• 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!

New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

You are correct, up until the point that said marriage bestows upon the individuals benefits by the government that is based upon a foundation of citizens having input in what it does. At said point, it absolutely DOES become everyones right to tell another adult human who they can marry to gain government benefits as long as said restriction is within the boundries of the law.

You are 100% correct.
The boundaries of the law allows for equal protection under the law. So, as long as the Federal government allows the recognition of marriage for one group of people, so must they allow for recognition for all.
 
You are 100% correct.
The boundaries of the law allows for equal protection under the law. So, as long as the Federal government allows the recognition of marriage for one group of people, so must they allow for recognition for all.

Again, incorrect.

The Federal Government absolutely CAN discriminate against groups and does not have to provide equal protection in all cases, only in specific instances where the government can not offer up the required defense in regards to the need for said discrimination and the reason that said discrimination fits that need.

Whether or not the government has such a legitimate argument against Gay Marriage and/or Same Sex Marriage is still up for debate, and at this point there's been no SCOTUS ruling suggesting that they don't have such an argument. Until such time, yes....people absolutely do have a right to have a say in whether or not they wish to have their state allow gay marriage.
 
I think Obama's position is more along the lines of I support it, but I need to protect my ass at least for the next six months.

But either way, not exactly respectable, I agree.
For the record...I have said it before...I would vote against it in my state (my opinion is identicval to that expressed by candidate Obama, President Clinton and MANY prominent democrats), but if the vote were for it, the sun would still come up. In my opinion, once the citizens of a state have been given a referendum and had the opportunity to vote for gay marriage and has voted to legalize gay marriage, I believe it is cruel to then change their mind and suddenly disallow gay marriages. This shouldnt be a revolving door issue based on the whims of political change. These are people and their lives that are being ****ed with. Very inappropriate IMO.
 
Im fine with people taking Obamas position of not supporting it but not fighting it. I will explain to them why I believe they should support it however. What I really dont like though is when people actively fight against SSM.

I'm not. I *understand* why career politicians shy away from, you know, integrity...but being understandable doesn't make it any less of an evasion. Also, to be clear, there's no such thing as "neutral" in terms of actual effect. One may intend to not have an impact on an issue one way or another, but in reality it doesn't actually work that way. In any deeply contested struggle, one's inaction favors whatever direction has the most momentum at the time. Politicians get away with such abandonment-via-false-neutrality through at least two avenues:

First, most of them can rely upon doing the obvious math that The Other Guy (in this case, the folks going out of their way to push theocracy and legislation openly discriminating against gay and lesbian couples) will correctly be seen as Even Worse, so candidates can usually count on victory (on such issues) through the Lesser-of-Evils/Damage Control approach employed by many (if not most) voters;

Second, at the moment there is massive momentum in favor of legal recognition of marriage for gay couples, helped in no small part by the transparent bigotry and the bankruptcy of the legal arguments being put forth by these same bigots. The farcical incompetence of the legal counsel in the Prop 8 challenges is the archetypal example of this. I'm hard pressed to think of many civil rights cases where the expert witnesses ostensibly marshaled to testify on behalf of the opponents of equal treatment...end up offering testimony which undermines the arguments of "their" side. The icing on the cake was the pro-Prop 8 counsel's assertion that they didn't really need to make a case in the first place (as if ruling in their favor was just a self-obvious/fated outcome). Most civil rights struggles are not so fortunate in terms of having bumbling morons acting as the opposition's generals. So in any case, cowardly politicians can take advantage of this momentum by declining to take a principled stand, knowing that the momentum of recent court decisions will take the heat off of them.
 
You are 100% correct.
The boundaries of the law allows for equal protection under the law. So, as long as the Federal government allows the recognition of marriage for one group of people, so must they allow for recognition for all.
Are you implying that all sovereign power rests with the federal government and none with the people? Is that not the exact opposite of the reason and purpose of a revolution and our founding? If the people have no say then it is time for another revolution.
 
Are you implying that all sovereign power rests with the federal government and none with the people? Is that not the exact opposite of the reason and purpose of a revolution and our founding? If the people have no say then it is time for another revolution.

If you are deciding for someone else who they can marry, you are seeking to control far more than either the federal government. Marriage is a personal decision. Assuring equal protection, both state and federal responsibility.
 
If you are deciding for someone else who they can marry, you are seeking to control far more than either the federal government. Marriage is a personal decision. Assuring equal protection, both state and federal responsibility.
There are two issues. I was addressing where sovereign power originates. It originates in the people.
Marriage is a local issue. States can and should decide the mores and laws they prefer to live under.
 
There are two issues. I was addressing where sovereign power originates. It originates in the people.
Marriage is a local issue. States can and should decide the mores and laws they prefer to live under.

As it applies here, marriage is a personal issue. Therefore a majority vote has no place. As it relates to equal protection, the law is the issue. If you want to change the law to say some are more equal than others, you have to through that process and not ask people to break the law.

Fore mores to be codified, when should first have to show harm. Sometimes people dress, talk, and act outside the mores of the majority, and do so at their own risk. But there are no laws that prevent them, nor should there be. Freedom requires allowing for the possibility that someone might be offended, or disagree, or even choose not to associate. But you cannot argue for less government and seek to have government choose one group over another, not logically anyway.
 
If you are deciding for someone else who they can marry

You are not doing so. You are deciding who someone else may marry under the law

Same sex couples are in no way shape or form denied the ability to get married in a genearl sense. They're denied the ability to have said marriage recognized under the law.

The fact that it's a law and the government providing benefits makes it absolutely the business of each and every citizen.

Marriage is a personal decision.

It is.

Granting government benefits is a government decision, meaning voters have a say on it.

Assuring equal protection, both state and federal responsibility.

Equal Protection where its constitutionally mandated.

At this point, it is not constitutionally mandated on this issue.
 
You are not doing so. You are deciding who someone else may marry under the law

Same sex couples are in no way shape or form denied the ability to get married in a genearl sense. They're denied the ability to have said marriage recognized under the law.

The fact that it's a law and the government providing benefits makes it absolutely the business of each and every citizen.

I really see no difference. None at all. And believe it is still not anyone's business who I or anyone else marries without just cause.



It is.

Granting government benefits is a government decision, meaning voters have a say on it.

And granting them for some and not others falls under equal protection.



Equal Protection where its constitutionally mandated.

At this point, it is not constitutionally mandated on this issue.

I think is, and I think the courts have ruled rather consistently that it does.
 
I really see no difference. None at all. And believe it is still not anyone's business who I or anyone else marries without just cause.

Well that's fine. You're factually wrong. The moment you get PUBLIC benefits for having your marriage PUBLICLY recognized by Government it becomes the business of the PUBLIC.

And granting them for some and not others falls under equal protection.

Boo, you should actually take some time to understand the Equal Protection Clause.

This may come as a shock to you, but there are MANY things in this country that do not give equal protectoin under the law. Ever heard of Curfew laws for an example? Ever hear about the difference in standing between felons and non-felons? How about women in combat duty?

The government ABSOLUTELY can have unequal protectoin under the law IF said law meets certian requirements based on the classification that is being discriminated against.

Thus far, there is no SCOTUS ruling suggesting that the disallowing of gay or same sex marriage is a violation of the EPC. Until such time that it happens, you're just spouting your opinion as if its fact.

I think is, and I think the courts have ruled rather consistently that it does.

A few lower courts have, however at this point the one court that matters in regards to things on a federal level haven't weighed in on it yet. If they had, then the various states that have voted to allow or disallow gay marriage would've never been able to do so because it wouldn't have relevant. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to the federal stance on it at this point, states are absolutely free to allow or disallow civil unions/gay marriage on a state by state basis and that will continue to be the situation up until such point that the SCOTUS rules otherwise.
 
Well that's fine. You're factually wrong. The moment you get PUBLIC benefits for having your marriage PUBLICLY recognized by Government it becomes the business of the PUBLIC.

Oh the public can vote on whether marriage gets benefits, whether they want us to have the government recognize marriage. But not to choose one pairing over another. That is too much of people reaching into personal lives.



Boo, you should actually take some time to understand the Equal Protection Clause.

This may come as a shock to you, but there are MANY things in this country that do not give equal protectoin under the law. Ever heard of Curfew laws for an example? Ever hear about the difference in standing between felons and non-felons? How about women in combat duty?

The government ABSOLUTELY can have unequal protectoin under the law IF said law meets certian requirements based on the classification that is being discriminated against.

Thus far, there is no SCOTUS ruling suggesting that the disallowing of gay or same sex marriage is a violation of the EPC. Until such time that it happens, you're just spouting your opinion as if its fact.

No one said SCOTUS ruling. The word was courts:

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the ruling said.

Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage - CNN

BTW, your comparisons are like apples to tree frogs. You can make exceptions with just cause. But there has to be that essential reasoning, and more than a majority just doesn't like it.

A few lower courts have, however at this point the one court that matters in regards to things on a federal level haven't weighed in on it yet. If they had, then the various states that have voted to allow or disallow gay marriage would've never been able to do so because it wouldn't have relevant. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to the federal stance on it at this point, states are absolutely free to allow or disallow civil unions/gay marriage on a state by state basis and that will continue to be the situation up until such point that the SCOTUS rules otherwise.

Give it time. But when you follow lower court rulings the odds increase that higher courts will rule the same. Not 100%. Not a certainty. But it is better and more likely than if ruled the other way.
 
There are two issues. I was addressing where sovereign power originates. It originates in the people.
Marriage is a local issue. States can and should decide the mores and laws they prefer to live under.

Marriage was, until the advent of the Marriage License. Then it became government issued and recognized contract; and the individual has right to contract.
 
As it applies here, marriage is a personal issue. Therefore a majority vote has no place. As it relates to equal protection, the law is the issue. If you want to change the law to say some are more equal than others, you have to through that process and not ask people to break the law.

Fore mores to be codified, when should first have to show harm. Sometimes people dress, talk, and act outside the mores of the majority, and do so at their own risk. But there are no laws that prevent them, nor should there be. Freedom requires allowing for the possibility that someone might be offended, or disagree, or even choose not to associate. But you cannot argue for less government and seek to have government choose one group over another, not logically anyway.
I see we have two different views. We shall have to agree to disagree.
 
No one said SCOTUS ruling. The word was courts:

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the ruling said.
If the people of a state vote one way and then a court overturns the will of the people then that state has lost a great deal. It is far better to change people's minds than to use state power. It corrupts the process and the people.
 
OK..quick Time Out regarding sovereignty:

The establishment and rise of the United States was built directly upon mass violation of sovereignty, first of the hundreds of nations already here (upon whose lands the United States imposed its rule), next upon the colonial subjects of the United States (over 99.9% of whom didn't even have symbolic, let alone substantive, influence upon the structure of the new country's laws), and finally upon subsequent generations of descendants of both.

So this nonsensical idea that it's OK to run roughshod over the political will of the people most of the time (as was done to create and maintain the United States in the first place), but when it comes to the rights of a vulnerable minority, all of a sudden the mob rule of playing into the prejudices of an entitled majority (or forcing the vulnerable populations to appeal to the whims and convenience of that entitled majority) is spun as being based upon sovereignty ultimately residing in the will of the people, that's a pile of rabid exceptionalism.

There is nothing sacred or warranting special respect in the intent of the Founders. They openly sought a plutocratic empire, and that's what they got. If we chose some completely irrational and self-destructive commitment to the intent of the Founders, then the vast majority of us would be chattel slaves, indentured servants, baby factories, or some combination of each...and all without so much as even a symbolic vote in policy matters.

The principle of protecting a potentially vulnerable minority against the political will of the majority is actually strongly present in the original constitution, though it was coming from a motivation directly counter to the lofty ideals falsely associated with the U.S. Constitution today. In the time of the Founders, the issue was one of how to protect a tiny, elite-within-elite, rarified owning class insulated against the well-known (and perfectly legitimate) grievances of the rest of the population. Ironically, due to the exact kind of public pressure and political organizing the Founders sought to suppress, the Constitution has been recast and reframed as a legal tool for reclaiming (rather than suppressing) democratic political will.

Back to reality: the cries of "states' rights!" and "popular sovereignty" etc. spouted today as knee-jerk responses to carrying out modern constitutional principles to their logical end...are really paper-thin rationalizations for supporting a completely irrational advocacy against political equality for gay people. At the end of the day, it comes down to this: there is no rational basis for discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. To the extent that the Constitution is upheld, such discrimination is patently unconstitutional. Yes, technically, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this yet, but implying that there's no basis for them to do so, or that discrimination isn't really discrimination until and unless some kind of judicial review official stamps it as such...is disingenuous...it's like seeing dissidents get murdered in the street and then pretending they're not dead until you receive an official death notice about them.
 
Right...like everyone was so vocal about the Catholics, blacks, and Hispanic majorities that were 'against' it in California. Oh....wait...no...no...again...gutless spineless attacks against others but not them. And I hear you...people can disagree with you as long as they just accept it. Keep digging...you are doing great.

Yeah I tend to not like it when people fight against equal rights for me.
 
Last edited:
If the people of a state vote one way and then a court overturns the will of the people then that state has lost a great deal. It is far better to change people's minds than to use state power. It corrupts the process and the people.

So then in your opinion Loving v. VA and Brown v. the Board of Education rulings were wrong then since they both overturned the will of the people in many states?
 
Give it time. But when you follow lower court rulings the odds increase that higher courts will rule the same. Not 100%. Not a certainty. But it is better and more likely than if ruled the other way.

Never said that it was unlikely, I said the FACT of the matter right now is that federally it is not considered an equal protection violation at this point. What the Connecticut Supreme Court says doesn't in any way affect what the status of it is nationally. Forgive me for refusing to allow you to act like something that is OPINION on your part nationally is some how of unquestionable fact. It's not. Up until the point that the SCOTUS rules otherwise, it simply is not...on a federal level...prohibited on a state by state basis under equal protection.
 
So then in your opinion Loving v. VA and Brown v. the Board of Education rulings were wrong then since they both overturned the will of the people in many states?
Stick with me. When an individual state votes on the issue and a majority in that state decides why would the courts involve themselves? The people have a right to determine the laws and the mores of their state.

I know the homosexuals and their supporters want to equate the right to marry with a right to life, liberty, and property. Perhaps one day it will be viewed that way. When your side loses at the ballot you ought to have the decency to spend more time changing hearts and minds. You diminish the legitimacy of the state when unelected, unaccountable people overthrow the will of the people as evidenced by a vote.
 
Stick with me. When an individual state votes on the issue and a majority in that state decides why would the courts involve themselves? The people have a right to determine the laws and the mores of their state.

I know the homosexuals and their supporters want to equate the right to marry with a right to life, liberty, and property. Perhaps one day it will be viewed that way. When your side loses at the ballot you ought to have the decency to spend more time changing hearts and minds. You diminish the legitimacy of the state when unelected, unaccountable people overthrow the will of the people as evidenced by a vote.

The fact is that the SCOTUS has many times overturned the votes of the people in many states because the laws those states tried to enact went against part of the Constitution. That is their job. It is why they exist in the first place, to ensure the government does not enact laws, even by the backing of the people that violate the federal Constitution. Those Constitutional protections must be upheld by states as well as the federal government.

The court serves a very important role in our country in protecting the rights of all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Amendments from being violated, even by the majority vote of other citizens.
 
Yeah I tend to not like it when people fight against equal rights for me.

Then I guess you are right...Obama is a bigot and homophobe and you should rally the troops and go glitter bomb his ass but please for the love of GOD stop selling Out your beliefs and cause in the name of partisanship. It's pathetic and you ought to be embarrassed.
 
Last edited:
Mrs. Loving disagrees with you.

We have been through this a dozen times but take your ass to some black church on Sunday morning and ask them what they think about gay marriage if you have the guts...........
 
The fact is that the SCOTUS has many times overturned the votes of the people in many states because the laws those states tried to enact went against part of the Constitution. That is their job. It is why they exist in the first place, to ensure the government does not enact laws, even by the backing of the people that violate the federal Constitution. Those Constitutional protections must be upheld by states as well as the federal government.

The court serves a very important role in our country in protecting the rights of all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Amendments from being violated, even by the majority vote of other citizens.
I do not believe the citizens were called upon to vote on an issue very often. But they have been given the opportunity to vote on what marriage ought to mean to them, in their state. When the people speak the state has the responsibility to listen. Overturn the will of the people too often and the citizens will rise up to punish you. When unaccountable men in black robes overturn the will of the people they ought to be punished just as severely.

Convince us instead. Anything else borders on tyranny.
 
We have been through this a dozen times but take your ass to some black church on Sunday morning and ask them what they think about gay marriage if you have the guts...........

I don't go to church, nor do I need to. I don't care what the majority of blacks think. They are no more entitled to discriminate than any other race.
 
Back
Top Bottom