• 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!

Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

Redress said:
Gender discrimination in the military is allowed due to the government having a compelling interest, the discrimination is narrowly tailored and it is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest. Unless those criterion are met, discrimination based on gender is illegal.

Edit: CORRECTION!!

Gender is intermediate scrutiny, meaning that the government has an important interest.
Click to expand...

Expalin how scrutiny or compeling interest allows a male or female to hold exactly the same position and pay yet the male must qualify at a higher/different physical standard. Why is it Constitutional to ask a male to be more "physically qualified" to operate a radio or typewriter than a female? This is the most obvious case of diascrimination possible yet it is "fair' and"just". What about the draft? Is it reasonable to force military service on only the male population? Females want equal pay for less physically demamnding service, and more restricted duty assignments. Let the situation be reversed and the feminists would scream "discrimination", and rightfully so. If "separate but equal" was used for gays, blacks or age it would be "unconstitutional" yet if the "advantage" is not whites/males then all is well. Hmm...
 
Deuce said:
Being a protected classification does not inherently imply that no differences can exist. Discrimination is still possible, if an important state interest is shown.

So, if you can show me the important state interest in preventing two men from marrying, I'm all ears!
Click to expand...

They cannot reproduce and bring forth the next generation of taxpayers.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They cannot reproduce and bring forth the next generation of taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Not going to do that anyway. But they can add to stability in their community as a married couple.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Expalin how scrutiny or compeling interest allows a male or female to hold exactly the same position and pay yet the male must qualify at a higher/different physical standard. Why is it Constitutional to ask a male to be more "physically qualified" to operate a radio or typewriter than a female? This is the most obvious case of diascrimination possible yet it is "fair' and"just". What about the draft? Is it reasonable to force military service on only the male population? Females want equal pay for less physically demamnding service, and more restricted duty assignments. Let the situation be reversed and the feminists would scream "discrimination", and rightfully so. If "separate but equal" was used for gays, blacks or age it would be "unconstitutional" yet if the "advantage" is not whites/males then all is well. Hmm...
Click to expand...

Thisis geting into a seperate issue, but military PFTs are designed to measure overal level of health, and since men and women are different physically on average, are expected to have different results.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet, it's not the states which create the benefits and rights which have come with marriage from the federal government. Why is that? It's like saying the car is yours simply because you drive it.
Click to expand...

THis does not change that historically, it has been up to states to determine who they will marry and what the process for marriage is.
 
tessaesque said:
I support legalized polygamy.
Click to expand...

Ever watch that show with the mormon polygamist group in Las Vegas? The one where the guy looks like a washed up surfer? HOLY CRAP! if that is the polygamist lifestyle, than I don't think there is too much danger of it taking over the country.

That poor guy, those women are nuts! I bet he has to listen to them go on about their feelings and crap for 14 hours a day and go "yes dear!" "yes dear!" "yes dear!". Why anyone would choose to live like that is beyond me. Plus all those women have to spend their entire time holding back their feelings of jealousy towards the other wives and trying not to be petty.

Oh well. Nobody is happy on that show.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Expalin how scrutiny or compeling interest allows a male or female to hold exactly the same position and pay yet the male must qualify at a higher/different physical standard. Why is it Constitutional to ask a male to be more "physically qualified" to operate a radio or typewriter than a female? This is the most obvious case of diascrimination possible yet it is "fair' and"just". What about the draft? Is it reasonable to force military service on only the male population? Females want equal pay for less physically demamnding service, and more restricted duty assignments. Let the situation be reversed and the feminists would scream "discrimination", and rightfully so. If "separate but equal" was used for gays, blacks or age it would be "unconstitutional" yet if the "advantage" is not whites/males then all is well. Hmm...
Click to expand...

Because physical fitness standards measure individual health. They are not a measure of whether each person can do everything specifically necessary to do the job. This is also why there are different requirements for different age groups. Physically, women on average are built different than men on average so they will have different standards.

However, there is no physical requirements within marriage. The only legal requirements of the contract itself (not talking about who can enter the contract) are gender neutral.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I doubt it. Loving involved discrimination based only on race which took a constituional amendment to enforce, this involves "choice" or "preference". At what point does "preference" become an overriding factor to state law? If something is not mentioned in the constitution as a federal power, then it is rightly left to the states. If I prefer to drink in a bar on sunday, marry two people or to gamble in a casino does that make it a right? If one state allows or condones something then must all others?
Click to expand...

You are partially right Ttwtt....but wrong about one KEY holding in Loving. The Loving court found marriage to be a "Fundamental right". Although the case dealt with race, the court, nevertheless found marriage to be a "fundamental right"....that is something that gay marriage foes are going to have a hard time overcoming.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I doubt it. Loving involved discrimination based only on race which took a constituional amendment to enforce, this involves "choice" or "preference". At what point does "preference" become an overriding factor to state law? If something is not mentioned in the constitution as a federal power, then it is rightly left to the states. If I prefer to drink in a bar on sunday, marry two people or to gamble in a casino does that make it a right? If one state allows or condones something then must all others?
Click to expand...

And same sex marriage bans involve discrimination based on sex/gender, not sexuality. The Lovings didnt have to be with each other. They only had to be the races they were born as, and no one should have to change their race to get married. Well same sex couples dont have to be with each other either. But they are born the sex they are born and they shouldnt have to change their gender to legally get married.

Would a law that said people with blonde hair cannot marry people with red hair be constitutional? But a provisionin it only applies to a persons hair color during marriage, meaning either the blonde or red head in the couple could dye their hair for them to be married?
 
DiAnna said:
Although I really hope that SCOTUS pronounces DOMA DOA, the court's conservative majority has me kinda nervous. Homosexuals are the final class of individuals who can be and routinely are denied constitutional equality. I hope to see that change in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

The Court doesn't have a conservative majority. It is conservative in some areas (affirmative action, campaign finance, guns, business) and not in others (gay rights, abortion, punishment of juveniles, Gitmo and the rights of so-called enemy combatants, pornography).

I don't think you have anything to worry about with regard to DOMA. The Prop 8 case is the question mark. Will the Court's liberals and moderate/libertarian members be willing to strike down the laws of 30+ states? Fortunately, there is an out with the standing question that will still have the effect of nullifying the proposition if they aren't willing to go there yet.
 
im praying for equal rights!

itll be a proud day when america once again rids itself of some more discrimination and gains more equality and freedoms!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They cannot reproduce and bring forth the next generation of taxpayers.
Click to expand...

They can't? Doesn't the fact that 1/4 of all gay men have children kinda disprove this? What about lesbians? About 1/3 of them have kids.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They cannot reproduce and bring forth the next generation of taxpayers.
Click to expand...

In Vitro Fertilization and Surrogacy. Technology has made that argument entirely irrelevant so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up aside from a bad case of confirmation bias where people ignore the obvious evidence to the contrary because they are set on thinking that way.
 
I hate that this is before the Supreme Court at this point. It is way too early and will likely end up being a huge set back for the gay rights movement. I just can't see same sex couples having a constitutional right to marriage. It is nowhere near as clear cut and inevitable as some on this thread have tried to make it sound.
 
CriticalThought said:
I hate that this is before the Supreme Court at this point. It is way too early and will likely end up being a huge set back for the gay rights movement. I just can't see same sex couples having a constitutional right to marriage. It is nowhere near as clear cut and inevitable as some on this thread have tried to make it sound.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that the Supreme Court, especially Kennedy is not going to want to be remembered for being on the wrong side of history. Kennedy is likely to leave in the next few years and will be looking to protect his legacy on the court. Couple this with the fact that the proponents of prop 8 couldn't come up with a legitimate state interest served by the ban on gay marriage...it is unlikely that they have much to argue in the SCOTUS.
 
Zyphlin said:
Will interesting to see if try argue based on discrimination towards homosexuals or on gender.

My personal hope is that they go the latter, as its a more simple constitutional case and less controversial as it does not require elevating sexual preference to a higher tier of scrutiny under the EPC
Click to expand...

Why not both?
 
RepublicanMcDuc said:
Here we go.
Click to expand...

I'm morally opposed to gay marriage, however as a libertarian my ethics are that a) states have the right to self legislate via the Tenth Amendment and b) the federal government should have no right to define marriage - government in general shouldn't even be involved in marriage. What people refer to as "marriage" is nothing but a contract between two individuals and it should be treated as such - in reality true "marriage" is a faith based sacrament.

Besides, I don't understand why gays are so interested in wanting to get "married" - if someone loves someone else why would recognition from the state be important? That is why I believe this issue has nothing to do with marriage or love and everything to do with activism. I mean there is absolutely nothing stopping homosexuals from engaging in civil contracts with their "lover," and like I said marriage is nothing more than a contract.

I suppose, IMO that gays really don't want gay marriage but they (ignorantly) believe that if the government accepts their demands a) they won something and b) they're finally "accepted" when in reality no one will shift their opinion just because the government recognizes them as "married."
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm morally opposed to gay marriage, however as a libertarian my ethics are that a) states have the right to self legislate via the Tenth Amendment and b) the federal government should have no right to define marriage - government in general shouldn't even be involved in marriage. What people refer to as "marriage" is nothing but a contract between two individuals and it should be treated as such - in reality true "marriage" is a faith based sacrament.

Besides, I don't understand why gays are so interested in wanting to get "married" - if someone loves someone else why would recognition from the state be important? That is why I believe this issue has nothing to do with marriage or love and everything to do with activism. I mean there is absolutely nothing stopping homosexuals from engaging in civil contracts with their "lover," and like I said marriage is nothing more than a contract.

I suppose, IMO that gays really don't want gay marriage but they (ignorantly) believe that if the government accepts their demands a) they won something and b) they're finally "accepted" when in reality no one will shift their opinion just because the government recognizes them as "married."
Click to expand...

easy they want equal rights and the 1400 approx rights and benefits that some with that contract that many cant be achieved any other way so government needs involved.

in reality true marriage is what anybody wants it to be and that most certainly doesnt not have to be a faith based sacrament nor is that factually what "true marriage" actually is.

civil contracts are not the same and not equal

sorry but your logic seems very broken to me, do you think blacks and women thought the same thing when they fought for equal rights, you think they just magically thought theyd all be accepted, i know many gays and of course i cant speak for the ones i dont know but none of them think this will grant them instant acceptance

i think you are way off since i see no logic or evidence to suggest anything that you said is true in any large fashion at all.
 
Finally... SSM should have been legal decades ago.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm morally opposed to gay marriage, however as a libertarian my ethics are that a) states have the right to self legislate via the Tenth Amendment and b) the federal government should have no right to define marriage - government in general shouldn't even be involved in marriage. What people refer to as "marriage" is nothing but a contract between two individuals and it should be treated as such - in reality true "marriage" is a faith based sacrament.

Besides, I don't understand why gays are so interested in wanting to get "married" - if someone loves someone else why would recognition from the state be important? That is why I believe this issue has nothing to do with marriage or love and everything to do with activism. I mean there is absolutely nothing stopping homosexuals from engaging in civil contracts with their "lover," and like I said marriage is nothing more than a contract.

I suppose, IMO that gays really don't want gay marriage but they (ignorantly) believe that if the government accepts their demands a) they won something and b) they're finally "accepted" when in reality no one will shift their opinion just because the government recognizes them as "married."
Click to expand...

This is basically a polite type of gay bashing... shame on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom