• 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

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...

Tell me...what civil contract could I enter that would protect me from having to testify in court against my partner? What civil contract could I enter that would give my partner next-of-kin status? What civil contract could I enter that would allow both myself and my partner to share custody of children and allow both of us access to their school and medical records?

There is somebody here who is ignorant about marriage and it sure isn't the gays.

You sir, have no idea what you are talking about. Marriage ties two unrelated people's lives together, and short of spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to create a patch work of documentation that provides some protection, there is nothing even close to it.

Don't even pretend to be open minded on this issue. I've met enough posturing posters to know one when I see one.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
I'm morally opposed to gay marriage,
Click to expand...

Understood and respected.

however as a libertarian my ethics are that a) states have the right to self legislate via the Tenth Amendment
Click to expand...

Shortly after the Civil War, the power of the states was significantly curtailed in a number of ways and constitutional limits (including the guarantee of equal protection) were placed on how a state could treat its people. If your view is a very strict one where primarily only racial discrimination is prohibited by the equal protection clause, then I can respect that even if I disagree on that reading of history. If, however, you take a more modern view and things such as gender discrimination are prohibited, then I'd have to ask on what logical basis you interpret it broadly in those cases but not the present one.

government in general shouldn't even be involved in marriage
Click to expand...

This is a common libertarian argument, but what do you think the odds are of that view becoming reality anytime soon? Do you really think people in general are going to go for eliminating civil marriage just like that? For the here and now, it makes more sense for gay rights supporters to push for same-sex marriage than to try to get equality by getting rid of civil marriage and replacing it with something lesser.

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.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think you significantly underestimate the number of different steps that an unmarried couple has to take to become even close to reaching the status of married couples with regard to hospitals, taxes, insurance, children, etc. And even after all those steps, they still aren't equal.

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...

I can assure you that many gays really do want marriage, but you are correct in the sense that there is often more to the desire than just wanting a bundle of rights. However, you are incorrect when you say that no one will shift their opinion. Discriminatory legislation can have an effect on how people look at a disfavored group. Just because the whole world doesn't immediately become rainbows and sunshine for a minority once laws have been changed, doesn't mean there is no change.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Convince me that prefering to have two (or more) wives is not equally as strong a desire.
Click to expand...

Good point - I am sure there are homosexual men and women who would like to marry more than one partner. But we have to be watchful for the possibility that 'a desire' will not hold much sway.

What is the reason you are straight? Is it because although marrying a man would be fine by you, you prefer to marry a woman?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Convince me that prefering to have two (or more) wives is not equally as strong a desire.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But polygamy causes problems with creditors, property ownership and spousal and child support, that gay marriage doesn't. So there are reasons to reject polygamy that outweight any equitable rationale for it. Not so with gay marriage between two consenting adults.
 
Samhain said:
I'm hoping they go a different route and lay the groundwork for the state to be removed from marriage altogether.
Click to expand...

Why? Because you believe that marriage should be defined and/or regulated by the federal goverment? If that is your position - and I hope it is not - I think you should rethink that position extremely carefully. Folks have complained about federal intrusion in their lives from everything from warrantless wiretaps to Obamacare. I'd hate to see more federal intrusion over who one wishes to marry (human, of course; this beastiality thing I will never get).

Here's how I see the argument unfolding...

The 10th Amendment confers rights to the states (or the people) that are not given to the federal government. As such, the issue of marriage has been left to the states to determind much as citizenship status was once conferred to the states before ratification of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment (Section 1, clause 1) states specifically who are this nation's citizens and who are not. The 1st Amendment prohibits the federal government from dictating a national religion upon the people. As such, the only way a marriage is performed on non-religious grounds is if done via the local justice of the peace and not performed in a church. Thus, a gay marriage can skirt religious grounds by not being performed in a church, temple, synagauge or mosque. Therefore, the only argument left is that of the equal protection clause under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Now, Congress, not being able to ratifiy a marriage amendment to the Constitution, choose instead to try and define marriage at the federal level through enaction of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The problem with DOMA is that it doesn't protect the rights of gays and lesbians who find themselves in similar situations as heterosexual couples, i.e., hospital visitations, taxations, inheritance upon the death of a partner, etc., etc. So, what we have (or will have) before the Supreme Court, I believe, won't be an issue of morality especially not on religious grounds - should marriage be defined as between a man and a woman and adhere to the tenents of Christianity? - because to do so would violate the 1st Amendment. What we will have and should have is an argument of citizen's rights. More specifically, does "equal protection under the law" apply only to issues where gender, race, religious preference, and sex (male vs female) is in question? Or does "equal protection" extend to sexual orientation as well?

If you are in strict adherence to the Constitution, the only conclusion one comes away with is "Yes".
 
Objective Voice said:
Why? Because you believe that marriage should be defined and/or regulated by the federal goverment? If that is your position - and I hope it is not - I think you should rethink that position extremely carefully. Folks have complained about federal intrusion in their lives from everything from warrantless wiretaps to Obamacare. I'd hate to see more federal intrusion over who one wishes to marry (human, of course; this beastiality thing I will never get).
Click to expand...

I won't pretend to speak for him, but if he is anything like me I hope they remove the state AND federal from marriage altogether because it shouldn't be involved in that in the first place.

The only reason the state wants to be involved with marriage is for money.
 
TheNextEra said:
I won't pretend to speak for him, but if he is anything like me I hope they remove the state AND federal from marriage altogether because it shouldn't be involved in that in the first place.

The only reason the state wants to be involved with marriage is for money.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with that other wise spouses would have to pay inheritance taxes. The State's intrest is in stability.
 
head of joaquin said:
Fascinating. We are going to see just how far the equal protection clause reaches. The battle lines are drawn. Frankly I can't think of a cogent argument why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. The arguments from the conservative side so far appear weak and archaic.
Click to expand...

Which is why I think the conservative judges may go the 'state's rights' route.

Personally, I'd like to see them declare marriage licensing unconstitutional altogether. Government should deal with it just as it deals with other personal contracts.
 
One more opportunity for the SCOTUS to prove that the United States no longer has ANY morals or values at its foundation. I have no doubt as to how the SCOTUS will rule on this... it will be legal everywhere. Probably in a 6-3 ruling. I don't see more than three of the Justices having anywhere near the intestinal fortitude to do what's Right in the face of what is Popular and Politically Correct on this issue. It may even be more lopsided than that. Just another nail in the coffin of what once was a Great Nation.
 
I used to be morally and religiously opposed to gay marriage. I changed my moral opinions based on not all gays choose to be gay. Maybe all gays do not choose to be gay, I'm not sure. But I find it difficult to believe that all of the millions of gays CHOOSE to be that way. How can you be morally against someone's behavior that has no choice but to behave in that way?

Religiously, I would buy the arguments of the church if this was 1400 in Europe. However, the idea of marriage nowadays is what most people in our society strive for, especially women, from an early age. Getting married and settling down IS THE BASIC FOUNDATION of happiness in modern society. Imagine if you were told at age 11 or 8 or whatever that you would NEVER be married, for whatever reason. This would be a serious damper on your ability to find happiness in life, no doubt. This is what the US is saying to gays presently, "Seek happiness in life through some other means besides marriage because your idea of sex is disagreeable." This must be stopped, and it flies in the face of the society that our founding fathers hoped to achieve.

When it comes to the Bible and other religious texts, I understand that SOME passages can be interpreted as anti gay. BUT, there are also MANY other rules in there concerning marriage. But I don't see the govt withholding Gen Petraeus's future marriage licenses on the account that he cheated on his wife. That's in the Bible too folks, maybe we should have the govt involved in affairs too?
 
Last edited:
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...


Yeah! I mean, why would anyone want their relationship to be treated equal to everyone else's? Why can't they just settle for separate-but-not-actually-equal!?

Why do heterosexuals get married? Shouldn't love be enough?
 
Tigger said:
One more opportunity for the SCOTUS to prove that the United States no longer has ANY morals or values at its foundation. I have no doubt as to how the SCOTUS will rule on this... it will be legal everywhere. Probably in a 6-3 ruling. I don't see more than three of the Justices having anywhere near the intestinal fortitude to do what's Right in the face of what is Popular and Politically Correct on this issue. It may even be more lopsided than that. Just another nail in the coffin of what once was a Great Nation.
Click to expand...


I always love when somebody proclaims equal rights as immoral and not having values its very funny and it actually WHY we are a great nation because we do fight for equal rights and values. :)
 
Objective-J said:
I always love when somebody proclaims equal rights as immoral and not having values its very funny and it actually WHY we are a great nation because we do fight for equal rights and values. :)
Click to expand...

So we should have equal rights for cannibals like Jeffery Dahlmer, right? I mean he was just living a different lifestyle. How about for pedophiles, polygamists, or rapists? There have to be some lines in the sand that we simply do not cross. If there aren't, then our society is nothing more than anarchy. It's just that simple.
 
For myself I'm quite happy the court will finally address this issue. Long over due and I've been a proponent of allowing homosexuals the right to marriage for a long long time. Can't wait to see the dust up over their ruling.
 
Gie said:
For myself I'm quite happy the court will finally address this issue. Long over due and I've been a proponent of allowing homosexuals the right to marriage for a long long time. Can't wait to see the dust up over their ruling.
Click to expand...

This COULD make the Rodney King and OJ rulings look like Disneyland.
 
Tigger said:
So we should have equal rights for cannibals like Jeffery Dahlmer, right? I mean he was just living a different lifestyle. How about for pedophiles, polygamists, or rapists? There have to be some lines in the sand that we simply do not cross. If there aren't, then our society is nothing more than anarchy. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

well you just proved you dont know what equal rights are

you obviously have no clue on this subject its THAT simple LMAO :lamo
 
Gie said:
More like V-day IMO.
Click to expand...

True. This ruling could make the Rodney King and OJ reactions look like VE Day. It could truly be that bad, if this goes the way I expect it to.
 
Tigger said:
True. This ruling could make the Rodney King and OJ reactions look like VE Day. It could truly be that bad, if this goes the way I expect it to.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine any comparison between the reaction to the Simpson case and allowing homosexuals to be married. You do know that that has already occurred in the US right? Homosexuals allowed to marry? Where were the riots and looting associated with OJ?
 
Gie said:
You do know that that has already occurred in the US right? Homosexuals allowed to marry?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I live in a Communistwealth where it is currently legal. It was pushed on our legislature by a Supreme Judicial Court that so far overstepped its bounds that the entire body should have been disbanded the next day.

Gie said:
Where were the riots and looting associated with OJ?
Click to expand...

You will see in some places the violence of the Rodney King verdict and everywhere the utter disbelief at the wrong decision which you saw after the OJ decision.
 
Tigger said:
You will see in some places the violence of the Rodney King verdict and everywhere the utter disbelief at the wrong decision which you saw after the OJ decision.
Click to expand...
No I won't. Much like you nor anyone else did where you live. In fact, I suspect that there will be a national sigh of relief rather than violence and looting. I understand hard core conservatives opposition to the issue, but you won't be seeing that crowd take to the streets to loot and assault. IMO.
 
Gie said:
No I won't. Much like you nor anyone else did where you live. In fact, I suspect that there will be a national sigh of relief rather than violence and looting. I understand hard core conservatives opposition to the issue, but you won't be seeing that crowd take to the streets to loot and assault. IMO.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised. We've been pissed on for the better part of a century and a half now. At some point you folks are going to find that final straw and our reaction is not going to be pleasant, nor will it be related to voting people into/out of office.
 
Tigger said:
You might be surprised. We've been pissed on for the better part of a century and a half now. At some point you folks are going to find that final straw and our reaction is not going to be pleasant, nor will it be related to voting people into/out of office.
Click to expand...
You have got me there. I would be very surprised, based upon reaction to this issue previously everywhere it has been passed, if a OJ verdict like reaction occurred. Mostly because it has not and IMO will not. Tell me, if it did not happen where you are from, I'm guessing New England, where do you think it WILL happen at?
 
Gie said:
You have got me there. I would be very surprised, based upon reaction to this issue previously everywhere it has been passed, if a OJ verdict like reaction occurred. Mostly because it has not and IMO will not. Tell me, if it did not happen where you are from, I'm guessing New England, where do you think it WILL happen at?
Click to expand...

I think it will happen in parts of the South and the Midwest. Areas where the majority of the citizenry still actually believe in morals and values. It wasn't going to happen in New England because the vast majority of the population here couldn't even define morality or values, nevermind actually live by them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom