• 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

Boo Radley said:
To promote social stability. That has always been one of the reasons. less fooling around means more stability, more building toward a stable society. It helps the soicety to include and assimilate more than it does to have too many ouside the mainstream.
Click to expand...

WOW. Now I understand why welfare is not given to single mothers, as we would never want to encourage instability. ;-)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
WOW. Now I understand why welfare is not given to single mothers, as we would never want to encourage instability. ;-)
Click to expand...

Hello my good friend Mr. Strawman.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
WOW. Now I understand why welfare is not given to single mothers, as we would never want to encourage instability. ;-)
Click to expand...

Now that's just silly. Not having children starving also promotes social stability. There is not only one way to or one area in which we do this.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is true if you are referring to DOMA cases. It is not entirely true if you extend it to SSM cases in general as it was a part of Perry v Schwarzenegger. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

Under Proposition 8, whether a couple can obtain a marriage
license and enter into marriage depends on the genders of the
two parties relative to one another. A man is permitted to
marry a woman but not another man. A woman is permitted to
marry a man but not another woman. Proposition 8 bars state
and county officials from issuing marriage licenses to samesex
couples. It has no other legal effect
Click to expand...

The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an
individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally
further a state interest despite its “ancient lineage.”
Click to expand...
 
Tigger said:
It would not be very difficult at all. Basically you throw away almost everything that has happened in the United States in the last century and a half and you've got a very good starting point.
Click to expand...

Like I said. Subjective.
 
Harshaw said:
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?
Click to expand...

That claim is not made in DOMA cases as it is irrelevant to the case. This court case is about DOMA.
 
Boo Radley said:
I could be wrong, but I think even lawyers and judges understand.
Click to expand...

Even if this is true, they still have to work within the constructs of the law, and arguing on the basis of discrimination against homosexuals IS the weaker course.


The central premise, regardless of wording, is discrimination against homosexuals. No one I have ever talked to doesn't understand that.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Tell that to those who have insisted that the rulings have been about gender discrimination, and not discrimination against homosexuality.
 
Your Star said:
Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, and Transgender ;)

And they need to be shown that it is not a symptom, we should not lie about facts because some people refuse to see them.

Though I agree the world population is growing way too fast.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you would like to see programs like welfare stopped to discourge breeding by those unable to support offspring.
 
Harshaw said:
If it prevails, then the immediate result is the same, but the precedents, and where they can go, are not.

But as I said, the weaker arguments are the ones being used, and the Supreme Court is a very different place than a district court or a three-judge appeals court. This isn't about what "everyone udnerstands." It's about the law and how the law works.

But my comment harkens back to other arguments had on this topic, with people who know that the argument concerning discrimination against homosexuality is the weaker argument, and because they know it's the weaker argument, they insist that the rulings have actually been about gender discrimination. But they haven't been, and neither is this one.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and even Judge Walker KNEW that a ruling in favor of homosexuals was not going to fly based on sexuality alone. He absolutely needed to conjure up the "gender" connection. Walker did not rule in favor of gays on a 14th challenge based on their sexuality, it was based on their right to marry anyone of any gender. Anyone that read his decision would know this.

I might add that even in some media circles reporting was that Walker ruled against Prop 8 as unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th Amendment, he DID NOT rule on sexuality based on the 14th, and due process.

The actual appeal is Here if anyone's interested.


Tim-
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is not accurate at all, either in this case or SSM ban cases(ie prop 8).https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Ah, so you would like to see programs like welfare stopped to discourge breeding by those unable to support offspring.
Click to expand...

You are real good friends of Mr. Strawman.
 
Harshaw said:
Sorry, but the ruling was based on discrimination against homosexuality.
Click to expand...

In part, but far from entirely. In fact the argument that DOMA takes away a states right to define marriage is the more important aspect.
 
It is unconstitutional because the states have the right to define marriage. DOMA robs states from doing so that chose to legalize gay marriages.
 
Harshaw said:
Even if this is true, they still have to work within the constructs of the law, and arguing on the basis of discrimination against homosexuals IS the weaker course.


:shrug: Tell that to those who have insisted that the rulings have been about gender discrimination, and not discrimination against homosexuality.
Click to expand...

And your stance on polygamy? Business partnerships have no limits on the number partners or their genders. What compelling state reason bars mutiple partners in only marraige contracts, since we got that sexual reproduction "detail" out of the way?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct. However, discrimination under the law is subject to varrying levels of legal scrutiny. You can't just discriminate because you want to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How about the desire for sexual reproduction, clearly a state interest by increasing the population/tax base.
Click to expand...

Reproduction is not a legal requirement of marriage in any state, and same sex couples can and do have children.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
And your stance on polygamy? Business partnerships have no limits on the number partners or their genders. What compelling state reason bars mutiple partners in only marraige contracts, since we got that sexual reproduction "detail" out of the way?
Click to expand...

What is it in my posts which prompts you to ask me this?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then what compelling state interest is served by giving tax breaks to the married? Does that then not amount to simple discrimination against the non-married, if no compelling state interest is served by that discrimination? What compelling state interest is served by the taxation of those too young to vote (taxation w/o representation)?
Click to expand...

This is directly addressed in Perry v Schwarzenegger. The reason given is to promote marriage itself, which is a more stable form of relationship and benefits child rearing, social stability etc.
 
Harshaw said:
What isn't accurate?
Click to expand...

OK, go look at the post again. Notice that it contains a quote of something you wrote. That should be a big hint.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
As was your argument that adding SSM will somehow promote stability in society.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Please look up what the logical fallacy strawman actually means.
 
Redress said:
The one I quoted:
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain what you mean better than that, because it's not clear from your posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom