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

[oldsoul]

Why doesn't this guy seem to understand that marriage is a right, a state issued marriage license is not?

No idea. Maybe he just wants the control factor. Who knows, he certainly is not explaining it, so all we have is speculation...

The answer is obvious. He understands what we are saying, but his true motive is he wants those who don't approve of gay marriage to have to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage as just that. He isn't interested in what is lawful, or right. He's interested in his gay agenda.

I'm not so sure that is his motive, but it may be.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege

So, then, with your own words in mind, is walking upright a right or a privilege? Can government take away your freedom to do so? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. So what about marriage makes it different than walking upright?

Did you read or understand anything that I wrote? Marriage is a right, but as with all rights it is not absolute. There are basic criteria that needs to be met. That does not mean that it is not a right. Are you just playing word games now?

I can accept your assertion that marriage is a right. I however, have yet to see a compelling argument that any state is required to recognize, sanction, or license ANY marriage. This is my point, one which you seem hesitant to address.?

QUOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 14805432, member: 54822"]Are you being deliberately obtuse? I have repeatedly documented that The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right in the context of cases that involves states attempts to deny the recognition of marriages and the benefits that go with it[/QUOTE

No, I am not playing word games, I am asking you if walking upright is a right, or a privilege. My your own words if it not one, then it must be the other. Need I remind you what you said? "If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities." See bolded passage above. Does your logic not transfer to walking upright

QUOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 14805432, member: 54822"] I have addressed that . Not my problem if you refuse to understand or accept that it is a right

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You fail to see what my disagreement is? You may have acknowledged that there are un-enumerated rights-I don't recall but that is beside the point. You are insisting that because marriage is NOT an enumerated right, the states can do away with it.

You are misunderstanding. I'm not saying states can ban marriage. I'm supporting the idea that states can ban laws regarding marriage and the requirement for marriage licenses. What consenting adults do is up to them. They can start their own church and marry any other consenting adult. The state would have no say in it.

Start their own Church!!?? Brilliant ! If there is no state/ legal recognition of it, it is not marriage.

You shouldn't be allowed to force the States to license what they don't want to license. If they choose not to license fishing and everyone can fish without a license that's ok. Same goes for marriage.

Errrrr Because this is a constitutional republic and the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that marriage is a right.. We are no longer governed by the Articles of Confederation, in case you haven't heard

The Supreme Court has also ruled that free speak is a right, however, one does not need to be licensed by any government body to exercise said right. What makes marriage different?

Free speech is in the constitution! I addressed the issue of why marriage is a right despite the licensing requirement . Do you have a serious problem with reading comprehension ? Or, are you so heavily invested in believing that it is a privilege that you are blind to the truth?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are quite clear. And, by removing all requirements, you are also removing state/government recognition of marriage and all of the benefits and protections that go with it, right? You want to remove the right to be married in the eyes of the state despite the fact that I have shown that the courts have established that as a right.

No, you have established that IF a state grants marriage licenses, they must issue them to everyone, except in certain cases. To the best of my knowledge there is NOTHING ANYWHERE on the federal level that requires a state to recognize marriage, let alone sanction it and issue licenses.

To the best of your knowledge?? Your knowledge is wanting my friend. Federal case law establishes marriage as a fundamental right. Look it up.

You seem to be missing the point here. Where is the requirement for states to issue licenses to ANYONE? I agree, IF they issue licenses, they MUST issue them in compliance with federal law. However, if a state chooses to do away with said licenses for EVERYONE, however improbable, what law/ruling would compel them to continue issuing licenses? All I ask for is the law/ruling that would compel a state to issue licenses in the first place. I really don't know how to be more clear. Is there something confusing about my request?

I didn't say that there was a law requiring them to issue licenses. I said that constitutional law says that marriage is a right and that states must extend the legal benefits of marriage to everyone who meets certain minimal standards. Get that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why doesn't this guy seem to understand that marriage is a right, a state issued marriage license is not?

Actually two separate issues. License or no license, legally sanctioned marriage with the benefits and protections that go with it is a right. Just allowing people to go to a church , or to Walmart marriage have a ceremony and call it marriage does not constitute marriage for legal purposes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why doesn't this guy seem to understand that marriage is a right, a state issued marriage license is not?

No idea. Maybe he just wants the control factor. Who knows, he certainly is not explaining it, so all we have is speculation...

The answer is obvious. He understands what we are saying, but his true motive is he wants those who don't approve of gay marriage to have to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage as just that. He isn't interested in what is lawful, or right. He's interested in his gay agenda.

You are partially right. It's too damned bad if you don't approve of gay marriage. Move to Uganda or Russia if you can't deal with breathing the same air as married gay couples. However, I am very much interested in the law and what is right. My gay agenda? You have no idea how stupid that is.

 

[Slyhunter]

Why doesn't this guy seem to understand that marriage is a right, a state issued marriage license is not?

No idea. Maybe he just wants the control factor. Who knows, he certainly is not explaining it, so all we have is speculation...

The answer is obvious. He understands what we are saying, but his true motive is he wants those who don't approve of gay marriage to have to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage as just that. He isn't interested in what is lawful, or right. He's interested in his gay agenda.

You are partially right. It's too damned bad if you don't approve of gay marriage. Move to Uganda or Russia if you can't deal with breathing the same air as married gay couples. However, I am very much interested in the law and what is right. My gay agenda? You have no idea how stupid that is.

Speech is a right and you can practice it without a license. What makes marriage any different requiring a license. The state is not required to recognize any particular speech why should they care about any particular marriage. Married people dont need more rights than unmarried households get.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why doesn't this guy seem to understand that marriage is a right, a state issued marriage license is not?

No idea. Maybe he just wants the control factor. Who knows, he certainly is not explaining it, so all we have is speculation...

The answer is obvious. He understands what we are saying, but his true motive is he wants those who don't approve of gay marriage to have to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage as just that. He isn't interested in what is lawful, or right. He's interested in his gay agenda.

You are partially right. It's too damned bad if you don't approve of gay marriage. Move to Uganda or Russia if you can't deal with breathing the same air as married gay couples. However, I am very much interested in the law and what is right. My gay agenda? You have no idea how stupid that is.

See, this is where you liberals go off the beaten track. Your have ZERO right to demand that I either approve of gay marriage , or move out of the country. And if you had any sense about you, you would realize that my proposal (that others on here agree with me about) COMPLETELY takes what anyone approves of in terms of marriage out of the equation. If you found a private group that married you and gave you a license, that's a contract in the states' eyes, and that's all that is needed. There is ZERO reason for the state to be involved in marriage. Hell , the states could even charge a license fee and just call it that, a contract license fee. That way they don't even lose any revenue.

And it's been how many pages now and you have still failed to show where states can be compelled to offer marriage licenses. I admit , it is unlikely that a state would do so, and this is mostly hypothetical, but that doesn't change the point. IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

 

[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.

 

[Holos]

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"

Politics and government is first and foremost forwarded by individual citizens. A governor, or any politician, does not need to be married in order to serve those who are, and much less would require benefits from any legal marriage.

Ensuring functional social relations is the politician's job from their own individual and independent civil sovereignty.

 

[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.

 

[PurpleOwl]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

 

[pwjohn]

A marriage contract is nothing but a property contract

Are you sure?

 

[WorldWatcher]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Really Bubba?? Congratulations . You have come up with a load of equine excrement that I actually haven't heard before!!

Tax exempt status for churches should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

 

[PurpleOwl]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

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

 

[PurpleOwl]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Really Bubba?? Congratulations . You have come up with a load of equine excrement that I actually haven't heard before!!

Tax exempt status for churches should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Yes I agree, tax exempt status for churches (as well as any other place dedicated to religious worship) should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state, as well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

So the whole "By the power vested in me by the state of" stuff a clergy says is OK?

Should the government be granting any legal powers to the clergy?

 

[WorldWatcher]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

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.


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

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

How do you force someone to "believe" in a religion or anything else. Marriage for many people has nothing to do with religion or religious institutions.