• 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!

Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were different?

Would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage? See below


  • Total voters
    20
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

Polygamy is not SSM. Polygamy is a red herring brought out by those against SSM. The two are not the same thing. I am not going to discuss polygamy, bestiality, incest, or any of the other host of red herrings and distractions. If you cannot make your case about SSM without the red herrings, it has already failed.

So in actuality, this fight has nothing to do with civil rights, constitutionality or anything like that but is really more about establishing your definition of marriage as the law of the land versus mine.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

If texas wants to discriminate against its citizens and say only a man and a woman can marry, then so be it.

And would you feel the same way if a state decided to bring back Jim Crow Laws? The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides for equal protection under the law. Period.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

So in actuality, this fight has nothing to do with civil rights, constitutionality or anything like that but is really more about establishing your definition of marriage as the law of the land versus mine.

non sequitor.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

non sequitor.

I disagree. The point of this poll is that you have a definition of marriage that you hold to just as dogmatically as I hold to mine. You prove that by not even considering debate on any other form of non-traditional marriage, because in your mind the definition of marriage that you are willing to fight for is a social contract between two consenting adults. It has nothing to do with civil rights, constitutionality, or any other noble cause. It is simply an us versus them for SSM supporters. Am I wrong?
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I support mixed gender polygamous civil unions.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

The Right has gotten some flack for wanting a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But the GLBT community definitely has a dogmatic definition of marriage in mind as well. It is a social contract between two consenting adults. Even the mention of Polygamy just angers the pro-gay marriage crowd.

So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?


You might want to rephrase your proposition here because there already is a federal ban on polygamous marriage. Polygamy has been illegal in the U.S. since the Supreme Court decided the Reynolds v. United States case in 1879.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

No constitutional amendment required here in California, the state supreme court has already ruled that discriminating against gay couples is unconstitutional.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I disagree. The point of this poll is that you have a definition of marriage that you hold to just as dogmatically as I hold to mine. You prove that by not even considering debate on any other form of non-traditional marriage, because in your mind the definition of marriage that you are willing to fight for is a social contract between two consenting adults. It has nothing to do with civil rights, constitutionality, or any other noble cause. It is simply an us versus them for SSM supporters. Am I wrong?

You are making assumptions on my support of SSM. They are false.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

You might want to rephrase your proposition here because there already is a federal ban on polygamous marriage. Polygamy has been illegal in the U.S. since the Supreme Court decided the Reynolds v. United States case in 1879.

I'm not sure I get your point.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

You are making assumptions on my support of SSM. They are false.


Perhaps you should clarify.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I'm not sure I get your point.


Maybe you should be asking if people support a repeal on the federal ban of polygamous marriage.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

Government should have zero to do with marriage. It is strictly a religious ceremony and all laws and regulations regarding marriage should be struck down.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

Maybe you should be asking if people support a repeal on the federal ban of polygamous marriage.

Well, I figured that would be a question someone might imply from the debate. You didn't really seem interested in answering that question though.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

Government should have zero to do with marriage. It is strictly a religious ceremony and all laws and regulations regarding marriage should be struck down.
I agree the faster that our government gets back to it's original purpose the better off we will be.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

First I want to be real specific about something.

Polygamy and polyamory are not the same thing.

Polygamy is basically nothing but a glorified harem. It's on the knife's edge of being something we don't allow in a free country, due to how slavishly it tends to treat women and that there is often a real question as to whether all parties consented.

Polyamory is a love-based relationship that happens to involve more than 2 people, who can be any combination of genders and sexualities.

Polyamory? Yeah, I'm down with that. Polygamy? Not so much.

Anyway, I wouldn't support any constitutional definition of marriage. A constitutional definition of what counts as valid love? Please. That's absurd. And I do think people in polyamorous relationships should be allowed to marry. As long as it involves consenting adults, why does anyone care?

But count me as another who thinks gov should get out of the marriage business all together.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

Government should have zero to do with marriage. It is strictly a religious ceremony and all laws and regulations regarding marriage should be struck down.

A primary function of the state is to provide a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes. A marriage involves a comingling of property, next of kin issues, joint and several liability and other legal issues. The state has an interest in marriage.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

A primary function of the state is to provide a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes. A marriage involves a comingling of property, next of kin issues, joint and several liability and other legal issues. The state has an interest in marriage.

The purpose of the state is the defense of our rights, militarility (foreign) police (domestic) and law courts where we can invoke said rights. Providing a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes is a primary function of the court system, however said issues to not require the legal institution of marriage in order to negotiate.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

First I want to be real specific about something.

Polygamy and polyamory are not the same thing.

Polygamy is basically nothing but a glorified harem. It's on the knife's edge of being something we don't allow in a free country, due to how slavishly it tends to treat women and that there is often a real question as to whether all parties consented.

Polyamory is a love-based relationship that happens to involve more than 2 people, who can be any combination of genders and sexualities.

Polyamory? Yeah, I'm down with that. Polygamy? Not so much.

Anyway, I wouldn't support any constitutional definition of marriage. A constitutional definition of what counts as valid love? Please. That's absurd. And I do think people in polyamorous relationships should be allowed to marry. As long as it involves consenting adults, why does anyone care?

But count me as another who thinks gov should get out of the marriage business all together.
The only trouble with your position is that people generally don’t know enough on their own to set up a contact between them for the courts to use to settle disputes. Given where we are now, I think the government has to a standard ‘marriage’ contract with maybe a dozen options. There would still be ‘religious’ marriages w/o government control. (We had one, not because of a religion, but because we are members of a community.) And there was signing the paper that made us ‘married’ according to the government; it’s a contract. To keep things reasonably simple the government should support a contract to be limited to two adult people and one individual could only be party to one such contract. The contract would provide for all the functional stuff the government recognizes now, e.g. rights of the spouse at the hospital. Religious marriages can still be whatever people want, polygamous, polyamorous, polyandry, etc. The constitution directs the state to stay out of religious marriages.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

A primary function of the state is to provide a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes. A marriage involves a comingling of property, next of kin issues, joint and several liability and other legal issues. The state has an interest in marriage.

No, the state has an interest in implied social contracts...marriage is God's territory.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

The only trouble with your position is that people generally don’t know enough on their own to set up a contact between them for the courts to use to settle disputes. Given where we are now, I think the government has to a standard ‘marriage’ contract with maybe a dozen options. There would still be ‘religious’ marriages w/o government control. (We had one, not because of a religion, but because we are members of a community.) And there was signing the paper that made us ‘married’ according to the government; it’s a contract. To keep things reasonably simple the government should support a contract to be limited to two adult people and one individual could only be party to one such contract. The contract would provide for all the functional stuff the government recognizes now, e.g. rights of the spouse at the hospital. Religious marriages can still be whatever people want, polygamous, polyamorous, polyandry, etc. The constitution directs the state to stay out of religious marriages.

The only reason it's currently impractical is because we've been sticking government into marriage for so long. I do agree with you that under our current framework, it is impractical. But that framework can be changed at any time, and there are ways to streamline or or broaden its useage.

What if I want to assign some of those rights to a close friend, rather than a lover? What if I'd like to assign them to mutliple people for whatever reason? The only reason that's impractical is because it is currently only streamlined to work within marriage, and trying to do it outside marriage is extremely expensive. But we can change that any time we like, and whenever society is ready. The red tape doesn't have to be there.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

There is no circumstance where I would support any constitutional amendment making one specific group of people less equal than others.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I have to say don't push it you are getting your way one State and judge at a time. It's not the time to risk a big backlash when you're winning.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I would support a constitutional amendment for the government to get out of the marriage business all together, it's just another source of unconstitutional income for the government.

I agree - though there are some aspects of marriage the government has a business to be involved with - for tax purposes and legal records. That type of thing is fine. But determining *who* can marry isn't their concern at all.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

I have to say don't push it you are getting your way one State and judge at a time. It's not the time to risk a big backlash when you're winning.

It's not a matter of "getting their way." It's a matter of having equal rights under the law, and being protected from legalized discrimination. Civil rights would still be a wet dream in many states if minorities had to "get their way" one state and judge at a time. This is a constitutional issue, a federal issue, and sooner or later there will be a SCOTUS that will agree that it's not okay for state's to violate the constitutional rights of homosexuals just because they want to do so.
 
Re: Would you support a constitutional marriage amendment if circumstance were differ

No, the state has an interest in implied social contracts...marriage is God's territory.

The state handles contractual disputes. God has nothing to do with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom