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Our leaders need to pick their battles, and from a pragmatic perspective, reforming all of the necessary laws so that more than two people can get married just doesn't sound like a wise use of political capital. There's not that great of a demand for this freedom, and the political headache of trying to restructure all of the necessary laws just doesn't seem worth it.

Theoretically, of course, there's no reason to prevent more than two people from getting married. But realistically there's no reason to go through the hassle of changing the laws.

The reason to change the laws is because they unjustly limit freedom.

Not that I don't understand what you're saying. I do indeed. It certainly would be a nightmare for the state for figure out how much it gets from the death of someone and how much the surviving family gets. Maybe things would be simpler if the state didn't tax inheritances? Sounds reasonable to me.

And yeah, then there's the divorce settlement issues, and child support issues, and child custody issues (which factor alone could justifiably scuttle polygamous marriages, since then argument covers the welfare of the child, first, as it should.)

So, while I'm thoroughly in favor of letting people marry whomever and how many ever they want to, I'm not under any delusions that it's going to happen.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Copied from another gay poll thread:

Did you hear that Conservatives have been proven right about their "slippery slope" argument involving gay marriage? (i.e., if you legalize gay marriage, then the undefining of marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy)

Canada legalized gay marriage. Just recently, they were forced to eat their words on polygamy:

http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.lib...951627ba0a281b

Your link is no good.

BTW - There have been polygamists in the US for years. Ever here of Mormons?

 

[Vandeervecken]

Our leaders need to pick their battles, and from a pragmatic perspective, reforming all of the necessary laws so that more than two people can get married just doesn't sound like a wise use of political capital. There's not that great of a demand for this freedom, and the political headache of trying to restructure all of the necessary laws just doesn't seem worth it.

Our leaders? If only we really had some. So if justice, rights, and the law are inconvienant, the government should be allowed to ignore them in your world? Look at how many laws had to be changed concerning women during their rights movement. A century ago women couldn't vote, own property, had no rights really at all. Many, many laws had to be changed that were not convinenet. Should we then strip women of their rights becasue this was a mistake?

Theoretically, of course, there's no reason to prevent more than two people from getting married. But realistically there's no reason to go through the hassle of changing the laws.

I find it disgusting, immoral, and just plain sad that you would value the convenience of our lawmakers over basic human rights. I'd started to develop a much higher opinion of you than that. I am saddened to see I was wrong.

 

[Kandahar]

Our leaders? If only we really had some. So if justice, rights, and the law are inconvienant, the government should be allowed to ignore them in your world?

How about they focus on maximizing the amount of improvement they can make to our justice and rights, rather than going through an enormous amount of trouble to change something that almost no one even cares about? This issue does not exist in a vacuum and must be weighed in the context of other more important priorities.

Look at how many laws had to be changed concerning women during their rights movement. A century ago women couldn't vote, own property, had no rights really at all. Many, many laws had to be changed that were not convinenet. Should we then strip women of their rights becasue this was a mistake?

Are polygamists 50% of our population? Are polygamists even 0.50% of our population? The government needs to prioritize; why should it completely overhaul all of our laws for an issue where there's not even a big demand for change, when they can more effectively spend political capital elsewhere?

I find it disgusting, immoral, and just plain sad that you would value the convenience of our lawmakers over basic human rights. I'd started to develop a much higher opinion of you than that. I am saddened to see I was wrong.

Well I find it naive, idealistic, and irrational that you would place a non-issue like this that would require enormous amounts of change, above issues where our leaders actually would be able to give people more freedom for a modest amount of political capital.

 

[Vandeervecken]

How about they focus on maximizing the amount of improvement they can make to our justice and rights, rather than going through an enormous amount of trouble to change something that almost no one even cares about? This issue does not exist in a vacuum and must be weighed in the context of other more important priorities.

I see few, on fact issues I consider more important. Gun rights beats it out, and the GOP attack on the 4th amendment as well. After that I think this issue is where the battle against the creeping theocracy is being waged. What issues do you consider more vital? In general though I will tell you I see no case where the government is usurping rights that I do not think should be fought.

Are polygamists 50% of our population? Are polygamists even 0.50% of our population? The government needs to prioritize; why should it completely overhaul all of our laws for an issue where there's not even a big demand for change, when they can more effectively spend political capital elsewhere?

Doesn't matter if there is but one or none. What matters is the government is usurping rights. Anytime you accede to that in any case you give tacit approval to them doing it in all cases.

Well I find it naive, idealistic, and irrational that you would place a non-issue like this that would require enormous amounts of change, above issues where our leaders actually would be able to give people more freedom for a modest amount of political capital.

Give an example of what issues you consider more important. Nor would changing the definition of marriage entail all that much change. Nothing that couldn't be done in one bill frankly.

 

[Kandahar]

I see few, on fact issues I consider more important. Gun rights beats it out, and the GOP attack on the 4th amendment as well. After that I think this issue is where the battle against the creeping theocracy is being waged. What issues do you consider more vital?

Tax reform. School choice. Civil liberties. Getting out of Iraq. Preparing for war with Iran. Ending the war on drugs. Balancing the budget. Strict constructionism in the courts. Gay rights. Abortion. Social security reform. Medicare reform. I could continue for paragraphs with issues that are more important than legalizing polygamous marriage...

In general though I will tell you I see no case where the government is usurping rights that I do not think should be fought.

Doesn't matter if there is but one or none. What matters is the government is usurping rights. Anytime you accede to that in any case you give tacit approval to them doing it in all cases.

The problem is that if politicians fight a trivial issue like this, they have less political capital to affect real change.

Give an example of what issues you consider more important. Nor would changing the definition of marriage entail all that much change. Nothing that couldn't be done in one bill frankly.

It'd have to be a very long bill, and changing the definition of marriage in this particular way would indeed require a lot of change in nearly every aspect of our laws. A few hypothetical examples I can think of:

A) The leader of an immigrants-rights group decides to marry all of the illegal immigrants in the United States, as well as anyone else in the world who wants to move to the United States. Under current American law, they're now all entitled to pursue US citizenship.

B) An eccentric celebrity marries ten thousand fans, then has an accident. Are they all allowed to visit him/her at the hospital?

C) A group of old-money millionaires decides to strategically marry one another for tax avoidance purposes, thus depriving the federal government of millions of dollars of revenue.

D) A gangster involved in organized crime marries all of his underlings, so none of them can ever be forced to testify against one another.

E) A business owner requires all would-be employees to marry him before taking the job, to take advantage of more lenient labor laws that apply to family members.

 

[GarzaUK]

I know the US is different in the UK, but over in the last month we introduced for the first time same sex civil unions. These unions have basically the same rights as a straight marriage does, (Prince Charles and Camilla had a civil union). In my home city, Belfast - there were protests for 1 day, consisting of old religous zealots about 40-50 of them. The 2nd day none. Everyone is happy.
Homosexuals do not need gay "marriage", just to be treated equally. They are not protesting for marriages anymore. Civil Unions are the way to provide equality.

BTW their havent been a rise of rapes, sex with animals or necrophilia since these unions were introduced. :roll: You crazy yanks.