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

[Fair&Balanced]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

The so called benefits that go with marriage aren't a right.

No, they are not. They are however a privilege and can't be denied based on "gay marriage is icky" or other such standards.

Wrong! See post 259.

You're wrong. Again. The federal government could stop giving tax breaks for married couples and no one could win a lawsuit claiming they are a right.

 

[Slyhunter]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

The so called benefits that go with marriage aren't a right.

No, they are not. They are however a privilege and can't be denied based on "gay marriage is icky" or other such standards.

But get out of state regulated married it means no one gets the added benefits for being marriage, which is what I want anyhow.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

The so called benefits that go with marriage aren't a right.

No, they are not. They are however a privilege and can't be denied based on "gay marriage is icky" or other such standards.

Wrong! See post 259.

You're wrong. Again. The federal government could stop giving tax breaks for married couples and no one could win a lawsuit claiming they are a right.

The fact is that we will never know. In order for the courts to do it, someone with standing- someone who can demonstrate personal harm by these "marital tax breaks" would have to file suit. The case would have to be accepted by the court. They would then have to articulate a constitutional basis for invalidating the law as it is. Not happening

Law makers won't do it because it would be political suicide. There is no support for this idiocy. So dream on.

 

[Slyhunter]

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

The so called benefits that go with marriage aren't a right.

No, they are not. They are however a privilege and can't be denied based on "gay marriage is icky" or other such standards.

Wrong! See post 259.

You're wrong. Again. The federal government could stop giving tax breaks for married couples and no one could win a lawsuit claiming they are a right.

The fact is that we will never know. In order for the courts to do it, someone with standing- someone who can demonstrate personal harm by these "marital tax breaks" would have to file suit. The case would have to be accepted by the court. They would then have to articulate a constitutional basis for invalidating the law as it is. Not happening

Law makers won't do it because it would be political suicide. There is no support for this idiocy. So dream on.

Any single person can do it. I need a lawyer who works pro bono.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The so called benefits that go with marriage aren't a right.

No, they are not. They are however a privilege and can't be denied based on "gay marriage is icky" or other such standards.

Wrong! See post 259.

You're wrong. Again. The federal government could stop giving tax breaks for married couples and no one could win a lawsuit claiming they are a right.

The fact is that we will never know. In order for the courts to do it, someone with standing- someone who can demonstrate personal harm by these "marital tax breaks" would have to file suit. The case would have to be accepted by the court. They would then have to articulate a constitutional basis for invalidating the law as it is. Not happening

Law makers won't do it because it would be political suicide. There is no support for this idiocy. So dream on.

Any single person can do it. I need a lawyer who works pro bono.

Go for it boss!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PurpleOwl]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex.

Religious Marriage is a religious ceremony.

Civil Marriage does not require a religious component.

Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex.

Massachusettes was issuing marriage licenses in 1639.

Sorry they've been around for hundreds of years.

If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist.

Sure they would, maybe under a different name and contract law - but they'd still be around.

Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

#1 Homosexual Civil Marriages do receive the same benefits as hetersosexual Civil Marriages.

#2 You prove my point - thank you - on the differentiation of Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Polygamous people are free to enter into multiple-partner Religious Marriage, they cannot however enter into multi-partner Civil Marriages. That shows the difference very well.


>>>>

I disagree, marriage itself was spawned from a religious ritual the same way taking sundays off of work is based on a religious ritual (going to church on sundays) If america was founded by people of a different religion our marriage laws would be completely different, America is not unique, every country has its own marriage and divorce laws, and they are all based on religious dogma and superstition, in saudi arabia you can marry multiple wives as young as 9 years old. If you live in india its common to be in a forced marriage that can be arranged by your parents as young as infancy. The concept of romantic monogamous marriage itself is a european christian tradition, and is fairly new itself.

Homosexual monogamous romantic marriage is even newer. One that has only arisen because of the pedestal that the government has put heterosexual monogamous marriages on, with a long list of benefits. If you remove those benefits than there is no reason for anyone to get married, except religious reasons (and maybe for fun ?)

 

[PurpleOwl]

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

There is no requirement under the law that Civil Marriage conform to any religious consensus. Civil Marriage is a legal status, not a religious one.

If a couple desires to have a religious status - they are welcome to get married by an organized religion, however that is not needed to as part of the Civil Marriage contract.


>>>>

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex. Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex. If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist. Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

Marriage regulates sex? Really? How does it do that since sex outside of marriage is no longer illegal. ??

Most people don't care much about what the church says about sex either.

Many churches do in fact recognize and bless gay marriages and therefore that are in fact equal to straight marriages.

Technically, sex outside of marriage is still illegal in some parts of the world, but since were talking about the USA, marriage laws regulate sex by encouraging people to get married, with monetary and legal benefits, children are still encouraged to wait to have sex until they are married, which you aren't allowed to do, until you reach a certain age, deemed appropriate by your local state government. Divorce laws are designed to encourage women to become broodmares by eliminating the fear of getting divorced. Even gay marriage laws which again are still very new, are exclusive to monogamous couples and while monogamy can exist without religion, marriage cannot.

While it's true that government provides incentives for people to marry, to say that it for the purpose of "regulating sex" is preposterous and, you have nothing to base that on.

Broodmares?? Really

There are now gay marriage laws. There were laws against gay marriage and now they are history and you don't have to be monogamous to be married. More bizarre idiocy

Let me tell you something, my wife and I are atheists and were married in a secular ceremony. We are also non monogamous. And WE ARE MARRIED whether or not you chose to accept that. It don't mean a hill of beans to me,

Religions have laws about sex in order to regulate it, marriage is a religious tradition that was founded from those laws. Therefore marriage laws only exist to regulate sex.

Yes broodmares, not just to make sure people have lots of children but to make sure that the "right kind of people" have lots of children and take care of their kids themselves so the public doesn't have to. Marriage only exist for the well off anyway, there is no marriage for the homeless, the prostitutes, and the insane.

Only monogamous marriage is legal (homosexual or not) yet polygamous marriage is not, polyamorous marriage is still outlawed as well for religious reasons. Homosexual marriages are only legal because they represent a large enough voting bloc.

Also, if you are saying you are in an open marriage, that is different from being in a polygamous marriage.

 

[Slyhunter]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex.

Religious Marriage is a religious ceremony.

Civil Marriage does not require a religious component.

Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex.

Massachusettes was issuing marriage licenses in 1639.

Sorry they've been around for hundreds of years.

If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist.

Sure they would, maybe under a different name and contract law - but they'd still be around.

Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

#1 Homosexual Civil Marriages do receive the same benefits as hetersosexual Civil Marriages.

#2 You prove my point - thank you - on the differentiation of Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Polygamous people are free to enter into multiple-partner Religious Marriage, they cannot however enter into multi-partner Civil Marriages. That shows the difference very well.


>>>>

I disagree, marriage itself was spawned from a religious ritual the same way taking sundays off of work is based on a religious ritual (going to church on sundays) If america was founded by people of a different religion our marriage laws would be completely different, America is not unique, every country has its own marriage and divorce laws, and they are all based on religious dogma and superstition, in saudi arabia you can marry multiple wives as young as 9 years old. If you live in india its common to be in a forced marriage that can be arranged by your parents as young as infancy. The concept of romantic monogamous marriage itself is a european christian tradition, and is fairly new itself.

Homosexual monogamous romantic marriage is even newer. One that has only arisen because of the pedestal that the government has put heterosexual monogamous marriages on, with a long list of benefits. If you remove those benefits than there is no reason for anyone to get married, except religious reasons (and maybe for fun ?)

Greeks got married, Romans got married.

 

[PurpleOwl]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex.

Religious Marriage is a religious ceremony.

Civil Marriage does not require a religious component.

Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex.

Massachusettes was issuing marriage licenses in 1639.

Sorry they've been around for hundreds of years.

If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist.

Sure they would, maybe under a different name and contract law - but they'd still be around.

Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

#1 Homosexual Civil Marriages do receive the same benefits as hetersosexual Civil Marriages.

#2 You prove my point - thank you - on the differentiation of Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Polygamous people are free to enter into multiple-partner Religious Marriage, they cannot however enter into multi-partner Civil Marriages. That shows the difference very well.


>>>>

I disagree, marriage itself was spawned from a religious ritual the same way taking sundays off of work is based on a religious ritual (going to church on sundays) If america was founded by people of a different religion our marriage laws would be completely different, America is not unique, every country has its own marriage and divorce laws, and they are all based on religious dogma and superstition, in saudi arabia you can marry multiple wives as young as 9 years old. If you live in india its common to be in a forced marriage that can be arranged by your parents as young as infancy. The concept of romantic monogamous marriage itself is a european christian tradition, and is fairly new itself.

Homosexual monogamous romantic marriage is even newer. One that has only arisen because of the pedestal that the government has put heterosexual monogamous marriages on, with a long list of benefits. If you remove those benefits than there is no reason for anyone to get married, except religious reasons (and maybe for fun ?)

Greeks got married, Romans got married.

That's true, but I dont see how that counters anything I have written

 

[Slyhunter]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex.

Religious Marriage is a religious ceremony.

Civil Marriage does not require a religious component.

Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex.

Massachusettes was issuing marriage licenses in 1639.

Sorry they've been around for hundreds of years.

If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist.

Sure they would, maybe under a different name and contract law - but they'd still be around.

Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

#1 Homosexual Civil Marriages do receive the same benefits as hetersosexual Civil Marriages.

#2 You prove my point - thank you - on the differentiation of Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Polygamous people are free to enter into multiple-partner Religious Marriage, they cannot however enter into multi-partner Civil Marriages. That shows the difference very well.


>>>>

I disagree, marriage itself was spawned from a religious ritual the same way taking sundays off of work is based on a religious ritual (going to church on sundays) If america was founded by people of a different religion our marriage laws would be completely different, America is not unique, every country has its own marriage and divorce laws, and they are all based on religious dogma and superstition, in saudi arabia you can marry multiple wives as young as 9 years old. If you live in india its common to be in a forced marriage that can be arranged by your parents as young as infancy. The concept of romantic monogamous marriage itself is a european christian tradition, and is fairly new itself.

Homosexual monogamous romantic marriage is even newer. One that has only arisen because of the pedestal that the government has put heterosexual monogamous marriages on, with a long list of benefits. If you remove those benefits than there is no reason for anyone to get married, except religious reasons (and maybe for fun ?)

Greeks got married, Romans got married.

That's true, but I dont see how that counters anything I have written

They aren't Christians.
The religion didn't make them get married, they made the religion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Religions have laws about sex in order to regulate it, marriage is a religious tradition that was founded from those laws. Therefore marriage laws only exist to regulate sex.

Yes broodmares, not just to make sure people have lots of children but to make sure that the "right kind of people" have lots of children and take care of their kids themselves so the public doesn't have to. Marriage only exist for the well off anyway, there is no marriage for the homeless, the prostitutes, and the insane.

Only monogamous marriage is legal (homosexual or not) yet polygamous marriage is not, polyamorous marriage is still outlawed as well for religious reasons. Homosexual marriages are only legal because they represent a large enough voting bloc.

Also, if you are saying you are in an open marriage, that is different from being in a polygamous marriage.

Bigamy is illegal (attempting to be Civilly Married to more than one person at a time), as the recent case in Colorado shows where their law was struck down (in part) where a restricting religous polygamous Religious Marriage was found to be unconstitutional (the co-habitation portion). From a Civil Law standpoint those involved were in a legal activity.

No I'm not talking about an "open marriage" where participants date and/or have sex with others outside the Civil Marriage. I'm talking about people in a Religious Marriage with boundaries outside Civil Marriage. Civilly Married to one person and Religiously Married to that person and someone else.


It's interesting that you seem to grasp that "marriage" exists in two realms: Civil and Religious. People can be Civilly Married with no religious component. People can be Religiously Married with no Civil Component. Or they can opt to have a marriage where the boundaries comply with both.


>>>>

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex.

Religious Marriage is a religious ceremony.

Civil Marriage does not require a religious component.

Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex.

Massachusettes was issuing marriage licenses in 1639.

Sorry they've been around for hundreds of years.

If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist.

Sure they would, maybe under a different name and contract law - but they'd still be around.

Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

#1 Homosexual Civil Marriages do receive the same benefits as hetersosexual Civil Marriages.

#2 You prove my point - thank you - on the differentiation of Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Polygamous people are free to enter into multiple-partner Religious Marriage, they cannot however enter into multi-partner Civil Marriages. That shows the difference very well.


>>>>

I disagree, marriage itself was spawned from a religious ritual the same way taking sundays off of work is based on a religious ritual (going to church on sundays) If america was founded by people of a different religion our marriage laws would be completely different, America is not unique, every country has its own marriage and divorce laws, and they are all based on religious dogma and superstition, in saudi arabia you can marry multiple wives as young as 9 years old. If you live in india its common to be in a forced marriage that can be arranged by your parents as young as infancy. The concept of romantic monogamous marriage itself is a european christian tradition, and is fairly new itself.

Homosexual monogamous romantic marriage is even newer. One that has only arisen because of the pedestal that the government has put heterosexual monogamous marriages on, with a long list of benefits. If you remove those benefits than there is no reason for anyone to get married, except religious reasons (and maybe for fun ?)

Greeks got married, Romans got married.

That's true, but I dont see how that counters anything I have written

They aren't Christians.
The religion didn't make them get married, they made the religion.

Marriage began with religion friend. That doesn't mean only religious people should get married though. At THIS point, it's tradition more than religion.

 

[Slyhunter]

Religious Marriage is a religious ceremony.

Civil Marriage does not require a religious component.

Massachusettes was issuing marriage licenses in 1639.

Sorry they've been around for hundreds of years.

Sure they would, maybe under a different name and contract law - but they'd still be around.


#1 Homosexual Civil Marriages do receive the same benefits as hetersosexual Civil Marriages.

#2 You prove my point - thank you - on the differentiation of Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Polygamous people are free to enter into multiple-partner Religious Marriage, they cannot however enter into multi-partner Civil Marriages. That shows the difference very well.


>>>>

I disagree, marriage itself was spawned from a religious ritual the same way taking sundays off of work is based on a religious ritual (going to church on sundays) If america was founded by people of a different religion our marriage laws would be completely different, America is not unique, every country has its own marriage and divorce laws, and they are all based on religious dogma and superstition, in saudi arabia you can marry multiple wives as young as 9 years old. If you live in india its common to be in a forced marriage that can be arranged by your parents as young as infancy. The concept of romantic monogamous marriage itself is a european christian tradition, and is fairly new itself.

Homosexual monogamous romantic marriage is even newer. One that has only arisen because of the pedestal that the government has put heterosexual monogamous marriages on, with a long list of benefits. If you remove those benefits than there is no reason for anyone to get married, except religious reasons (and maybe for fun ?)

Greeks got married, Romans got married.

That's true, but I dont see how that counters anything I have written

They aren't Christians.
The religion didn't make them get married, they made the religion.

Marriage began with religion friend. That doesn't mean only religious people should get married though. At THIS point, it's tradition more than religion.

I think marriage pre-dates religion. Hell Even Cavemen were in monogamous relationships. Most of the animal kingdom as well. Are they religious?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I disagree, marriage itself was spawned from a religious ritual the same way taking sundays off of work is based on a religious ritual (going to church on sundays) If america was founded by people of a different religion our marriage laws would be completely different, America is not unique, every country has its own marriage and divorce laws, and they are all based on religious dogma and superstition, in saudi arabia you can marry multiple wives as young as 9 years old. If you live in india its common to be in a forced marriage that can be arranged by your parents as young as infancy. The concept of romantic monogamous marriage itself is a european christian tradition, and is fairly new itself.

Homosexual monogamous romantic marriage is even newer. One that has only arisen because of the pedestal that the government has put heterosexual monogamous marriages on, with a long list of benefits. If you remove those benefits than there is no reason for anyone to get married, except religious reasons (and maybe for fun ?)

Greeks got married, Romans got married.

That's true, but I dont see how that counters anything I have written

They aren't Christians.
The religion didn't make them get married, they made the religion.

Marriage began with religion friend. That doesn't mean only religious people should get married though. At THIS point, it's tradition more than religion.

I think marriage pre-dates religion. Hell Even Cavemen were in monogamous relationships. Most of the animal kingdom as well. Are they religious?

Monogamy =/= marriage friend.

 

[oldsoul]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

 

[FA_Q2]

^ no you have not. You made a post about it and the suppositions in that post were challenged. You have not come back to it since that time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

^ no you have not. You made a post about it and the suppositions in that post were challenged. You have not come back to it since that time.

Just saying that I'm wrong without an actual rebuttal is not a challenge. It's an appeal to ignorance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FA_Q2]

I gave you a rebuttal.

 

[oldsoul]

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim, as you have already been asked to do.

If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me.

How would the state be able to do this without violating the separation of church and state? Answer: Contract law, as previously discussed.

However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important.

And finally, a thoughtful argument. Was that so hard? Why did it take days, and dozens of posts to get to this? If this is your argument, fine, but why would you beat around the bush for so long instead of just coming out and saying it?

I have discussed the issue of "contract law" and why that would not suffice, as well as the issue of why marriage and the benefits that go with it are rights at length. If you can't accept it , are unable to understand it, or refuse to believe it, it's not my problem. I'm not going to waist my time repeating myself or engaging in a pissing match. I'm bored with this nonsensical and useless topic. Marriage AS WE KNOW IT is here to stay, there is no rational reason to mess with it, nor would doing so serve any useful purpose. No one except those who can't stand the idea of gay folks having legal recognition of marriage want it-if in fact they really do- and the anti-government Libertarian/ Anarchist loons.

Man, you really don't get it do you? This is not a discussion about what will or will not happen. It is a discussion about what COULD or COULDNOT be done. Laws can be changed (however difficult, or politically challenging), and societies' views on various topics will change. While I would agree that right now marriage will likely stay as it is, that does not mean that it always will be. For example, there was a time that it was thought impossible to end slavery in this land, then it ended. Why? Because times, hearts, and minds change.
So, once you get over the concept that is likely not going to happen you will be able to continue to have a rational discussion about what could happen. Until then, you are right, we are at a stale-mate.