Federal Marriage Amendment Debate and Discussion Thread

BUT why deny someone his rights just because they are under 18. Society was wrong about interraccial marriage so they could be wrong about not allowing minors to marry without permission.

 

T why deny someone his rights just because they are under 18. Society was wrong about interraccial marriage so they could be wrong about not allowing minors to marry without permission.

One thing at a time. After we get through with discussing same-sex marriages, we can discuss minor's rights as well. Happy?

-Aunecah

 

BUT why deny someone his rights just because they are under 18. Society was wrong about interraccial marriage so they could be wrong about not allowing minors to marry without permission.

Where is the state or federal law forbidding discrimination based on age?

 

NGL, what gives you the right to define what a consenting adult is. Please explain to my simple mind.

I don't define what a consenting adult is. We're dealing with two ideas, here. Consenting and adult. I'll start with adult:

Legally speaking, in this country, an adult is anyone over the age of 18. The choice of 18 as the age of adulthood is because, on the whole, humans reach psychological, physical, and sexual maturity by the time they are eighteen years of age. It's at this point that they can legally buy cigarettes, enlist in the military, move away from their parents, and enter into contracts.

Consenting is merely allowing something to happen to oneself. It illustrates the willingness of a person to partake of something. For example, you can go to a Best Buy, buy a TV, and have the guy try to put it in your car. If it doesn't fit, the guy may suggest taking it out of the box. Until you give him consent (i.e. illustrate your willingness) to have the TV taken out of the box, he won't do it.

Therefore, a consenting adult (in terms of this discussion) is a person who is at least 18 years of age who willfully enters into a marriage contract.

 

If you're talking about the effects on other states, then it still would have come up if any state started offering "marriage" to gay couples (as is on the table in Massachusetts).

That's what I said as well, in my post...

However, a Mass. marriage challenge would have a valid FF&C aspect to it.

(Marriage regulation still might not be a FF&C issue, but at least it would be a VALID marriage)

As it stands, all of the CA marriages are invalid anyway. Not because they are same-sex, but because they are invalid under CA law.

Any other state could simply ignore the licenses from CA, and the "same sex" issue would never even come up. (remember, under FF&C, only valid decisions need to be recognized)

If you remember, before Newsome, Bush was content to wait until Mass. was resolved.

He stopped short of fully endorsing an amendment, perferring to rely (as we all were) on the DOMA challenge.

I wanted to see a DOMA challenge, from the point of a state issuing a valid same sex license. (like Mass) The system would have worked itself out.

I think you were too.. It would have been an interesting case study.

However, Newsome jumped the gun, and issued invalid licenses, that didn't even address the constitutionality of the marriage law, just to prove a point.

His actions overshadowed the cause...

 

IF i'm 17 years old and challenged society's idea of a consenting adult and used the interraccial agruement to prove society has been wrong. Would you support him?

 

Well, property laws and such would get really really messed up if we allowed unlimited polygamy, not to mention a bunch of other laws

Oh, so you do believe in discriminating against someconsenting adults and their beliefs then?

And polygamy contradicts more laws? Don't think so. If that's the case, there wouldn't be about 20,000 polygamists living an hour from where I live.

And the the case could be made it's more moral and stabilizing than same-sex marriage.

The topic here is a Constitutional Amendment declaring marriage between a man and a woman.

I don't agree the constitution should be amended.

 

IF i'm 17 years old and challenged society's idea of a consenting adult and used the interraccial agruement to prove society has been wrong. Would you support him?

Depends on what his rationale is. Lay it out - at least give me something more than "used the interracial argument to prove society has been wrong" - and I'll think about it.

Edit - Okay, I don't think you're saying this...but are you saying that you'll use the fact that society has at one point been "wrong" about not allowing interracial marriages to say that it is also wrong about choosing the age restriction for minority?

-Aunecah

 

Here's a list of some rights that married couples have and gay couples want:

State-Granted Legal Marriage Rights

Assumption of Spouse?s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim?s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner?s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner?s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Federally-Granted Legal Marriage Rights

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse?s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran?s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Somehow, granting same-sex couples these rights will bring about the downfall of society.

 

I'M saying because society was wrong about interracial marriage doesn't mean it should be use as an example to legalize everything else.

 

Not everything, but similar things are fair game.

For example, society was wrong about treating blacks as inferior. When the issue of women-rights come up, can you blame anyone for pointing to black-rights movement?

-Aunecah

 

an interracial couple and a gay couple are similar?

 

I'M saying because society was wrong about interracial marriage doesn't mean it should be use as an example to legalize everything else.

True, however the topic is similar. Many of the arguments against the legalization of gay marriage are eerily similar to those against the legalization of interracial marriage. The principal is the same, as well. Both are groups who are/were unfairly discriminated against based on misconceptions and flat-out lies.

 

IF i'm 17 years old and challenged society's idea of a consenting adult and used the interraccial agruement to prove society has been wrong. Would you support him?

No.

The reason interracial marriage is brought up is because racial discrimination is prohibited in the federal constitution. Many states' constitutions prohibit discrimination on gender as well. There is no law prohibiting discrimination based on age as related to one's status as an adult.


And polygamy contradicts more laws? Don't think so. If that's the case, there wouldn't be about 20,000 polygamists living an hour from where I live.

The polygamist who likes to frequent talk shows (I think his name is Tom Green) has been charged with other crimes, including welfare fraud.


And the the case could be made it's more moral and stabilizing than same-sex marriage.

The argument could be made, but the argument for same-sex marriage isn't about stability. It's about discrimination.

The only way stability comes into play is if the government claims marriage between one man and one woman provides a stability that marriage between two partners of the same gender does not. The burden would then be on the government to prove that.

 

Womberty:

I just read your sig. Hilarious.

-Edit-

This isn't the post you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

 

Is marriage defined as a legal or religious institute?

If it is a legal one, then:

1) What is the problem with allowing two people of the same sex to marry? - I can't see any problem.
2) How does this affect the rights of heterosexual people wishing to marry? - It doesn't.

If it is a religious one, then:

1) What business does the government have legislating it? - None.
2) Why are non-christians allowed to marry? - You got me.

Some more q's:

If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then why are infertile couples/couples not wishing to have children etc allowed to marry? Simple answer, The purpose of marriage is NOT for procreation. If it were, then raising children would be a prerequisite for entering into the contract.

If the above views seem a tad simplistic, it is because this really is a simplistic issue. There is NO reason not to allow same-sex marriages, outside of bigotry and religious discrimination. I still haven't seen a valid argument for why allowing two gays to marry will cause The End Of The World As We Know It (TM).

What I simply can't understand though, is why so many people feel the need to make something illegal, when it has never been legal to begin with. ? Seems like a lot of people must be getting nervous to go for such desparate action. America has some wonderful freedoms, and in many respects (even though it ain't the only free country out there) it has earned the right to call itself "The land of the free". If this amendment goes through, IMO America will have lost the right to its title.

 

Will america lose that title by denying just gay marriage. Or do we lose it if we deny 3 consenting adults to marry. Will the world end if we allow 4 consenting adults to marry?

 

Malshabek:

Because its not possible to raise a healthy family is any such enviroment where the children are raised by parents who have emotional or psychological issues. You just can't GET the same kind of emotionally stable person from a gay marriage that you can from a man/woman marriage.
It harms the children.

Gay people can't have kids. Neither can some straight people, but the straight people are still allowed to marry--and without signing any sort of "requirement to adopt children".

Marriage is not about children. Marriage is about forming a legal partnership with the person you love.

The partnership has to be consensual. That is why you can't marry a dog--he/she can't consent. That is also why bestiality is rape.

If you ask me, I'd ban divorce while we're at it.

So you'd force people to stay in abusive marriages? Beautiful.

Tell you what, google psychological effects of gay marriage on children and find out for yourself JMT.

I don't need google--I have had eleven years' worth of classrooms, some of the students being raised by homosexual couples.

Jifty:

It's not gay people who are ruining the family structures, it's idiots like Britney Spears and the vaunted Fox Network who are doing that.

Amen.

KaineDamo:

And its funny how when a conservative religious person thinks of "family structure" they always see it in a conservative religious fashion.

Yes, it's amazing how "family values" as touted by the right are always defined by the "traditional" family of Mom, Dad, brother, sister, and dog, who all attend church every Sunday rain or shine and then go to Grandma's afterwards for lunch.

Branthoris:

But womberty, you surely recognise that marriage has some sexual aspect to it; and therefore, that to deny it to gay couples is merely to disapprove of their practices?

Without going into detail here, but if you criminalize a particular sexual practice, and that is the only practice a gay couple has to express their love for each other sexually, whereas straight couples have other methods, then you are discriminating against gay couples.

Mr44:

That lesbian couple is 79 and 83. By the time they went through a process you've described, they'd probably both be dead.

STARBOB:

IF i'm 17 years old and challenged society's idea of a consenting adult and used the interraccial agruement to prove society has been wrong. Would you support him?

Sure.

There are some 17-year-olds mature enough to marry, and some 40-year-olds who aren't.


I think it's really, really disgusting that our President is so homophobic that he wants to hold a constitutional convention to make absolutely sure that gay people will never have the right to marry their partners, when we still have people out of work and a war going on in Iraq. Oh yeah, and we haven't found Osama Bin Laden yet and it's been how many years? Almost three?

But allowing gay people to marry will destroy society quicker than another September 11 will.

 

There's nothing wrong with 3 or 4 or more people wishing to marry together. What business is it of yours to tell them that what they are doing is wrong?

EDIT
Just because you wouldn't enter into a relationship with more than one person, why should I have to live by your morals? Now personally, I have no desire whatsoever to enter into that kind of relationship. That also means I have no frame of reference for what that kind of relationship is like, and neither do you. If all of the involved parties are consenting, then why the big issue?

 

What they do in their homes is none of my business. But marriage is an ancient tradition that should not be allowed to become a circus sideshow by allowing everything.

 

There's nothing wrong with 3 or 4 or more people wishing to marry together. What business is it of yours to tell them that what they are doing is wrong?

Just a quick interjection: This is a bad argument. It is the public's business because the couple asking to get married is asking the public to confer on them special privileges. The public has every right to limit what they consider marrieage.

However, as you mentioned in your edit, why do you care as long as it doesn't harm anybody?

 

Will america lose that title by deny just gay marriage. Do we lose it if we deny 3 consenting adults to marry. Will the world end if we allow 4 consenting adults to marry?

What STARBOB is doing here is trying to illustrate that legalizing gay marriage is as ridiculous and arbitrary as legalizing poligamous marriage, assuming that no rational person would agree with legalizing polygamy. The expected response, of course, is for the individual whose beliefs are contrary to his will say something along the lines of, "I wouldn't go that far" allowing STARBOB to counter with "Well, what's the difference? They're consenting adults." In other words, he is attempting a sort of reverse straw man argument but equating one thing with another and arguing that both are similar enough to be grouped together. This will hopefully result in the other person to see that his opnion is wrong because an ideal he has clung to for so long would be negated if he were right.

It's sort of wrong by association.

Here's the problem, though. Polygamy is illegal largely because it makes things difficult for the government. When a married person dies, the spouse inherits. When the widowed person dies, the government takes a cut. In a polygamal situation, the government has to wait until they're all dead to take their cut of the estate. Keep in mind all the other benefits of marriage that the government would have to work out. It would be a hassle. Polygamy's illegality is based on being generally dificult, not consenting adults.

 

But marriage is an ancient tradition

Marriage is an ancient tradition...

- That often allowed polygamy.
- That sometimes allowed same-sex marriage (Native American tribes).
- That was used for binding families together politically and economically.
- That often treated women as property.

Shall I continue?

Marriage as defined by the U.S. government today is not an exact match to the ancient (and often religious) traditions.


that should not be allowed to become a circus sideshow by allowing everything.

It has already become a circus sideshow. It's called reality TV.

Why is there no DOMA or federal amendment in the works to prevent people from marrying after only knowing each other for a short time?


EDIT:
In a polygamal situation, the government has to wait until they're all dead to take their cut of the estate. Keep in mind all the other benefits of marriage that the government would have to work out. It would be a hassle. Polygamy's illegality is based on being generally dificult, not consenting adults.

I'm willing to bet that the government first banned polygamy on moral grounds, rather than out of fiscal concerns.

However, if it's in the government's interest to take inheritance taxes as quickly as possible, why is it allowing widowed spouses to inherit tax-free?

What is the government's reason for extending this benefit in the first place?

 

Again i say because reality tv is mocking marriage does that mean it means nothing now and should have no bounds?

 

I think some heterosexuals--and I'm not speaking of anyone on this thread, just in the country in general--are afraid that homosexuals may show them up regarding keeping their marital commitments.

That lesbian couple who has been together for 50 plus years, anyone? How many heterosexual couples stay together that long?

STARBOB: Allowing homosexual marriage would not make marriage more of a joke. These people want to get married because they want to commit to each other.