Marriage Amendments....

[Woodruff]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

Alabama says "hi".

[Woodruff]

I have changed my mind. I have seen the light. I now TRULY AND HONESTLY hope that Minnesota's amendment to their state constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman PASSES.

Why? Because that will be the tipping point when the Supreme Court gets involved and the 14th Amendment gets to take hold, and all of this homophobic bullshit regarding marriage can finally be put to rest.

So go Minnesota...get that amendment passed. Please.

[Funkyterrance]

OK PS, would you agree that the following should all no longer apply to any man-woman married couple? (note I'm not saying same-sex couples should get these, but that this is what you are giving up if the government gets out of marriage entirely as you propose). Do you think the majority would be willing to give up all of this in order to defend their religious customs?

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

It's very easy to say that "marriage is religious and sacred and the government should GTFO" but if you do that there are real consequences that are far more far-reaching than a few tax breaks and access to joint benefits.

When put in this light, getting rid of legal marriage does look a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However, it seems there are ways around all of these. I would think that a more appropriate way to give these items would be to award them to those who have been living together for a certain amount of time and married not just those who were married. Marriage is such an easy thing to do, takes a very small amount of money and very little time to get all of these benefits. It's just too easy to "sign up" for all of the aforementioned rights and makes for a ton of people getting married solely for the sake of the breaks. I say allow it, just make the gate more rigid.

[Phatscotty]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

The Constitution is clear on this. The supremacy clause dictates that states' rights can NEVER be placed in front of equal protection in front of the law. I can understand a states' rights perspective on Obamacare. But not on a policy which explicitly violates the Constitution.

you mean "the good n plenty" clause.....The Supreme court had the option to hear challenges to the state amendments recently, they chose not to. As far was what is constitional, how familiar are you with the Minnesota Constitution????

is not whether we have the money for this in the first place relevant?

I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause also applies in overriding state constitutions as well as state laws. Even if you add this to the Minnesota Constitution, the U.S. Constitution still would make it illegal.

Also I would argue that a marriage amendment violates Article I, Section II of the Minnesota Constitution but that's not as obvious as the Equal Protection clause argument.

Also, you're absolutely right that it hasn't been as simple as "get the supreme court to rule on equal protection" when it comes to gay marriage. The intricacies of federal law are substantial. But that doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. I'm just arguing from a common sense perspective, and a plain reading of the Constitution, that there's no justification for discriminatory marriage laws. This reasoning was applied to strike down interracial marriage discrimination laws and it should still apply today.

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

[Metsfanmax]

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

You don't have to worry about that. Your state can just take the lead from South Carolina and secede if you're afraid that ending your discriminatory policies will bankrupt you.

[Woodruff]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

The Constitution is clear on this. The supremacy clause dictates that states' rights can NEVER be placed in front of equal protection in front of the law. I can understand a states' rights perspective on Obamacare. But not on a policy which explicitly violates the Constitution.

you mean "the good n plenty" clause.....The Supreme court had the option to hear challenges to the state amendments recently, they chose not to. As far was what is constitional, how familiar are you with the Minnesota Constitution????

is not whether we have the money for this in the first place relevant?

I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause also applies in overriding state constitutions as well as state laws. Even if you add this to the Minnesota Constitution, the U.S. Constitution still would make it illegal.

Also I would argue that a marriage amendment violates Article I, Section II of the Minnesota Constitution but that's not as obvious as the Equal Protection clause argument.

Also, you're absolutely right that it hasn't been as simple as "get the supreme court to rule on equal protection" when it comes to gay marriage. The intricacies of federal law are substantial. But that doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. I'm just arguing from a common sense perspective, and a plain reading of the Constitution, that there's no justification for discriminatory marriage laws. This reasoning was applied to strike down interracial marriage discrimination laws and it should still apply today.

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

So you don't believe in the Constitution, Phatscotty? What happened to all your "States Rights (the 10th Amendment) is all-important!"? More hypocricy on your part?

Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't. It would appear that you don't.

[Phatscotty]

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

You don't have to worry about that. Your state can just take the lead from South Carolina and secede if you're afraid that ending your discriminatory policies will bankrupt you.

I think anyone trying to expand government benefits at a time of repeated downgrades needs to have their heads examined, and I'm serious.

History is going to laugh at us

[Metsfanmax]

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

You don't have to worry about that. Your state can just take the lead from South Carolina and secede if you're afraid that ending your discriminatory policies will bankrupt you.

I think anyone trying to expand government benefits at a time of repeated downgrades needs to have their heads examined, and I'm serious.

History is going to laugh at us

Yes, it will. But not for the reason you are thinking.

[Phatscotty]

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

You don't have to worry about that. Your state can just take the lead from South Carolina and secede if you're afraid that ending your discriminatory policies will bankrupt you.

I think anyone trying to expand government benefits at a time of repeated downgrades needs to have their heads examined, and I'm serious.

History is going to laugh at us

Yes, it will. But not for the reason you are thinking.

do you think that is because history will ignore the truth much in the same way you and many others ignore the severity of America's financial situation while always demanding more monetary benefits along the way?

This couldn't be more the opposite of "ask not what your country can do for you...."

[Woodruff]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

The Constitution is clear on this. The supremacy clause dictates that states' rights can NEVER be placed in front of equal protection in front of the law. I can understand a states' rights perspective on Obamacare. But not on a policy which explicitly violates the Constitution.

you mean "the good n plenty" clause.....The Supreme court had the option to hear challenges to the state amendments recently, they chose not to. As far was what is constitional, how familiar are you with the Minnesota Constitution????

is not whether we have the money for this in the first place relevant?

I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause also applies in overriding state constitutions as well as state laws. Even if you add this to the Minnesota Constitution, the U.S. Constitution still would make it illegal.

Also I would argue that a marriage amendment violates Article I, Section II of the Minnesota Constitution but that's not as obvious as the Equal Protection clause argument.

Also, you're absolutely right that it hasn't been as simple as "get the supreme court to rule on equal protection" when it comes to gay marriage. The intricacies of federal law are substantial. But that doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. I'm just arguing from a common sense perspective, and a plain reading of the Constitution, that there's no justification for discriminatory marriage laws. This reasoning was applied to strike down interracial marriage discrimination laws and it should still apply today.

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

So you don't believe in the Constitution, Phatscotty? What happened to all your "States Rights (the 10th Amendment) is all-important!"? More hypocricy on your part?

Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't. It would appear that you don't.

Phatscotty? Anything here?

I appreciate you taking this time to demonstrate that you know nothing about American politics! You and people similar to you are vital to us growing as a nation. Your ability to display the ignorant, clueless, and close-minded hypocricy that people need to avoid is unmatched. As such, we could not have hoped for a more clear example of what to avoid when people are critiquing their own viewpoints and opinions.

[Metsfanmax]

do you think that is because history will ignore the truth much in the same way you and many others ignore the severity of America's financial situation while always demanding more monetary benefits along the way?

This couldn't be more the opposite of "ask not what your country can do for you...."

History will judge this the same way it judged white slaveowners in the 1850s. No one still cares that ending their cotton empire meant economic downfall for the South.

[Phatscotty]

do you think that is because history will ignore the truth much in the same way you and many others ignore the severity of America's financial situation while always demanding more monetary benefits along the way?

This couldn't be more the opposite of "ask not what your country can do for you...."

History will judge this the same way it judged white slaveowners in the 1850s. No one still cares that ending their cotton empire meant economic downfall for the South.

of course. Everything is relative to the European slave trade from 400 years ago...

[Woodruff]

The Constitution is clear on this. The supremacy clause dictates that states' rights can NEVER be placed in front of equal protection in front of the law. I can understand a states' rights perspective on Obamacare. But not on a policy which explicitly violates the Constitution.

you mean "the good n plenty" clause.....The Supreme court had the option to hear challenges to the state amendments recently, they chose not to. As far was what is constitional, how familiar are you with the Minnesota Constitution????

is not whether we have the money for this in the first place relevant?

I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause also applies in overriding state constitutions as well as state laws. Even if you add this to the Minnesota Constitution, the U.S. Constitution still would make it illegal.

Also I would argue that a marriage amendment violates Article I, Section II of the Minnesota Constitution but that's not as obvious as the Equal Protection clause argument.

Also, you're absolutely right that it hasn't been as simple as "get the supreme court to rule on equal protection" when it comes to gay marriage. The intricacies of federal law are substantial. But that doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. I'm just arguing from a common sense perspective, and a plain reading of the Constitution, that there's no justification for discriminatory marriage laws. This reasoning was applied to strike down interracial marriage discrimination laws and it should still apply today.

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

So you don't believe in the Constitution, Phatscotty? What happened to all your "States Rights (the 10th Amendment) is all-important!"? More hypocricy on your part?

Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't. It would appear that you don't.

Phatscotty? Anything here?

No? Nothing?

[Phatscotty]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180593#p3944126

[Phatscotty]

some random guy...

The First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State. Either we believe in these or we don't. The question is "should we give the government power to sue religious organizations for not handling their business the way the government demands they should?" If the marriage amendment passes, how is that not a direct blow to freedom of religion? Or is it okay, because the government is already taking everything over anyways, and we should just say "f*ck it, let's go all the way"? We should know once we lose freedom of religion, freedom of speech is next. People can love whoever they want and be with whoever they want, but allowing the government to dictate how religious organizations run their institution is not the right way to address this issue. Vote Yes!

[Metsfanmax]

If you still think that marriage is a purely religious institution, you are deluded. You religious folk successfully denigrated separation of church and state by patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves money for doing what you were already doing. This movement is your own work. If you had just kept your little ritual within the church, none of this would be happening right now. But you didn't, and now we demand justice.

[Phatscotty]

If you still think that marriage is a purely religious institution, you are deluded. You religious folk successfully denigrated separation of church and state by patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves money for doing what you were already doing. This movement is your own work. If you had just kept your little ritual within the church, none of this would be happening right now. But you didn't, and now we demand justice.

oh, of course it isn't. The government took marriage over, even though it was not their intention to take it over all along.....right?

Maybe we have to keep an extra close eye on our government?

Nah! Trust them!!!!!!!!

[Metsfanmax]

If you still think that marriage is a purely religious institution, you are deluded. You religious folk successfully denigrated separation of church and state by patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves money for doing what you were already doing. This movement is your own work. If you had just kept your little ritual within the church, none of this would be happening right now. But you didn't, and now we demand justice.

oh, of course it isn't. The government took marriage over, even though it was not their intention to take it over all along.....right?

Maybe we have to keep an extra close eye on our government?

Nah! Trust them!!!!!!!!

It's amusing that you keep speaking of "the government" as some distant entity that you have no control over. But you send these people to Congress and the House, knowing that their religion is a large part of the way they will behave, and then you act surprised when they want to make laws that actually use that religion. You can turn a blind eye to it if you like, but this is purely the doing of the religious institutions.

Do you think that if Congress was full of atheists, anyone would have had the idea to give free money to people who engage in artificial religious institutions?

[Phatscotty]

If you still think that marriage is a purely religious institution, you are deluded. You religious folk successfully denigrated separation of church and state by patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves money for doing what you were already doing. This movement is your own work. If you had just kept your little ritual within the church, none of this would be happening right now. But you didn't, and now we demand justice.

oh, of course it isn't. The government took marriage over, even though it was not their intention to take it over all along.....right?

Maybe we have to keep an extra close eye on our government?

Nah! Trust them!!!!!!!!

It's amusing that you keep speaking of "the government" as some distant entity that you have no control over. But you send these people to Congress and the House, knowing that their religion is a large part of the way they will behave, and then you act surprised when they want to make laws that actually use that religion. You can turn a blind eye to it if you like, but this is purely the doing of the religious institutions.

your amusements aside, do you support the government takeover of marriage? Is that a good thing?

Also, to anyone reading this. Remember it, because you are going to hear the exact same thing about Obamacare in the future, when it turns into Obamacare 2.0. "Well, Obamacare already took over the health and insurance industry, so let's just go all the way with the socialism and abolishment of religion"

[Metsfanmax]

If you still think that marriage is a purely religious institution, you are deluded. You religious folk successfully denigrated separation of church and state by patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves money for doing what you were already doing. This movement is your own work. If you had just kept your little ritual within the church, none of this would be happening right now. But you didn't, and now we demand justice.

oh, of course it isn't. The government took marriage over, even though it was not their intention to take it over all along.....right?

Maybe we have to keep an extra close eye on our government?

Nah! Trust them!!!!!!!!

It's amusing that you keep speaking of "the government" as some distant entity that you have no control over. But you send these people to Congress and the House, knowing that their religion is a large part of the way they will behave, and then you act surprised when they want to make laws that actually use that religion. You can turn a blind eye to it if you like, but this is purely the doing of the religious institutions.

your amusements aside, do you support the government takeover of marriage? Is that a good thing?

No, it's a terrible thing. And you are the one responsible for it.

[Phatscotty]

If you still think that marriage is a purely religious institution, you are deluded. You religious folk successfully denigrated separation of church and state by patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves money for doing what you were already doing. This movement is your own work. If you had just kept your little ritual within the church, none of this would be happening right now. But you didn't, and now we demand justice.

oh, of course it isn't. The government took marriage over, even though it was not their intention to take it over all along.....right?

Maybe we have to keep an extra close eye on our government?

Nah! Trust them!!!!!!!!

It's amusing that you keep speaking of "the government" as some distant entity that you have no control over. But you send these people to Congress and the House, knowing that their religion is a large part of the way they will behave, and then you act surprised when they want to make laws that actually use that religion. You can turn a blind eye to it if you like, but this is purely the doing of the religious institutions.

your amusements aside, do you support the government takeover of marriage? Is that a good thing?

No, it's a terrible thing.

Then we agree. I also do not support the government taking over marriage

[Metsfanmax]

If you still think that marriage is a purely religious institution, you are deluded. You religious folk successfully denigrated separation of church and state by patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves money for doing what you were already doing. This movement is your own work. If you had just kept your little ritual within the church, none of this would be happening right now. But you didn't, and now we demand justice.

oh, of course it isn't. The government took marriage over, even though it was not their intention to take it over all along.....right?

Maybe we have to keep an extra close eye on our government?

Nah! Trust them!!!!!!!!

It's amusing that you keep speaking of "the government" as some distant entity that you have no control over. But you send these people to Congress and the House, knowing that their religion is a large part of the way they will behave, and then you act surprised when they want to make laws that actually use that religion. You can turn a blind eye to it if you like, but this is purely the doing of the religious institutions.

your amusements aside, do you support the government takeover of marriage? Is that a good thing?

No, it's a terrible thing.

Then we agree. I also do not support the government taking over marriage

Well, here's the thing. If you are going to get anything to change on that front, you're going to have to convince the other 99% of your church to intentionally give up their government benefits.

GL with that.

[Metsfanmax]

It's actually quite a nice racket you've got yourself there. Give yourselves free money for something you were already doing, and then when it becomes mainstream and most people forget that it hasn't always been this way, turn around and cry foul when someone else tries to get a piece of the free money pie.

"Oh no, you can't defile our institution by getting the government involved! Who knows what will happen when we mix church and state!"

[crispybits]

Because it seems to be relevant to the current bit of the discussion I'm still wondering if you have any response to this post PS?

OK PS, would you agree that the following should all no longer apply to any man-woman married couple? (note I'm not saying same-sex couples should get these, but that this is what you are giving up if the government gets out of marriage entirely as you propose). Do you think the majority would be willing to give up all of this in order to defend their religious customs?

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

It's very easy to say that "marriage is religious and sacred and the government should GTFO" but if you do that there are real consequences that are far more far-reaching than a few tax breaks and access to joint benefits.

[crispybits]

And for the person that did offer the only response...

When put in this light, getting rid of legal marriage does look a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However, it seems there are ways around all of these. I would think that a more appropriate way to give these items would be to award them to those who have been living together for a certain amount of time and married not just those who were married. Marriage is such an easy thing to do, takes a very small amount of money and very little time to get all of these benefits. It's just too easy to "sign up" for all of the aforementioned rights and makes for a ton of people getting married solely for the sake of the breaks. I say allow it, just make the gate more rigid.

So your response to a discriminatory situation is to make it even more discriminatory? You're now discriminating against not only homosexual couples but also young couples.

Say you set it at 3 years. That means anyone under 21 (I assume marriage age in the states is 18?) now cannot get the benefits of marriage either.

A 20 year old couple, with 2 kids, having lived together for 2 years (they moved in together when the first kid was due), now can't do any of the things that are denied unmarried couples in my post.

Or, we simply have a federally implemented marriage system that gives the official benefits and if people want to add the religious bit in then nothing is stopping them.

The only objection to this I've seen on this forum is "waaaah, but marriage is OUR WORD!!!!" Like Christians invented marriage....