CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

[jillian]

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

the US government does not regulate matters of status. they do however have the right to make certain that status is not granted in a way that violates the equal protection clause.

for the record, the constitution and caselaw actually do not permit a federal court to overturn an election law finding made by the highest court of a state. yet that is what bush v gore did. (which is why the scalia and his buddies said it had no precedent in future matters)

Right, which is what I was saying earlier. A state COULD just stop issuing state marriage licenses and there isn't a damn thing the federal government could do about it. BUT if they DO offer marriage licenses, the USG can certainly via SCOTUS step in and say "no you aren't providing equal availability to everyone" if that state starts picking and choosing who they let have licenses.

Really in that regard marriage licenses are no different than public schools. a state can't pass a law against gay children attending public schools, neither can they pass a law against gay marriage. The difference being I think a state would lose in court if they tried to not offer public schools.

marriage is a creation of the state. marriage creates over 1000 rights and obligations.

and whatever spin you give it, you want to do it to pacify the homophobes.

Wrong and wrong.

and as far as my belief Jillian, recognizing that we are not going to get rid of state sanctioned marriage I 100% disagree with those who want to keep gays from marrying. It's not anyone's business who marries whom.

Just because YOU are a partisan hack who never sees the other side of any issue does not mean I am. I call mdk as a witness to my feelings on gay marriage.

correct and correct. and your saying "wrong and wrong" doesn't make it so.

and you're in the CDZ....I'd suggest curbing your hysteria. this isn't partisan, it's fact.so you are allowed your own opinion, but you are NOT allowed your own facts.

marriage only exists as a creation of the state.

whatever religious institutions exist derive their recognition from state law.

I did not say you do not believe in marriage equality (although putting the word marriage in quotes doesn't speak well for you). I said your concepts were appeasing the homophobes.

again, in your fantasy world where marriage exists in the air, how does one who does not subscribe to a religion get married?

 

[mdk]

Sorry, Jillian. F&B doesn't give a shit whom people marry.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

the US government does not regulate matters of status. they do however have the right to make certain that status is not granted in a way that violates the equal protection clause.

for the record, the constitution and caselaw actually do not permit a federal court to overturn an election law finding made by the highest court of a state. yet that is what bush v gore did. (which is why the scalia and his buddies said it had no precedent in future matters)

Right, which is what I was saying earlier. A state COULD just stop issuing state marriage licenses and there isn't a damn thing the federal government could do about it. BUT if they DO offer marriage licenses, the USG can certainly via SCOTUS step in and say "no you aren't providing equal availability to everyone" if that state starts picking and choosing who they let have licenses.

Really in that regard marriage licenses are no different than public schools. a state can't pass a law against gay children attending public schools, neither can they pass a law against gay marriage. The difference being I think a state would lose in court if they tried to not offer public schools.

marriage is a creation of the state. marriage creates over 1000 rights and obligations.

and whatever spin you give it, you want to do it to pacify the homophobes.

Wrong and wrong.

and as far as my belief Jillian, recognizing that we are not going to get rid of state sanctioned marriage I 100% disagree with those who want to keep gays from marrying. It's not anyone's business who marries whom.

Just because YOU are a partisan hack who never sees the other side of any issue does not mean I am. I call mdk as a witness to my feelings on gay marriage.

correct and correct. and your saying "wrong and wrong" doesn't make it so.

and you're in the CDZ....I'd suggest curbing your hysteria. this isn't partisan, it's fact.so you are allowed your own opinion, but you are NOT allowed your own facts.

marriage only exists as a creation of the state.

whatever religious institutions exist derive their recognition from state law.

I did not say you do not believe in marriage equality (although putting the word marriage in quotes doesn't speak well for you). I said your concepts were appeasing the homophobes.

again, in your fantasy world where marriage exists in the air, how does one who does not subscribe to a religion get married?

I don't care where they get married. Let the free market compete to provide a place for people who want to be married, but not via a church , to do so.

And no hon, marriage predates government. Marriage was originally a religious institution that was coopted by governments in order to yes control people. I oppose government control techniques such as government sanctioned marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

You want to do away with government (meaning the states?) sanctioned marriage because the US government does not have the authority to regulate marriage? I'm not sure that makes any sense. In fact I'm pretty sure it does not

In any case, allow me to rephrase. I am arguing against doing away with marriage for any reason and I have made those reasons clear. The SCOTUS applies and enforces the constitution as they did in Obergefell. States rights are not absolute and if states enact laws that violate the constitution, it is necessary and proper for the federal courts to step in. That is the way our system of a Constitutional Republic works. That is true whether we are talking about marriage or anything else that the states regulate. If you do not recognize the Federal Supremacy, I can't help that but it is the way it is.

And, it appears that you are going to continue to avoid addressing the issues that I rains with respect to abolishing marriage.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

You want to do away with government (meaning the states?) sanctioned marriage because the US government does not have the authority to regulate marriage? I'm not sure that makes any sense. In fact I'm pretty sure it does not

In any case, allow me to rephrase. I am arguing against doing away with marriage for any reason and I have made those reasons clear. The SCOTUS applies and enforces the constitution as they did in Obergefell. States rights are not absolute and if states enact laws that violate the constitution, it is necessary and proper for the federal courts to step in. That is the way our system of a Constitutional Republic works. That is true whether we are talking about marriage or anything else that the states regulate. If you do not recognize the Federal Supremacy, I can't help that but it is the way it is.

And, it appears that you are going to continue to avoid addressing the issues that I rains with respect to abolishing marriage.

Seeing as how I don't know the contents of every state constitution, I won't comment on those.

However, it is quite evident that logic isn't being applied. here.

Read and consider.

Yes, it is absolutely true that IF a state sanctions marriage the federal government has the authority to compel them to offer state sanctioned marriage to ALL citizens.

However, if a state does NOT offer ANY state sanctioned marriage, the federal government does not have ANY authority to force them to do so.

Now that we have established those two facts, further consider.

Eliminating state sanctioned marriage would end ALL debates about who could marry whom. Would that "appease" some who oppose gay marriage? Of course it would, it would also appease some who support incestual marriage.

Now let me ask you this. Why on Earth would it upset anyone? The gay couple that wants to marry can in fact marry AND their marriage would have the EXACT same state sanctions as the hetero couple next door, meaning NONE.

My proposal is not only within the bounds of the COTUS it is also guaranteed to end this debate once and for all.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Those who are not married are free to get married . No one is discriminating against them.

Yes, unmarried people are free to marry, however, a person who is not married cannot, for example, file a joint tax return with a person they live with, something married folks can do, if they wish. Just one example. Here's another, an unmarried person has to draw-up and file paperwork for a person of their choosing to be the executor of their estate, married folks have chosen that person by marrying them. I could go on.

Sorry it is still not discrimination. It is a well established principal in law that government may bestow certain privileges or benefits on people when that achieve a certain status that is regulated by said government. It is only discrimination if the government imposes restrictions on those who whish to pursue that status based on their membership in a particular group. If anyone thinks that they should be able to file a joint return with a roommate , the are free to pursue that through the legal process. However, if we start removing those types of distinctions between the married and not married, we may find ourselves at a point where marriage is meaningless- at least legally. Apparently there is little hope of you actually making an attempt to address the issues that I raised in #90.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

No, because you see , you can get married and receive those same benefits. Now if the government said "these are marriage benefits" and then proceeded to deny them to some married people, THAT would be illegal.

Let me play "devil's advocate" for a moment here. As I understand it, it would be illegal to marry a first cousin. Does that, then, not discriminate based on family relationship? I mean, you can't control who you love. Right?

Government should get out of marriage all together, not sanction it, not recognize it. Nothing.

Actually you could make the argument that it does constitute discrimination. If there are people who want to marry a cousin, or their sibling, or parent for that matter, they are free to pursue that through the courts or the legislature the same way that gays did. They state, in opposing them would have to articulate a rationale basis -if not a compelling state interest- in prohibiting certain types of marriage. The states failed miserably in trying to do that with same sex marriage. Whether anything else would fly is anybody's guess.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

No, because you see , you can get married and receive those same benefits. Now if the government said "these are marriage benefits" and then proceeded to deny them to some married people, THAT would be illegal.

Let me play "devil's advocate" for a moment here. As I understand it, it would be illegal to marry a first cousin. Does that, then, not discriminate based on family relationship? I mean, you can't control who you love. Right?

Government should get out of marriage all together, not sanction it, not recognize it. Nothing.

Actually you could make the argument that it does. If there are people who want to marry a cousin, or their sibling, or parent for that matter, they are free to pursue that through the courts or the legislature the same way that gays did. They state, in opposing them would have to articulate a rationale basis -if not a compelling state interest- in prohibiting certain types of marriage. The states failed miserably in trying to do that with same sex marriage. Whether anything else would fly is anybody's guess.

I will ask you again. Do you believe the federal government could legally FORCE a state to offer marriage licenses if they didn't offer any? That is a yes or no question.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

You want to do away with government (meaning the states?) sanctioned marriage because the US government does not have the authority to regulate marriage? I'm not sure that makes any sense. In fact I'm pretty sure it does not

In any case, allow me to rephrase. I am arguing against doing away with marriage for any reason and I have made those reasons clear. The SCOTUS applies and enforces the constitution as they did in Obergefell. States rights are not absolute and if states enact laws that violate the constitution, it is necessary and proper for the federal courts to step in. That is the way our system of a Constitutional Republic works. That is true whether we are talking about marriage or anything else that the states regulate. If you do not recognize the Federal Supremacy, I can't help that but it is the way it is.

And, it appears that you are going to continue to avoid addressing the issues that I rains with respect to abolishing marriage.

Seeing as how I don't know the contents of every state constitution, I won't comment on those.

However, it is quite evident that logic isn't being applied. here.

Read and consider.

Yes, it is absolutely true that IF a state sanctions marriage the federal government has the authority to compel them to offer state sanctioned marriage to ALL citizens.

However, if a state does NOT offer ANY state sanctioned marriage, the federal government does not have ANY authority to force them to do so.

Now that we have established those two facts, further consider.

Eliminating state sanctioned marriage would end ALL debates about who could marry whom. Would that "appease" some who oppose gay marriage? Of course it would, it would also appease some who support incestual marriage.

Now let me ask you this. Why on Earth would it upset anyone? The gay couple that wants to marry can in fact marry AND their marriage would have the EXACT same state sanctions as the hetero couple next door, meaning NONE.

My proposal is not only within the bounds of the COTUS it is also guaranteed to end this debate once and for all.

Actually, the question of what the Feds could do about it if a state abolished marriage is an open question since, on numerous occasions in a variety of cases, they have said that marriage is a "fundamental right"

As for the debate continuing....let it. Legally it is a done deal. If a few still want to haggle about it let them.

The idea of doing away with all marriage and all associated benefits is ludicris , unworkable and unnecessary. In addition the American people would never statd for it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

You want to do away with government (meaning the states?) sanctioned marriage because the US government does not have the authority to regulate marriage? I'm not sure that makes any sense. In fact I'm pretty sure it does not

In any case, allow me to rephrase. I am arguing against doing away with marriage for any reason and I have made those reasons clear. The SCOTUS applies and enforces the constitution as they did in Obergefell. States rights are not absolute and if states enact laws that violate the constitution, it is necessary and proper for the federal courts to step in. That is the way our system of a Constitutional Republic works. That is true whether we are talking about marriage or anything else that the states regulate. If you do not recognize the Federal Supremacy, I can't help that but it is the way it is.

And, it appears that you are going to continue to avoid addressing the issues that I rains with respect to abolishing marriage.

Seeing as how I don't know the contents of every state constitution, I won't comment on those.

However, it is quite evident that logic isn't being applied. here.

Read and consider.

Yes, it is absolutely true that IF a state sanctions marriage the federal government has the authority to compel them to offer state sanctioned marriage to ALL citizens.

However, if a state does NOT offer ANY state sanctioned marriage, the federal government does not have ANY authority to force them to do so.

Now that we have established those two facts, further consider.

Eliminating state sanctioned marriage would end ALL debates about who could marry whom. Would that "appease" some who oppose gay marriage? Of course it would, it would also appease some who support incestual marriage.

Now let me ask you this. Why on Earth would it upset anyone? The gay couple that wants to marry can in fact marry AND their marriage would have the EXACT same state sanctions as the hetero couple next door, meaning NONE.

My proposal is not only within the bounds of the COTUS it is also guaranteed to end this debate once and for all.

Actually, the question of what the Feds could do about it if a state abolished marriage is an open question since, on numerous occasions in a variety of cases, they have said that marriage is a "fundamental right"

As for the debate continuing....let it. Legally it is a done deal. If a few still want to haggle about it let them.

The idea of doing away with all marriage and all associated benefits is ludicris , unworkable and unnecessary. In addition the American people would never statd for it.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental right, state sanctioned marriage is not.

 

[Divine Wind]

....I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

Not quite following you here. There is no "federal" marriage license, only state. The 10th Amendment prevents the Feds from regulating anything not in the Constitution, therefore States can issue marriage licenses as long as issuance of those licenses complies with the Constitution (e.g. 14th Amendment).

The purpose of marriage licenses is legal not sanctification. A man and woman can be married by their church, have kids, wrack up debt then, one day, the man decides he's out leaving the woman with the kids and the debt. What are the woman's legal recourses? File a lawsuit? There's no proof they were married as far as the law is concerned. Sure, she could bring in witnesses from her church but that would be a long and expensive legal process. Paying $200 for a marriage license is cheaper and straightforward.

 

[Divine Wind]

I will ask you again. Do you believe the federal government could legally FORCE a state to offer marriage licenses if they didn't offer any? That is a yes or no question.

No.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

You want to do away with government (meaning the states?) sanctioned marriage because the US government does not have the authority to regulate marriage? I'm not sure that makes any sense. In fact I'm pretty sure it does not

In any case, allow me to rephrase. I am arguing against doing away with marriage for any reason and I have made those reasons clear. The SCOTUS applies and enforces the constitution as they did in Obergefell. States rights are not absolute and if states enact laws that violate the constitution, it is necessary and proper for the federal courts to step in. That is the way our system of a Constitutional Republic works. That is true whether we are talking about marriage or anything else that the states regulate. If you do not recognize the Federal Supremacy, I can't help that but it is the way it is.

And, it appears that you are going to continue to avoid addressing the issues that I rains with respect to abolishing marriage.

Seeing as how I don't know the contents of every state constitution, I won't comment on those.

However, it is quite evident that logic isn't being applied. here.

Read and consider.

Yes, it is absolutely true that IF a state sanctions marriage the federal government has the authority to compel them to offer state sanctioned marriage to ALL citizens.

However, if a state does NOT offer ANY state sanctioned marriage, the federal government does not have ANY authority to force them to do so.

Now that we have established those two facts, further consider.

Eliminating state sanctioned marriage would end ALL debates about who could marry whom. Would that "appease" some who oppose gay marriage? Of course it would, it would also appease some who support incestual marriage.

Now let me ask you this. Why on Earth would it upset anyone? The gay couple that wants to marry can in fact marry AND their marriage would have the EXACT same state sanctions as the hetero couple next door, meaning NONE.

My proposal is not only within the bounds of the COTUS it is also guaranteed to end this debate once and for all.

Actually, the question of what the Feds could do about it if a state abolished marriage is an open question since, on numerous occasions in a variety of cases, they have said that marriage is a "fundamental right"

As for the debate continuing....let it. Legally it is a done deal. If a few still want to haggle about it let them.

The idea of doing away with all marriage and all associated benefits is ludicris , unworkable and unnecessary. In addition the American people would never statd for it.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental right, state sanctioned marriage is not.

So when the SCOTUS ruled that state laws prohibiting certain people from marrying and ordered the states to issue marriage licenses to them , that was not establishing marriage sanctioned by the state as a right? Here are 4 examples:

The Supreme Court has ruled State marriage laws/regulations unconstitutional 4 times now.
Each case was distinctive and applied only to the class involved.
Loving v. Virginia- State law against marriage between mixed race couples ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage.
Zablocki v. Redhall- State law prohibiting marriage for a parent who owes child support ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Turner v. Safley- State regulation restricting marriage of state prisoners ruled unconstitutional- citing: Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship
Obergefell- State law prohibiting marriage between a couple of the same gender ruled unconstitutional citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

....I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

Not quite following you here. There is no "federal" marriage license, only state. The 10th Amendment prevents the Feds from regulating anything not in the Constitution, therefore States can issue marriage licenses as long as issuance of those licenses complies with the Constitution (e.g. 14th Amendment).

The purpose of marriage licenses is legal not sanctification. A man and woman can be married by their church, have kids, wrack up debt then, one day, the man decides he's out leaving the woman with the kids and the debt. What are the woman's legal recourses? File a lawsuit? There's no proof they were married as far as the law is concerned. Sure, she could bring in witnesses from her church but that would be a long and expensive legal process. Paying $200 for a marriage license is cheaper and straightforward.

of course marriage licenses are state not federal. That's what I'm saying , a state could just say "no more state marriage licenses" and that's that.

As fir a man leaving the woman with the kids and al the debt, first let's recognize that that wouldn't be a man, merely a male. Second, marriage isn't what protects that woman. Married men and unmarried men (and women) do that all the time, and both are dealt with by family courts pretty much the same way.

For example. A DNA test is used to determine paternity for purposes of child support, not a marriage certificate.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

You want to do away with government (meaning the states?) sanctioned marriage because the US government does not have the authority to regulate marriage? I'm not sure that makes any sense. In fact I'm pretty sure it does not

In any case, allow me to rephrase. I am arguing against doing away with marriage for any reason and I have made those reasons clear. The SCOTUS applies and enforces the constitution as they did in Obergefell. States rights are not absolute and if states enact laws that violate the constitution, it is necessary and proper for the federal courts to step in. That is the way our system of a Constitutional Republic works. That is true whether we are talking about marriage or anything else that the states regulate. If you do not recognize the Federal Supremacy, I can't help that but it is the way it is.

And, it appears that you are going to continue to avoid addressing the issues that I rains with respect to abolishing marriage.

Seeing as how I don't know the contents of every state constitution, I won't comment on those.

However, it is quite evident that logic isn't being applied. here.

Read and consider.

Yes, it is absolutely true that IF a state sanctions marriage the federal government has the authority to compel them to offer state sanctioned marriage to ALL citizens.

However, if a state does NOT offer ANY state sanctioned marriage, the federal government does not have ANY authority to force them to do so.

Now that we have established those two facts, further consider.

Eliminating state sanctioned marriage would end ALL debates about who could marry whom. Would that "appease" some who oppose gay marriage? Of course it would, it would also appease some who support incestual marriage.

Now let me ask you this. Why on Earth would it upset anyone? The gay couple that wants to marry can in fact marry AND their marriage would have the EXACT same state sanctions as the hetero couple next door, meaning NONE.

My proposal is not only within the bounds of the COTUS it is also guaranteed to end this debate once and for all.

Actually, the question of what the Feds could do about it if a state abolished marriage is an open question since, on numerous occasions in a variety of cases, they have said that marriage is a "fundamental right"

As for the debate continuing....let it. Legally it is a done deal. If a few still want to haggle about it let them.

The idea of doing away with all marriage and all associated benefits is ludicris , unworkable and unnecessary. In addition the American people would never statd for it.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental right, state sanctioned marriage is not.

So when the SCOTUS ruled that state laws prohibiting certain people from marrying and ordered the states to issue marriage licenses to them , that was not establishing marriage sanctioned by the state as a right? Here are 4 examples:

The Supreme Court has ruled State marriage laws/regulations unconstitutional 4 times now.
Each case was distinctive and applied only to the class involved.
Loving v. Virginia- State law against marriage between mixed race couples ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage.
Zablocki v. Redhall- State law prohibiting marriage for a parent who owes child support ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Turner v. Safley- State regulation restricting marriage of state prisoners ruled unconstitutional- citing: Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship
Obergefell- State law prohibiting marriage between a couple of the same gender ruled unconstitutional citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

EACH of those cases was about offering EQUAL protection of the law. NO ONE being given state marriage licenses WOULD be equal protection of the law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You want to do away with government (meaning the states?) sanctioned marriage because the US government does not have the authority to regulate marriage? I'm not sure that makes any sense. In fact I'm pretty sure it does not

In any case, allow me to rephrase. I am arguing against doing away with marriage for any reason and I have made those reasons clear. The SCOTUS applies and enforces the constitution as they did in Obergefell. States rights are not absolute and if states enact laws that violate the constitution, it is necessary and proper for the federal courts to step in. That is the way our system of a Constitutional Republic works. That is true whether we are talking about marriage or anything else that the states regulate. If you do not recognize the Federal Supremacy, I can't help that but it is the way it is.

And, it appears that you are going to continue to avoid addressing the issues that I rains with respect to abolishing marriage.

Seeing as how I don't know the contents of every state constitution, I won't comment on those.

However, it is quite evident that logic isn't being applied. here.

Read and consider.

Yes, it is absolutely true that IF a state sanctions marriage the federal government has the authority to compel them to offer state sanctioned marriage to ALL citizens.

However, if a state does NOT offer ANY state sanctioned marriage, the federal government does not have ANY authority to force them to do so.

Now that we have established those two facts, further consider.

Eliminating state sanctioned marriage would end ALL debates about who could marry whom. Would that "appease" some who oppose gay marriage? Of course it would, it would also appease some who support incestual marriage.

Now let me ask you this. Why on Earth would it upset anyone? The gay couple that wants to marry can in fact marry AND their marriage would have the EXACT same state sanctions as the hetero couple next door, meaning NONE.

My proposal is not only within the bounds of the COTUS it is also guaranteed to end this debate once and for all.

Actually, the question of what the Feds could do about it if a state abolished marriage is an open question since, on numerous occasions in a variety of cases, they have said that marriage is a "fundamental right"

As for the debate continuing....let it. Legally it is a done deal. If a few still want to haggle about it let them.

The idea of doing away with all marriage and all associated benefits is ludicris , unworkable and unnecessary. In addition the American people would never statd for it.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental right, state sanctioned marriage is not.

So when the SCOTUS ruled that state laws prohibiting certain people from marrying and ordered the states to issue marriage licenses to them , that was not establishing marriage sanctioned by the state as a right? Here are 4 examples:

The Supreme Court has ruled State marriage laws/regulations unconstitutional 4 times now.
Each case was distinctive and applied only to the class involved.
Loving v. Virginia- State law against marriage between mixed race couples ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage.
Zablocki v. Redhall- State law prohibiting marriage for a parent who owes child support ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Turner v. Safley- State regulation restricting marriage of state prisoners ruled unconstitutional- citing: Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship
Obergefell- State law prohibiting marriage between a couple of the same gender ruled unconstitutional citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

EACH of those cases was about offering EQUAL protection of the law. NO ONE being given state marriage licenses WOULD be equal protection of the law.

?????That actually makes no sense>

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Seeing as how I don't know the contents of every state constitution, I won't comment on those.

However, it is quite evident that logic isn't being applied. here.

Read and consider.

Yes, it is absolutely true that IF a state sanctions marriage the federal government has the authority to compel them to offer state sanctioned marriage to ALL citizens.

However, if a state does NOT offer ANY state sanctioned marriage, the federal government does not have ANY authority to force them to do so.

Now that we have established those two facts, further consider.

Eliminating state sanctioned marriage would end ALL debates about who could marry whom. Would that "appease" some who oppose gay marriage? Of course it would, it would also appease some who support incestual marriage.

Now let me ask you this. Why on Earth would it upset anyone? The gay couple that wants to marry can in fact marry AND their marriage would have the EXACT same state sanctions as the hetero couple next door, meaning NONE.

My proposal is not only within the bounds of the COTUS it is also guaranteed to end this debate once and for all.

Actually, the question of what the Feds could do about it if a state abolished marriage is an open question since, on numerous occasions in a variety of cases, they have said that marriage is a "fundamental right"

As for the debate continuing....let it. Legally it is a done deal. If a few still want to haggle about it let them.

The idea of doing away with all marriage and all associated benefits is ludicris , unworkable and unnecessary. In addition the American people would never statd for it.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental right, state sanctioned marriage is not.

So when the SCOTUS ruled that state laws prohibiting certain people from marrying and ordered the states to issue marriage licenses to them , that was not establishing marriage sanctioned by the state as a right? Here are 4 examples:

The Supreme Court has ruled State marriage laws/regulations unconstitutional 4 times now.
Each case was distinctive and applied only to the class involved.
Loving v. Virginia- State law against marriage between mixed race couples ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage.
Zablocki v. Redhall- State law prohibiting marriage for a parent who owes child support ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Turner v. Safley- State regulation restricting marriage of state prisoners ruled unconstitutional- citing: Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship
Obergefell- State law prohibiting marriage between a couple of the same gender ruled unconstitutional citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

EACH of those cases was about offering EQUAL protection of the law. NO ONE being given state marriage licenses WOULD be equal protection of the law.

?????That actually makes no sense>

It makes PERFECT sense.

If you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "no you have brown hair, so no license for you" that is discrimination
If on the other hand, you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "we don't issue licenses" that isn't discrimination because you got EXACTLY the same thing as everyone else, NO LICENSE, because one is not required.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, the question of what the Feds could do about it if a state abolished marriage is an open question since, on numerous occasions in a variety of cases, they have said that marriage is a "fundamental right"

As for the debate continuing....let it. Legally it is a done deal. If a few still want to haggle about it let them.

The idea of doing away with all marriage and all associated benefits is ludicris , unworkable and unnecessary. In addition the American people would never statd for it.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental right, state sanctioned marriage is not.

So when the SCOTUS ruled that state laws prohibiting certain people from marrying and ordered the states to issue marriage licenses to them , that was not establishing marriage sanctioned by the state as a right? Here are 4 examples:

The Supreme Court has ruled State marriage laws/regulations unconstitutional 4 times now.
Each case was distinctive and applied only to the class involved.
Loving v. Virginia- State law against marriage between mixed race couples ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage.
Zablocki v. Redhall- State law prohibiting marriage for a parent who owes child support ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Turner v. Safley- State regulation restricting marriage of state prisoners ruled unconstitutional- citing: Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship
Obergefell- State law prohibiting marriage between a couple of the same gender ruled unconstitutional citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

EACH of those cases was about offering EQUAL protection of the law. NO ONE being given state marriage licenses WOULD be equal protection of the law.

?????That actually makes no sense>

It makes PERFECT sense.

If you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "no you have brown hair, so no license for you" that is discrimination
If on the other hand, you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "we don't issue licenses" that isn't discrimination because you got EXACTLY the same thing as everyone else, NO LICENSE, because one is not required.

I think that you are wrong and I explained why. You responded with some word salad and now an appeal to ignorance. I'm willing to bet that if any state actually stopped issuing all marriage licenses and someone brought it to federal court, they would be smacked down big time.

 

[Divine Wind]

of course marriage licenses are state not federal. That's what I'm saying , a state could just say "no more state marriage licenses" and that's that.

As fir a man leaving the woman with the kids and al the debt, first let's recognize that that wouldn't be a man, merely a male. Second, marriage isn't what protects that woman. Married men and unmarried men (and women) do that all the time, and both are dealt with by family courts pretty much the same way.

For example. A DNA test is used to determine paternity for purposes of child support, not a marriage certificate.

We're agreed about a state's right to not issue licenses of any sort.

It's not necessarily the woman I'm talking about but the minors. I'm against helmet and seatbelt laws for adults for several reasons, but understand the desire and responsibility of a civilization to protect minors. Who do you think should pay for a "male's" children? The US or state taxpayer or the person who fathered them? If the latter, then there has to be laws requiring it. Marriage licences not only protect the minors but also the taxpayers. Hence why most taxpayers support licenses.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, the question of what the Feds could do about it if a state abolished marriage is an open question since, on numerous occasions in a variety of cases, they have said that marriage is a "fundamental right"

As for the debate continuing....let it. Legally it is a done deal. If a few still want to haggle about it let them.

The idea of doing away with all marriage and all associated benefits is ludicris , unworkable and unnecessary. In addition the American people would never statd for it.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental right, state sanctioned marriage is not.

So when the SCOTUS ruled that state laws prohibiting certain people from marrying and ordered the states to issue marriage licenses to them , that was not establishing marriage sanctioned by the state as a right? Here are 4 examples:

The Supreme Court has ruled State marriage laws/regulations unconstitutional 4 times now.
Each case was distinctive and applied only to the class involved.
Loving v. Virginia- State law against marriage between mixed race couples ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage.
Zablocki v. Redhall- State law prohibiting marriage for a parent who owes child support ruled unconstitutional- citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Turner v. Safley- State regulation restricting marriage of state prisoners ruled unconstitutional- citing: Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship
Obergefell- State law prohibiting marriage between a couple of the same gender ruled unconstitutional citing among other things, our right to marriage and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

EACH of those cases was about offering EQUAL protection of the law. NO ONE being given state marriage licenses WOULD be equal protection of the law.

?????That actually makes no sense>

It makes PERFECT sense.

If you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "no you have brown hair, so no license for you" that is discrimination
If on the other hand, you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "we don't issue licenses" that isn't discrimination because you got EXACTLY the same thing as everyone else, NO LICENSE, because one is not required.

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Is Marriage a Civil Right?

There is nothing here to suggest that a state can deny marriage to all people and not be in violation of constitutional law. If what you're saying is correct, a state could also ban freedom of assembly, or speech, as long as they did it across the board and not just target certain groups. Your argument fails big time.