• 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!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

Deuce said:
I cannot enter a particular legal contract with a male because I am a male. Sexuality is mentioned nowhere in prop 8, probably because marriage isn't sex. (Ask any married man)
Click to expand...

And I cannot enter into a particular legal contract with a female who has similar DNA. Again, show me the discrimination.
 
clownboy said:
Perhaps, if that were the issue here. As long as men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women the court's gender protection rules don't come into play.
Click to expand...

That line of reasoning was shot down with interracial marriage bans. "As long as white men cannot marry black women and black men cannot marry white women..."
 
Un biased said:
Besides using Religion is there another reason why gays cant marry ( divorce rate is high you may be actually breaking them up anyway )
Click to expand...

That's beem discussed ad infinitum in a number of other threads where that specifically is the topic. The answer is Yes, some folks have other reasons besides religion to oppose gay marriage.
 
Deuce said:
That line of reasoning was shot down with interracial marriage bans. "As long as white men cannot marry black women and black men cannot marry white women..."
Click to expand...

Nope, not according to court rulings. It's not the same argument at all. Just another attempt on your part to shoehorn the gay marriage issue into the civil rights struggle.
 
Samhain said:
And I cannot enter into a particular legal contract with a female who has similar DNA. Again, show me the discrimination.
Click to expand...

Your example is not preventing you from marrying ANY female. Female is not the basis for that discrimination, your DNA is.

I cannot marry any male for any reason purely because I am male and he is male. Gender is the basis for that distinction, and gender is a class protected from discrimination under intermediate scrutiny, which means that the government must show an "important state interest" in making that discrimination and that the discrimination is done in a way "substantially related to that interest."

What is the state interest in banning same-sex marriage?
 
Deuce said:
Your example is not preventing you from marrying ANY female. Female is not the basis for that discrimination, your DNA is.

I cannot marry any male for any reason purely because I am male and he is male. Gender is the basis for that distinction, and gender is a class protected from discrimination under intermediate scrutiny, which means that the government must show an "important state interest" in making that discrimination and that the discrimination is done in a way "substantially related to that interest."

What is the state interest in banning same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...

Tax preference.
 
clownboy said:
Looks can be deceiving. I heard the same thing in the 70s, 80s and 90s ("Gay marriage will be the law of the land in less than 10 years").
Click to expand...
Look at the landscape. Gay marriage has been beaten back by the general population for decades and yet it just keeps coming back in greater numbers. Despite years of losses at the ballot box the courts have always managed to keep "the dream" afloat and the proponents keep getting stronger. Hell, even some establishment type Republicans are starting to signal that they aren't going to fight it any more.

No matter what happens with the SCOTUS this issue is never going to go away and its supporters will never grow tired of fighting. It's opponents are tired already.
 
Deuce said:
Elaborate. There's a tax interest in banning same-sex marriage!?
Click to expand...

Marriage brackets are wider; Expanding marriage definition would would reduce revenue. An expansion would also affect estate tax collection.
 
Samhain said:
Marriage brackets are wider; Expanding marriage definition would would reduce revenue. An expansion would also affect estate tax collection.
Click to expand...

But this is also the case for heterosexual couples, so the gender distinction doesn't hold up. Unless you're arguing for banning all marriage, anyway.

But if "fewer marriages" is an important state interest, you've just torpedoed half the arguments of prop 8s lawyers.
 
Deuce said:
But this is also the case for heterosexual couples, so the gender distinction doesn't hold up. Unless you're arguing for banning all marriage, anyway.

But if "fewer marriages" is an important state interest, you've just torpedoed half the arguments of prop 8s lawyers.
Click to expand...

I don't see the reason for the state to be a party in a two-person contract.
 
Deuce said:
So you are satisfied that sometimes unconstitutional acts make it through the democratic process. Thanks.
Click to expand...

No, not at all...

Our legislation progress and those we elect to uphold that process are dumb tho. They're not in the game for civil reasons they're in the game for popularity, eliteness or overall just to be an aristocrat... Not many are politicians exist to serve the people - most just use them.
 
Samhain said:
I don't see the reason for the state to be a party in a two-person contract.
Click to expand...

I agree they should have no say in who I enter that contract with.

But prop 8 supports are arguing that the state has an interest in protecting marriage and encouraging it.
 
Deuce said:
Due process and equal protection are even more clear.
Click to expand...

What?

Due Process is quite clear, the Equal Protection clause is vague as hell. Not to mention both are miles apart and have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Don't even try to play Constitutional law with me.
 
Mr.Nick said:
No, not at all...

Our legislation progress and those we elect to uphold that process are dumb tho. They're not in the game for civil reasons they're in the game for popularity, eliteness or overall just to be an aristocrat... Not many are politicians exist to serve the people - most just use them.
Click to expand...

So unconstitutional laws are never passed?
 
Mr.Nick said:
What?

Due Process is quite clear, the Equal Protection clause is vague as hell. Not to mention both are miles apart and have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Don't even try to play Constitutional law with me.
Click to expand...

Which leaves prop 8 supporters with two serious and separate constitutional hurdles to overcome, according to the federal circuit court.
 
Since you are so up on constitutional law, mr nick, surely you can articulate sufficient grounds for prop 8 to pass intermediate scrutiny.
 
Deuce said:
So unconstitutional laws are never passed?
Click to expand...

Of course they are at the Federal level...

It's pretty simple - if a law is not in the Constitution then a state can pass a law into their state constitution. That is precisely what happened with Prop 8. Now progressives are crying about it.

I'm shocked the SCOTUS is even hearing this nonsense. It's not their boggle to decide.
 
Deuce said:
Since you are so up on constitutional law, mr nick, surely you can articulate sufficient grounds for prop 8 to pass intermediate scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Do you want to continue to play the "exceptions" nonsense?

Oh this law doesn't apply because of ____________ and because.

or

This idea should be legal because it makes me happy...

Yeah well I'm sure Charles Manson's minions made him happy by murdering people..... Maybe I should sue to make murder legal?

Prop 8 was a democratic measure (not only that but a ballot proposition) that violated ZERO laws or freedoms.
 
longknife said:
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
Click to expand...

There are some laws that, no matter what the will of the people, cannot be legal. That's like saying 99% of the people in a theoretical vote in Kentucky want to re-impose slavery. It doesn't matter, slavery will never be imposed again no matter how many people want it.

I still think it's funny how many people on the left don't recognize that the passage of Prop. 8 was all Obama's fault to begin with.
 
clownboy said:
First, not a right and nothing was "taken" away. Second, for California, a state famous for it's "blueness" and home to traditionally the most vocal gay community, 52% voting to ban gay marriage at the constitutional level is indeed overwhelming.
Click to expand...

Blame Obama.
 
longknife said:
That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.
Click to expand...

again, it was not overwhelmingly and if this was the case maybe there would still be slaves or no minority rights or no interracial marriage or no woman's rights.

If you dont like equal rights for your fellow americans and you dont care about their rights, freedoms and liberties you can move out the country. LOL :shrug:
 
Juiposa said:
Hopefully we see the them overturn Prop 8. It's time for the United States to live up to its own democratic expectations. SSM should have been legal years ago.
Click to expand...

I agree, im not surprised its not but i agree 100%

its amazing that people are still fighting against equal rights in 2013
 
Deuce said:
States are not a hive mind. The executive is not bound in any way to defend every law or ballot measure in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Especially in California where you can put literally anything on the ballot if you get enough signatures, even if it's absurd. You could pass a ballot measure changing the speed of light if you could convince the voters. That doesn't mean it's going to go into effect and many ballot measures end up in the courts after the fact because the voters simply cannot do what they voted to do.
 
clownboy said:
And yet folks still leave millions to their pets every year.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can't leave anything to a pet, at best you can set up a trust with a human executor to fund the care of the pet. Pets cannot directly be a party to any legal contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom