• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Redress said:
I am sorry, I am not following what you are asking. Could you rephrase that please.
Click to expand...

Assume DOMA stands. How is this good for gays in states that don't recognize civil unions? If states have to legally define civil unions as marriage would it not increase opposition to recognizing them?
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you have a better alternative available?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the alternative is better. Personally, if I was gay and I felt that the President was acting unconstitutionally by discriminating against me there was no way I could vote for him.
 
Navy Pride said:
so should one be allowed to have 2 wives or husbands? {/QUOTE]

Sure as long as an equitable solution can be found out. As it goes now with this one woman one man thing it causes a lot of problems and legal issues.

should people be allowed to marry within the family (Non sexual for benefits allowed) That is the bucket of worms you open if you allow gay marriage..
Click to expand...


That is already covered and family does get legal rights to inheritance
Click to expand...
 
danarhea said:
The status quo? You better show me some evidence of that. I do not see a bit of that in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If the SCOTUS determined it was unconstituional it would not be permitted by law. The passage of DOMA, which codifies the non-recognition of SSM at the federal level, is evidence enough.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Whether it's against the Constitution is the legal debate, and the status quo is that it's constitutional. Can I assume you would never accept "separate but equal" even if it meant the same legal benefits? Is this a single-issue for you? How do you reconcile your support for Obama with your belief that he stands for unequal, unconstitutional treatment of you?
Click to expand...

A separate but equal institution is unconstitutional, that's pretty well established, so I would not support something that is unconstitutional. And it will only be a matter of time before the courts established that bans against SSM will be unconstitutional.

Also you make the mistake assuming that I support Obama. Obama has been iffy on gay rights for me, he's been good on everything but SSM, though I think he will come out in support of it, if he gets a second term.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
If the SCOTUS determined it was unconstituional it would not be permitted by law. The passage of DOMA, which codifies the non-recognition of SSM at the federal level, is evidence enough.
Click to expand...

DOMA is so damn unconstitutional it's not even funny.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Assume DOMA stands. How is this good for gays in states that don't recognize civil unions? If states have to legally define civil unions as marriage would it not increase opposition to recognizing them?
Click to expand...

Because marriages are recognized across state lines. So a gay couple could go to NY where there is no residency requirement for marriage and SSM is legal, then return to their home state legally married. Since marriage is considered a contract, the home state could not legally deny it's validity.

Edit: I missed the part where you supposed DOMA stands. It won't. Historically the states have been able to decide who can get married. This is a really clear cut case and I could even see SCOTUS declining to hear the final appeal.
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
Assume DOMA stands. How is this good for gays in states that don't recognize civil unions? If states have to legally define civil unions as marriage would it not increase opposition to recognizing them?
Click to expand...

DOMA is unconstitutional, but if you don't want gay marriage, then there is one way to keep it out - A Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, you believe not in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but a loose one. That makes you a Liberal. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
DOMA is unconstitutional, but if you don't want gay marriage, then there is one way to keep it out - A Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, you believe not in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but a loose one. That makes you a Liberal. LOL.
Click to expand...

I like loose. That makes me a libertine.
 
Redress said:
Because marriages are recognized across state lines. So a gay couple could go to NY where there is no residency requirement for marriage and SSM is legal, then return to their home state legally married. Since marriage is considered a contract, the home state could not legally deny it's validity.

Edit: I missed the part where you supposed DOMA stands. It won't. Historically the states have been able to decide who can get married. This is a really clear cut case and I could even see SCOTUS declining to hear the final appeal.
Click to expand...

What's the status of the DOMA case? Haven't been keeping up with that.
 
Your Star said:
Also you make the mistake assuming that I support Obama. Obama has been iffy on gay rights for me, he's been good on everything but SSM, though I think he will come out in support of it, if he gets a second term.
Click to expand...

I apologize, I inferred your support for Obama from your postings on this board.

A separate but equal institution is unconstitutional, that's pretty well established, so I would not support something that is unconstitutional. And it will only be a matter of time before the courts established that bans against SSM will be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's only a matter of time, the federal government will recognize SSM in a matter of years at most.

DOMA is so damn unconstitutional it's not even funny.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has yet to agree. I'll take their legal judgment over yours.
 
CriticalThought said:
Romer v. Evans
Click to expand...

(Just to restate the question to which you reply: With regard to marriage, what precedents are there to support the statement, "The constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. When one group of people are denied their rights on the basis of sexual preference, that's unconstitutional.")


And no. Romer was about statutory safeguards, and had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. That's where Reinhardt is talking out of his ass. The on-point case, Baker, he sniffs at in a footnote and deems "not pertinent here" after this on page 47.
We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so. Further, we express no view on those questions.
Click to expand...
 
If gays get married across this nation the same thing that happened in Massachusetts when their Supreme court ruled for State recognition of gay marriage will happen across the nation!

BTW are they still on the map:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
What's the status of the DOMA case? Haven't been keeping up with that.
Click to expand...

After Obama declined to defend DOMA, congress has been getting involved and that is slowing things down. Most recently over 100 liberal congressman filed an amicus brief in support of Tauro's ruling.
 
danarhea said:
DOMA is unconstitutional, but if you don't want gay marriage, then there is one way to keep it out - A Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, you believe not in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but a loose one. That makes you a Liberal. LOL.
Click to expand...

I don't assume to understand how exactly the constitution should be interpreted. It's outside of my realm of expertise so I trust our judicial system to interpret and remedy any violations. Personally, I believe in the constiutionality of the Federal Reserve (as our courts have interpreted) so I guess that means I'm not a strict constructionist. Call me naive, liberal, whatever, I don't care.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
I apologize, I inferred your support for Obama from your postings on this board.



I agree that it's only a matter of time, the federal government will recognize SSM in a matter of years at most.



SCOTUS has yet to agree. I'll take their legal judgment over yours.
Click to expand...

I support Obama over the republican candidates, if I could choose a real liberal I would be ecstatic too.

And DOMA is unconstitutional, no where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can define marriage, which is exactly what DOMA does.
 
Redress said:
Pressed for time at the moment so am only going to respond to this part: In the original ruling on DOMA, there where a number of references to equal rights not for gay people, but for gender. That is, men could marry some one women could not, and vice versa. Gender discrimination is always strict scrutiny. I am not sure I am swayed by this argument(and I am not giving all the details here), but that is just one way that strict srutiny could be rules to be appropriate. The level of scrutiny used is one of the big questions of this case.
Click to expand...

This isn't gender. It isn't even sexual preference or orientation. It is marriage and the constitutionality of state laws regulating it. With regard to same sex couples, SCOTUS has a precedent of summary dismissal of the question in Baker v. Nelson. You can't get more relaxed scrutiny than that.

From Smith's opinion:

According to Proponents, the claims raised here are the same as those rejected in Baker, and the claims are therefore foreclosed by that decision. The majority dispenses with Baker in a footnote. However, other federal courts have indicated that Baker, if it is not controlling, at least stands for exercising "restraint" when it comes to addressing due process and equal protection challenges against laws prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples. . . .

As Justice Stewart opined in his concurrence in Zablocki v. Redhail, a State may in many circumstances absolutely prohibit [marriage]. Surely, for example, a State may legitimately say that no one can marry his or her sibling, that no one can marry who is not at least 14 years old, that no one can marry without first passing an examination for venereal disease, or that no one can marry who has a living husband or wife.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
I don't assume to understand how exactly the constitution should be interpreted. It's outside of my realm of expertise so I trust our judicial system to interpret and remedy any violations. Personally, I believe in the constiutionality of the Federal Reserve (as our courts have interpreted) so I guess that means I'm not a strict constructionist. Call me naive, liberal, whatever, I don't care.
Click to expand...

I'll call you what you are. Uneducated. Read a book dude. Saying you trust the gov't isn't naive, its just dumb.
 
LuckyDan said:
This isn't gender. It isn't even sexual preference or orientation. It is marriage and the constitutionality of state laws regulating it. With regard to same sex couples, SCOTUS has a precedent of summary dismissal of the question in Baker v. Nelson. You can't get more relaxed scrutiny than that.

From Smith's opinion:
Click to expand...

Big diff: California was a state in which same sex couples were granted marriage rights and then had them taken away by referendum. That is considerably different than Baker v. Nelson.
 
I'll be the rare conservative on here who doesn't get in line with everyone else. I don't think the gov't should have anything to do with marriage. If two men want to marry, have at it. I don't agree with it and I believe it is a sin. However, I don't want the gov't telling us who can and can't be married. Two gays getting married isn't hurting anyone. They only condemn themselves. Who am I to judge them? I'm not God. I can judge their sin, not them. The slippery slope to go down is should they get adoption rights? My thoughts on gay marriage are based on the precedent that no innocent person is harmed. In stark contrast to abortion, I believe that two homosexuals getting married harms no one. Abortion does harm a person, so I don't agree with it. However, the issue of gay couples adopting children is one I can't decide and is a subect I would like to hear debate on. My gut tells me, no, they shouldn't get them. However, if we allow gays to marry, eventually the right to adopt will be pushed for. So, what say everyone else on this?
 
MarineTpartier said:
I'll call you what you are. Uneducated. Read a book dude. Saying you trust the gov't isn't naive, its just dumb.
Click to expand...

Really, I'm dumb because I defer constitutional expertise to the Supreme Court? Yes, I'm uneducated on constitutional law relative to Supreme Court justices. I have a healthy distrust of government, but I'm not conspiratorial as you seem to be
 
This should make life easy for santorum. All he has to do is say "vote 4 me or else end up like California" and he'll win the GOP nomination.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I'll be the rare conservative on here who doesn't get in line with everyone else. I don't think the gov't should have anything to do with marriage. If two men want to marry, have at it. I don't agree with it and I believe it is a sin. However, I don't want the gov't telling us who can and can't be married. Two gays getting married isn't hurting anyone. They only condemn themselves. Who am I to judge them? I'm not God. I can judge their sin, not them. The slippery slope to go down is should they get adoption rights? My thoughts on gay marriage are based on the precedent that no innocent person is harmed. In stark contrast to abortion, I believe that two homosexuals getting married harms no one. Abortion does harm a person, so I don't agree with it. However, the issue of gay couples adopting children is one I can't decide and is a subect I would like to hear debate on. My gut tells me, no, they shouldn't get them. However, if we allow gays to marry, eventually the right to adopt will be pushed for. So, what say everyone else on this?
Click to expand...

Your stance on the "government getting out of marriage altogether" actually isn't that rare. A number of posters on this site have suggested it as well, although I think doing away with government's role in marriage just won't be practical.

The evidence so far suggests that children of homosexual couples are just as well-adjusted as those of heterosexuals (in other words, having same-sex parents has no bearing on how well the child is raised). In fact, the fact that most homosexual couples actually WANT and are usually PREPARED to be parents, unlike many heterosexual couples, is obviously a huge plus.
 
CriticalThought said:
Big diff: California was a state in which same sex couples were granted marriage rights and then had them taken away by referendum. That is considerably different than Baker v. Nelson.
Click to expand...

And one reason why a SCOTUS ruling here could be limited to CA, and could then further be limited to those marriages that occurred pre-Prop 8.

Probably not, though. I'm confident that SCOTUS would reverse the 9th and let Prop 8 be enforced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom