• 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: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

How is it not obvious?

There are some who insist the rulings have not been based on discrimination against homosexuality, but on sex-based discrimination against those who wish to marry the same gender.

I'm pointing out that they're wrong.

Do you disagree?

I think there is no significant difference. For homosexuals to marry, they would have to marry someone of the same gender. If this issue is not forefront, the ruling has no bearing.
 
Would LOVE to be a fly on the wall when NP reads the news. I can just hear him now. "Goddamn legislation from the bench again! Those damn liberal commie homo lovin' activist judges!"

Priceless............

:mrgreen::lamo:applaud:2dance:

Let freedom ring! God bless America. Our best days are still ahead of us.
 
Last edited:
Getting closer, and closer.:mrgreen:
 
I think there is no significant difference.

Except that there's functionally a huge difference. Rulings based on sex discrimination are more likely to stand, because sex is a suspect class. Rulings based on discrimination against homosexuality are far weaker, because homosexuality is not a suspect class.

In order for rulings based on sex discrimination to hold, it must be successfully argued that gender isn't an inherent part of marriage.

However, in order for rulings based on discrimination against homosexuality to stand, then it must be argued that sexuality and romantic love IS an inherent part of marriage, else there's no actual basis for claiming discrimination. This is not only harder to do than the above, but it also goes against many of the pro-SSM arguments.

So yeah, the legal mechanics are totally different. That's why it's significant. All of this will play into a Supreme Court ruling, and the prevailing arguments have been the weaker arguments, legally speaking.
 
Note, for some who are having trouble with the issue --

This ruling is not based on discrimination by sex (gender).

This ruling is based on discrimination against homosexuality.

This has been true of every ruling.

It is most certainly NOT as sexual realtions are not required in (related to?) a marraige contract at all, one may have them outside of marraige or elect not to within marraige. This is about gender since only the gender of ONE spouse, in a marraige contract is desired to be changed, not the sexuality "requirements" of either. Has ANYONE considered the effect that this will have on "common law" marraige statutes?
 
Last edited:
It is most certainly NOT as sexual realtions are not required in (related to?) marraige at all, one may have them outside of marraige or elect not to within marraige. This is about gender since only the gender of ONE spouse, in a marraige is desried to be changed, not the sexuality requirements of either.

Sorry, but the ruling was based on discrimination against homosexuality.
 
most Americans would reject a Fascist police-state.

That's fine. I learned long ago that the opinions of the majority of Americans should be rejected out of hand due to their incompetence and lack of understanding.

The last century and a half has worked out pretty damn well.

On that we will have to severely disagree.

Seeing as your morality clearly is completely different from a rational person, don't you think you're a tad biased?
Typical hypocrisy. You can't stand the constitution when it goes against you, but fallaciously use it to defend everything else.

Not hypocrisy at all. I believe that the Constitution creates a certain set of rules. There are only two ways to change those rules..... 1. Amend the document. or 2. Replace the entire document. My problem is with people who believe that the document is "flexible" and can or should just be ignored when it's inconvenient for them. Personally, I believe that the original document was flawed because it was too vague and allowed itself to be modified at all. My idea is to correct that vaguery and ensure it is not polluted or distorted by removing the ability to modify the document afterwards.
 
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.

homosexuality is much less immoral than say, wanting to kill everyone who is a member of an opposing political party.
 
Last edited:
homosexuality is no less immoral than say, wanting to kill everyone who is a member of an opposing political party.

I would disagree; but that's a topic for another time and place.
 
I learned long ago that the opinions of the majority of Americans should be rejected out of hand due to their incompetence and lack of understanding.

In other words, "The whole marching band is out of step but me."

Got it.

Face it Tigger. You picked the wrong horse in this race. Doesn't make you a bad person. Just makes you a loser. No shame in that.

Perhaps you might be one of those incompetant people who have a lack of understanding that you speak of? Maybe?

Naw.... Of course not.




You're on the losing side of this issue Tigger. You should learn better how to pick your horses.
 
Nope, sorry your not winning this battle.

In fact, he pretty much loses at everything. That's what happens when you believe idiotic things.
 
ummmm. Hell yes homosexuality is far less immoral than wanting to kill people.

Homosexuality not immoral in any actual sense of the word, killing people who simply disagree with you is immoral in every sense of the word.
 
DOMA and other bans against SSM violate the 14th amendment. So there.

So do title 9 (separte but equal?), different age limits for taxation, voting, drinking & 2nd amemdment rights and affirmative action (race based preference?) laws. A lot of unequal treatment exists in law yet has been held constituional.
 
So do title 9 (separte but equal?), different age limits for taxation, voting, drinking & 2nd amemdment rights and affirmative action (race based preference?) laws. A lot of unequal treatment exists in law yet has been held constituional.

There has to be a provable state interest in order to discriminate, there is no such interest with regards to SSM.
 
That's fine. I learned long ago that the opinions of the majority of Americans should be rejected out of hand due to their incompetence and lack of understanding.



On that we will have to severely disagree.



Not hypocrisy at all. I believe that the Constitution creates a certain set of rules. There are only two ways to change those rules..... 1. Amend the document. or 2. Replace the entire document. My problem is with people who believe that the document is "flexible" and can or should just be ignored when it's inconvenient for them. Personally, I believe that the original document was flawed because it was too vague and allowed itself to be modified at all. My idea is to correct that vaguery and ensure it is not polluted or distorted by removing the ability to modify the document afterwards.

What? The amendment process is a very good thing, otherwise we would still have slavery, no women's vote and no right to bear arms.
 
So do title 9 (separte but equal?), different age limits for taxation, voting, drinking & 2nd amemdment rights and affirmative action (race based preference?) laws. A lot of unequal treatment exists in law yet has been held constituional.

The constitution does not prevent all discrimination. It prevents discrimination without a compelling reason. Bigotry has failed time and again to be a compelling reason. Keeping children from crashing cars has. Lawmakers can discriminate all they like, completely constitutionally, so long as they can provide a compelling reason for doing so. In the case of something like SSM, no such compelling reason has been offered.
 
Back
Top Bottom