politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is all so stupid. It's the religious term "marriage" that they all fight for. Give it to them.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Problem solved.
Excuse me? Absolutely fucking not. You don't get to concede my marriage, and to be frank, fuck you for even suggesting it.
Marriage is not a "contract". A contract binds two parties to an agreement. Marriage binds many third parties to be obligated to recognize it for things like hospital visitation, privilege to not be forced to testify against one's own spouse, "married filing jointly", and hundreds more examples.
This argument you're making right now is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I was having with people vocally and financially supporting band on same-sex marriage in the 2000s. I thought this braindead bigoted bullshit died in the 2010s, but here you are
I think you missed the main term in my response. Union. A union is a recognized formation of parts that work together for a common interest or purpose.
A "union" could be designated to have all rights and privileges that you lay out as only reserved for marriage. But a union could also go further. It could go into any level of granularity that the people of the union specify that might be ambiguous with typical "marriage rights". If marriage defines everything then what's the point of a prenup? Also, ALL of your examples can be superseded by other legal agreements, contracts, wills, etc. For example, a signed power of attorney takes priority of hospital decisions.
I'm making quite the opposite point on same-sex marriage.
That's a lot of "could" and "would" doing a lot of work while ultimately still in support of fascist bigoted bullshit.
All hypothetical shit when the actual, currently working concept of marriage already exists
Now you lost me. Are you saying the current system of marriage works and at the same time insisting I'm the one against same sex marriage?
Separate but equal is not the solution you think it is.
It does not have to be separate. No legally recognized marriage for anyone. You want marriage, go to a priest. No reason for gov to stick their nose in.
It is pretty much a violation of separation of church and state to take a religious term from a religious ritual like marriage and giving it legal weight.
I think you made my point better than me.
FWIW, I support abolition of marriage. It's weird that relationships are enshrined in law anyway, as many people do not fit into those rigid definitions. Whether it is because they do not wish to have a marriage/romantic relationships or otherwise have them be legally bound, or because they are poly and have more partners, and asking people to choose isn't great
In my head I guess marriage just feels archaic. Sure, it still got a similar purpose to how it was historically, but I question whether it's actually a good thing to keep
How would you protect the rights that go with marriage if you abolish marriage? Those include the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, right to attend spouse's funeral, right to name spouse for inheritance purposes with legal weight, right to live in the housing you shared with your spouse after your spouse dies, right for your spouse to make medical decisions should you be unable to make those decisions, and others that I may be overlooking.
Your recognized "union" provides all of rights and goes to any level of detail you wish. For example, imagine a union, will, POA, all wrapped up into one.
The laws for POA would have to change to allow for such a union. There would have to be some kind of protection for wills as well, because there are going to be fights from people against the LGBTQ community.
If all marriages were dissolved and became unions, that might work. Otherwise, it would be a separate but equal thing.
You can do paperwork for these things. Marriage is convenient though. We need laws that just say "yeah I trust my friend/relative to decide for me" like a non marriage
Please explain to me how exactly could I "do paperwork" to restore, for example the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege that would both be taken away from me if my marriage was dissolved.
And do you really expect people to just start pre-emptively filling out paperwork to notify every single hospital they might possibly ever end up in after some major health issue, that would allow their spouse to visit them, particularly if it's a hospital in an area hostile to queer folks?
You enter into a contractual union that is recognized by the federal government.
That's not how contracts work
Which part? The entities entering into a contract or the judicial branch honoring contracts?
The part where a contract between two parties (spouses) has any power over anyone else who didn't sign the contract, like hospitals for visitation for example.
My hospital didn't sign my medical power of attorney. Yours did?
I get your point. I'm saying these should extend past marriages.
Why take my marriage of 12 years away then?
Man, fuck your strawmans and fuck you. I support gay marriage. Try spinning that however will boost your moral superiority, but I'm not engaging with your bad faith bullshit.
Paperwork didn't help the partners of AIDS victims who were kept out of the hospital and heard of their partner's passing via the obituaries and then kicked out of their house.
Even today, there are families who would separate sane sex partners and do the same awful things. Marriage guarantees rights, paperwork does nothing to stop the horrible people in our lives that would lash out at the first chance.
If there "unions" and not "marriages" it wouldn't have been issue.
This has been my position since around the time when same sex marriage was being fought in the courts. Interestingly, a family member who is super conservative and religious came up with this same idea back then, and I was on board. (Her reasoning was that she wasn't against gay people having the same rights but that marriage is a "holy" bond between a man and a woman 🙄)
I've found that it's a way to get conservatives/religious folks onboard with same-sex marriage if their issue is the word "marriage" and ensuring its sanctity (cue eye-roll). It simultaneously outs the bigots because they can't hide behind religious BS, and they show their hand. Back in the '00s and early '10s, I would use it as a litmus test of which Republicans in my life I would continue to associate with.
Maybe that's a sign that this is not something that you should be on board with.
As a gay man, I find people like you to be MORE frustrating than the ultra conservative bigots. The bigots I expect to be bigoted. Folks who side with bigoted positions who might otherwise be decent, however, I have to really think hard about what's wrong with them that they allow themselves to be swayed to bigoted positions.
@Noxy. Question. Would you rather be "married", with no rights or privileges, to your spouse or be in a "union" with your spouse with rights and privileges?
I hate to say it but religious people claim the word marriage. You can fight all you want but it won't change the outcome.
Fuck em. Stop giving religious people special rights and permissions and exceptions and privilege. Give them no new things and start taking away old ones.
I reject your premise. I have already been married for twelve years. Both of your options take that away from me in one form or another.
I don't give a millionth of a shit what bigots hiding behind religion think or say. They are my oppressors. I give their opinions zero regard or respect. They are fundamentally bad and I will never concede.