• 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]

AlabamaPaul said:
You're beginning to get my point... :shock:
Click to expand...

No because people want marriages to exist and as long as a majority wants them to exist, they will exist in a legal context. The only thing is that when they do exist, the government must treat people equally in the application of the laws involved in them according to our Constitution.
 
Mr.Nick said:
It has absolutely everything to do with what I said.

Besides, you were the one making assumptions in the first place claiming "there is a process for that" - like that is something I didn't know.
Click to expand...

:roll: moving on.
 
wbcoleman said:
I see no way for SCOTUS to honestly distinguish between gay marriage and polygamy. It's just that there's no political constituency for polygamy. Shabbat shalom, be back tomorrow night!
Click to expand...

Haven't looked at it enough to know. But you have to show just cause before denying.
 
Mr.Nick said:
And there is no FEDERAL LAW that grants gay marriage, just like there is no FEDERAL LAW that grants rights to pets....

In short - congress would have to amend the constitution to legalize gay marriage at the federal level - other than that states can utilize the Tenth Amendment and use that liberty in the appropriate manner.
Click to expand...

There is/was no federal law that granted interracial marriage, marriage to prison inmates, or marriage to those who were behind on child support either.

And Congress wrote/passed an unconstitutional act because it violates equal protection and full faith and credit.

BTW, they already did amend the Constitution to concerning the 10th, it's called the 14th and it severely limits state powers over its people.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Access to marriage. You can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman only because of her gender/sex. That is gender discrimination and it is only in place due to animosity towards those who would want to marry someone of their own sex/gender. There is no state interest being furthered by not allowing two people of the same gender/sex to marry.
Click to expand...

So a minority group is justified in changing the definition of a word used to describe the relationships of the majority and that is NOT descrimination? I think it's about time we stopped pandering to every special interest group that CLAIMS to want equality but in reality wants to be "specialer" than everyone else. Here's a tip for you. Your "right" to be special ends at your ability to alter the definition of the word that describes my relationship with my wife. And don't give me the I'm not allowed in the ICU BS. That is not a federal law, it is a hospital policy. I own a business, I'll let you in on a little secret. A policy is a rule made by an administrator for them to hide behind. Nothing more. Federal agents will not prevent you from entering a wing of the hospital. Find a gay doctor or administrator, don't be a douchebag and you might just charm your way in. Thing is, when your particular club expects the world to change for them you come off as douchebags, in which case we point at the sign on the wall and say "I'm sorry, it's policy and I can't do anything about it."

I have a sign in my office that states that due to insurance policies customers are not allowed in the shop. It's not true. It's there for me to be able to keep douchebags out of my workspace. So if you insist on changing the meaning of a wordnto mean something it doesn't, you can have a seat in the office. Sorry, it's company policy. I can't do anything about it.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Are you really going to compare marriage to adoption? That's sillier than usual. Marriage requires consent.
Click to expand...

I did and I will however, if you're not satisfied with that analogy then who are you to tell someone they cant marry their sister, cousin or marry multiple willing individuals??
 
Mr.Nick said:
You're absolutely wrong... There is NOTHING that is stopping homosexuals from engaging in civil contract with their partners -- that's what "marriage" is -- de facto civil contract.
Click to expand...

They can't marry. They can't do what heterosexuals are allowed to do.
 
tech30528 said:
So a minority group is justified in changing the definition of a word used to describe the relationships of the majority and that is NOT descrimination? I think it's about time we stopped pandering to every special interest group that CLAIMS to want equality but in reality wants to be "specialer" than everyone else. Here's a tip for you. Your "right" to be special ends at your ability to alter the definition of the word that describes my relationship with my wife. And don't give me the I'm not allowed in the ICU BS. That is not a federal law, it is a hospital policy. I own a business, I'll let you in on a little secret. A policy is a rule made by an administrator for them to hide behind. Nothing more. Federal agents will not prevent you from entering a wing of the hospital. Find a gay doctor or administrator, don't be a douchebag and you might just charm your way in.
Click to expand...

Yes, definitions change all the time. It is part of our language. No US laws prevent definitions of words from changing, even if that means the majority doesn't approve of the change.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I did and I will however, if you're not satisfied with that analogy then who are you to tell someone they cant marry their sister, cousin or marry multiple willing individuals??
Click to expand...

Like anything else you have to show just cause. Sister is easy, as the relationship is too familiar, both in terms of family dynamics and children. Cousins often can and do marry.
 
roguenuke said:
There is/was no federal law that granted interracial marriage, marriage to prison inmates, or marriage to those who were behind on child support either.

And Congress wrote/passed an unconstitutional act because it violates equal protection and full faith and credit.
Click to expand...

Guess what? those were all STATE LAWS...... In what states is homosexual marriage illegal? NONE...

Lets not forget DOMA....
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, what I posted was that was what is desired...
Click to expand...

That is the reason that they deserve marriage. They cannot get the benefits offered by marriage only because of their relative genders. That is a violation of the EPC of the 14th because the state cannot give a legitimate reason as to why this restriction based on sex/gender furthers a legitimate state interest.
 
Boo Radley said:
Like anything else you have to show just cause. Sister is easy, as the relationship is too familiar, both in terms of family dynamics and children. Cousins often can and do marry.
Click to expand...

Who the hell are you to say two loving and willing people cant marry???

Sounds familiar to your argument right?

I suppose it is a different story when you have an opinion on marriage?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Guess what? those were all STATE LAWS...... In what states is homosexual marriage illegal? NONE...

Lets not forget DOMA....
Click to expand...

None. Same sex marriage is illegal, which puts it at a greater level of scrutiny for the states to defend their position on it furthering a state interest.

And DOMA violates many Amendments/rights, for much the same reasons that the state anti-same sex marriage laws do.
 
Boo Radley said:
They can't marry. They can't do what heterosexuals are allowed to do.
Click to expand...

Really???

You do realize marriage is nothing more than a civil contract right?
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, definitions change all the time. It is part of our language. No US laws prevent definitions of words from changing, even if that means the majority doesn't approve of the change.
Click to expand...

Then call your relationship a marriage. Just don't expect me to recognize it as such. Because THAT is not your right.
 
roguenuke said:
None. Same sex marriage is illegal, which puts it at a greater level of scrutiny for the states to defend their position on it furthering a state interest.

And DOMA violates many Amendments/rights, for much the same reasons that the state anti-same sex marriage laws do.
Click to expand...

if were are looking at DOMA itself...no it does not.


Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom