• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Yeah they do matter considering one falls under the Tenth Amendment and the other falls under the federal government in which both contradict under the Fourteenth Amendment...

You do realize Jim Crow Laws blatantly violated the Bill of Rights? In order for one to understand that one must understand the legal ideas behind such laws and the precedent that followed....

I have no desire to write you a thesis or even a summery on such laws.... If you're this motivated to figure out "equality" via legal definition then you research......

I'm done in here. I have more interesting things on my mind than marriage...

I just hope next time "because its no fair because the Equal Protection Clause" is not used as an argument because no on here has applied ANY SCOTUS ruling correctly thus far.... Which is why gay marriage isn't legal.

They both fall under the rights of people of the US to be treated equally under the law.
 
I just do not see how DOMA is constitutional as far as federal benefits since marriage is the rhelm of state law
The legal definition of marriage hasn't been enough, apparently. DOMA was just a security measure that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Some activists need to be told at least twice, I guess. :naughty
 
Heterosexuals however can marry the ones the love, are attracted to.
First of all this is about the couple's sex, not their preferences. This is not about gays, its about all kinds of people choosing to marry someone of the same-sex. They could be into BSDM and I don't care because I'm not in their bedroom. However you want to stimulate your orafises, whatever, it's just a preference.

Second, your claim has never been true. Not ever. If people love and/or "are atracted to" someone who's already married, or a close blood relative, to bad. heteros don't get to marry just whomever heteros want, so there's no precident for someone with a diferent preference or fetish to marry just whomever they want either.
 
Last edited:
The government doesn't discriminate against gays...

Gays just want to be a "protected class" and have MORE rights than anyone else..

I find anyone who believes the government should protect them from scrutiny to be obnoxious..

You sound more like a right-wing Republican than you do a Libertarian.
 
That's never been true. If we love and/or "are atracted to" someone who's already married, or a close blood relative, we cannot marry them.

Now just trying to side step the point. You can do better.
 
My question is, WHEN did failure to recognize same-sex marriage BECOME unconstitutional? It wasn't 1789, right?

When did failure to recognize inter-racial marriage BECOME unconstitutional?

When did prohibiting blacks from drinking from "white only" drinking fountains BECOME unconstitutional?

The answer is pretty much: It ALWAYS was....but it wasn't recognized as such until enough people cared.
 
Second class citizen?

Yeah, I would be upset too if the court made me a second class citizen said my beliefs and vote do not count because it ticks off homosexuals and their supporters with their emotional and warped mantra of "equal rights." Hopefully the SCOTUS will make the right decision and let the states decide marriage for themselves and overturn DOMA under those grounds as well.

That's exactly what how those who opposed inter-racial marriage felt.

Should states be able to restrict all marriages to whatever they see fit Digs?
 
I agree, it should be up to the states. They are the legal entities that recognize marriages.

If every state has its own laws then what happens when someone who is married in one state, moves to another.....do they suddenly become "Unmarried"? That would just be plain silly....and the exact reason why states should not be able to make their own laws regarding a right as fundamental as the right to marry.

Would you be ok with states saying that they wouldn't recognize inter-racial marriages? Afterall...you believe states should have the right to set their own marriage criteria. What if a state said only fertile couples should be allowed to marry....or if a state said marriage should be restricted to Christians.....ok with you?
 
Now just trying to side step the point. You can do better.
All you have is the same tired out bull****.

I support legalising SSM federaly and forcing every state to comply. I hope SCOTUS rules in this way.

However, it has nothing to do with sex preferences or any of that bull**** for 2 reasons: 1. Its not the state's job to endorse your benign sexual desires with liceces. Infact its a violation of your 4th amendment right. 2. The state's sole justification in brieching your 4th amendment when it regulates marriage, is the state's "compelling interest" in the raising of children (which same-sex couples can do as well as opposit-sex couples) and in promoting long-term stable relationships.

That's it. The more stable and helthy a given kind of relationship, the more the state should support it. The less stable, the less the state should support it, regardles of who or what composes the relationship.

Noone can marry just whomever they want to now, and noone will be able to after SSM is legalised.

Has nothing to do with equality or sex preferences or any of that libtard crap.
 
Last edited:
You sound like you have no clue.

I don't know many Libertarians that favor big government telling people what they can and cannot do in their private lives. Most Libertarians that I know prefer government to stay pretty much out of everything. This guy is advocating for big government making the most intimate decisions for private individuals. THAT is much more right-wing Republican than it is Libertarian.
 
I don't know many Libertarians that favor big government telling people what they can and cannot do in their private lives.
Getting married at all is putting more government in your life than single people. If anything you should be calling all married libertarians hypocrits.

I was right, you have no clue.
 
Getting married at all is putting more government in your life than single people. If anything you should be calling all married libertarians hypocrits.

I was right, you have no clue.

Your bitterness is coming out and it is not a good thing.
 
That's exactly what how those who opposed inter-racial marriage felt.

Should states be able to restrict all marriages to whatever they see fit Digs?

Laws don't care how you feel.... Laws don't have emotions - especially non-existing laws and especially those laws that do not exist..
 
Getting married at all is putting more government in your life than single people. If anything you should be calling all married libertarians hypocrits.

I was right, you have no clue.
Not really. But I do like how you focus on one aspect and completely disregard all the others in an attempt to make your point. Fail.
 
Laws don't care how you feel.... Laws don't have emotions - especially non-existing laws and especially those laws that do not exist..

I wasn't referring to laws. I was referring to people. Go back and read more carefully.
 
The government doesn't discriminate against gays...

Gays just want to be a "protected class" and have MORE rights than anyone else..

I find anyone who believes the government should protect them from scrutiny to be obnoxious..

I suspect that you are one of those Republicans who is ashamed to admit that you are so you started calling yourself "Libertarian"....and I bet its a safe bet that your voting record indicates as much.
 
All you have is the same tired out bull****.

I support legalising SSM federaly and forcing every state to comply. I hope SCOTUS rules in this way.

However, it has nothing to do with sex preferences or any of that bull**** for 2 reasons: 1. Its not the state's job to endorse your benign sexual desires with liceces. Infact its a violation of your 4th amendment right. 2. The state's sole justification in brieching your 4th amendment when it regulates marriage, is the state's "compelling interest" in the raising of children (which same-sex couples can do as well as opposit-sex couples) and in promoting long-term stable relationships.

That's it. The more stable and helthy a given kind of relationship, the more the state should support it. The less stable, the less the state should support it, regardles of who or what composes the relationship.

Noone can marry just whomever they want to now, and noone will be able to after SSM is legalised.

Has nothing to do with equality or sex preferences or any of that libtard crap.

Believe it or not, same sex couples raise children as well. Every reason we support heterosexual marriage is just as valid for homosexual marriage.

It has everything to do with equality and nothing to do with much of anything else.
 
Man there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. I will break this down in some decent detail, but it is late, I am not documenting jack **** right now, nor am I looking things up so this is going from memory. However, this is a topic that has interested me and I have studied the cases in some detail. Take what I say for what it is worth.

First, there are two very different cases before SCOTUS in terms of SSM. The first is Perry v Hollingsworth. This is where marriage as a right will be looked at, maybe. This is also where many people are getting confused. The facts: marriage in this country is a right. Most frequently cited to prove that is Loving v Virginia, but there is a whole plethora of cases that do the same thing. You may not like it, but until SCOTUS rules that it is not a right(and think hard about that, do you really want that to be the case), or the constitution is amended, marriage is a right.

To deny some one from a right requires the state to be able to do certain things, depending on the right and who is being denied that right. One of the big questions in this case is the level of scrutiny that should be used. Even at the lowest level of scrutiny, to deny SSM couples from marrying, the state would have to show that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In other words, the state would have to show that prop 8 serves a legitimate government interest. The question would be what is the government's interest in limiting marriage to only being between a man and woman. That is the lowest possible hurdle, and it could be much higher depending on how the court rules.

However, it is quite likely the court will sidestep the issue altogether. Easiest and most likely would be a ruling that denies the petitioners(prop 8 backers) appellate standing. basically this means that the people who appealed can't. Even that get's complicated, but the most likely outcome would be going all the way back to Judge Walker's decision, which would likely still be put on hold. Temporary stalemate. Next most likely, ruling that since SSM couples did at one point have the right to marry, the state cannot take it away. Then there is the possibility the court could decide that the petition was granted in error, meaning that in reality the SCOTUS should not have heard the case at all, and thus confirming the appeals court ruling.

There are a number of other possible outcomes. Best guess, 50 - 50 that SSM will be legal in California as a result of SCOTUS ruling. If not, then most likely it will be held in legal limbo as lower courts have to go through the process again. It is very unlikely that the court will simply uphold prop 8, but certainly not impossible.

Note that nowhere in there did I mention equal rights. There is a reason for that. While equal protection is a part of the case, simply saying it is an equal rights issue is vastly too simplified. Also note that those who are claiming that marriage is a right are, well, wrong. It is a right. Further note that the definition of marriage varies by state currently, and has varied widely in the history of our country, so toss out any of those traditional definition arguments, they fail.

The other case is Windsor v United States, and no that does not mean we are fighting Canada. This is a much more clear cut case which has a much more likely outcome. States have historically been the ones to define who can get married in their state, and other states and the federal government recognize those marriages. DOMA pretty clearly takes away the right of the state to do that. This is an argument which appeals both to conservative and liberal judges. This is highly likely to be the outcome of the case(probably 80 % likely). The big question is whether the court will rule on portability(that is, whether if a SSM couple marries in a state that allows such marriages moves to a state without, does the federal government still have to recognize the marriage?) and a few other technical aspects. Most likely not, which would leave the decision basically in Obama and the justice department's hands, at least for now. Once again, it is however possible that the court will decide not to rule, and my basic understanding is if that happens, DOMA would last awhile longer until another case makes it through the system or it would put it back to the lower courts ruling and DOMA goes away.

So to recap: most likely DOMA is gone, but this is far from a sure thing. Prop 8 has so many possible outcomes, who the **** knows how that will turn out.
 
Back
Top Bottom