• 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

There has to be a provable state interest in order to discriminate, there is no such interest with regards to SSM.

How about the desire for sexual reproduction, clearly a state interest by increasing the population/tax base.
 
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.

Either way, at the end of the day, the point is they get to marry. And marry someone of the same gender. I think this distinction, however, is so basic that everyone understands it no matter which word you use.
 
How about the desire for sexual reproduction, clearly a state interest by increasing the population/tax base.

And allowing SSM won't decrease that, this is a horrible argument.

And allowing SSM will increase the amount of families, so the state has an interest in allowing it.
 
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.

What compelling reason allows for taxation without representation?
 
Either way, at the end of the day, the point is they get to marry. And marry someone of the same gender. I think this distinction, however, is so basic that everyone understands it no matter which word you use.

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.
 
For those who are interested, the opinion can be found at: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-2204P-01A.pdf

My first read of the decision is that it is a strong one. It acknowledges that the argument for DOMA is largely one based on appeals to tradition. It also notes "this desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute" but that "Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action..."

Tradition alone is insufficient basis when it comes to addressing issues related to equal treatment under the law. Had tradition, alone, prevailed many of the landmark decisions on civil rights, including but not limited to Brown v. Board of Education, would not have been possible. In that context, I fully expect that the decision will be upheld if the case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
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.

I could be wrong, but I think even lawyers and judges understand. The central premise, regardless of wording, is discrimination against homosexuals. No one I have ever talked to doesn't understand that.
 
One could certainly argue that population growth slowing would be a benefit.

But slowing population growth would not be a symptom of allowing LGBT members of society to marry.
 
And allowing SSM won't decrease that, this is a horrible argument.

And allowing SSM will increase the amount of families, so the state has an interest in allowing it.

I disagree. The state bet is that by granting tax breaks to married couples that they will be more inclined to produce offspring, due to their improved financial status, giving those same incentives without any such exptected return is NOT in the state interest.
 
I disagree. The state bet is that by granting tax breaks to married couples that they will be more inclined to produce offspring, due to their improved financial status, giving those same incentives without any such exptected return is NOT in the state interest.

I don't think that is true at all, especially today. Many hetrosexuals marry and don't have kids, don't intend to have kids, and there is even a state interest to keep birth rates lower today. Thinking changes over time. Today, many marry for reasons other than children.
 
But slowing population growth would not be a symptom of allowing LGBT members of society to marry.

Not quite sure what LGBT means. Sorry.

However I am not saying it is or would be a symptom. But some people are convinced it would be. My point is simply that IF it did, like they think it would, it wouldnt be so bad. Our Earth could benefit from a slowed population growth.
 
One could certainly argue that population growth slowing would be a benefit.

Then you would be wrong, especially in light of SS/Medicare. Economies depend on growth as well to expand the market base.
 
I disagree. The state bet is that by granting tax breaks to married couples that they will be more inclined to produce offspring, due to their improved financial status, giving those same incentives without any such exptected return is NOT in the state interest.

My partner and I have children. So we are living up to the "expectations" of the state. As you say.
 
I disagree. The state bet is that by granting tax breaks to married couples that they will be more inclined to produce offspring, due to their improved financial status, giving those same incentives without any such exptected return is NOT in the state interest.

LGBT people have children that is a fact, and granting tax breaks to married couples of the same sex provides the same benefit that allowing tax breaks to married couples of the opposite sex because they will be more likely to adopt, have invetro-fertilization done, have a baby through a surrogate etc. We have families, and the state has an interest in providing a stable structure for our families just like they do for opposite sex couplings. Those are facts that you can't get around and must accept.
 
I disagree. The state bet is that by granting tax breaks to married couples that they will be more inclined to produce offspring, due to their improved financial status, giving those same incentives without any such exptected return is NOT in the state interest.

I assume you are making th claim that SSM couples do not raise kids?

"Growing numbers of gay couples across the country are adopting, according to census data, despite an uneven legal landscape that can leave their children without the rights and protections extended to children of heterosexual parents.
Related

Same-sex couples are explicitly prohibited from adopting in only two states — Utah and Mississippi — but they face significant legal hurdles in about half of all other states, particularly because they cannot legally marry in those states.

Despite this legal patchwork, the percentage of same-sex parents with adopted children has risen sharply. About 19 percent of same-sex couples raising children reported having an adopted child in the house in 2009, up from just 8 percent in 2000, according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The trend line is absolutely straight up,” said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit organization working to change adoption policy and practice. “It’s now a reality on the ground.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14adoption.html?pagewanted=all

But then again...you might be simply lashing out because they are taking all the good ones from adoption agencies.
 
Last edited:
Not quite sure what LGBT means. Sorry.

However I am not saying it is or would be a symptom. But some people are convinced it would be. My point is simply that IF it did, like they think it would, it wouldnt be so bad. Our Earth could benefit from a slowed population growth.

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.
 
The simple fact that mucti does not know what LGTB means.....is disqualification from this debate....period.
 
I don't think that is true at all, especially today. Many hetrosexuals marry and don't have kids, don't intend to have kids, and there is even a state interest to keep birth rates lower today. Thinking changes over time. Today, many marry for reasons other than children.

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)?
 
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)?

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.
 
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.

That's fine. I have no problem being a loser in this sort of situation. I'd rather be the owner of the horse that finishes dead last because it was treated right than the owner of the winning horse that has been horrifically abused and mistreated from the moment it was born. Being on the RIGHT side of something is never a losing proposition, Cap. Your namesake, even as a fictional character, has always understood and believed that.

You're on the losing side of this issue Tigger. You should learn better how to pick your horses.

No. I'm content to be the loser for the Right reason rather than a winner for the Wrong one, Cap. If/when it gets to a point that I can't even find a horse in the race, I've got a "retirement" plan sitting on my dresser ready to go.

In fact, he pretty much loses at everything. That's what happens when you believe idiotic things.

No. That's what happens when you are one of the few people who refuses to betray their principles simply to go with the majority opinion. Better to lose honorably, than to win dishonorably.

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.

No. Without the amendment process the RTKBA and the elimination of slavery would have been written into the initial document and women shouldn't have the right to vote anyway.
 
The economy depends on a planet for it to exist much more than it does on SS.

What? So now you oppose all third world aid? What sense does it make to have our welfare programs like AFDC? Why have tax incentives for dependents at all?
 
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.

Seeing as morality and moral values are subjective and varied, I dunno how you'd go about doing that.
 
Seeing as morality and moral values are subjective and varied, I dunno how you'd go about doing that.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom