• 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!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

In order for this ruling to apply to polygamy, it has to be close to same sex marriage. You admit it isn't. So your previous assertion is wrong.

Then procreation has nothing to do with government recognition of marriage. Legally you cannot claim that a law is for a specific purpose, such as procreation, yet the function of that law in no way requires that condition to exist. In fact, some other couples who cannot procreate are allowed to legally marry. And in certain cases, only those who cannot procreate are allowed to marry. This proves that procreation is not legally tied to marriage at all and is not a valid argument for restrictions in marriage, unless the restriction was specifically saying that only those couples who can procreate can legally marry. This is not likely to get approved. Very few people would support such intrusion into a couple's life.

Which means the state definitions are valid so long as they do not violate the US Constitution.

Marriage is a legal contract that makes two people legally recognized as "spouse" to each other.

If the nature of a decision on marriage is one that states marriage as a right that any person in love with another should not be prohibited by the state from marrying, then you have, in fact, opened the door to polygamous marriage. If you're in love, you should be able to marry. That's the argument of the homosexual marriage advocates. That puts plural marriage on equal footing and the fact that it's three people who love each other rather than two shouldn't matter. If you change the definition of marriage to "people who love each other", polygamy is in. If you change it to "any two people" from "one man and one woman", you establish that the definition of marriage must be changed to accommodate people that have deviant love relationships, then polygamy is in.

If homosexual marriage is mandated by equal rights, polygamy is the next logical step and there's no decision that would force gay marriage that wouldn't also force polygamy. Only by letting states legislate their own marriage laws can we keep things reasonable. Eventually homosexuals will be able to marry in all 50 states, but it will take state legislatures to make it legitimate and to preclude even more perverse changes to the definition of marriage.
 
There is no gay gene
1) The genetic aspects of homosexuality, or lack thereof, are not proven. You cannot make an absolute statement like this.
2) The premise of the statement implies a lack of understanding of genetics. Genes aren't magic on/off switches. It's probable that homosexuality has both genetic and environmental factors.
3) Why would this even be relevant?


I'm not the one that labeled it a mental illness until it was removed from the DSM criteria for political reasons.

You don't know why it was removed, and you dodged the question.
 
Haven't I made this perfectly clear by now?

In case it STILL isn't, the purpose of me saying "not everyone" is to say "nobody". I like to think I've made this crystal clear by now, but I guess we have to wait for some people to come around.

Then say nobody. "Not everybody" implies "some people."
 
“At every cross way on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past.”
 
If the nature of a decision on marriage is one that states marriage as a right that any person in love with another should not be prohibited by the state from marrying, then you have, in fact, opened the door to polygamous marriage. If you're in love, you should be able to marry. That's the argument of the homosexual marriage advocates. That puts plural marriage on equal footing and the fact that it's three people who love each other rather than two shouldn't matter. If you change the definition of marriage to "people who love each other", polygamy is in. If you change it to "any two people" from "one man and one woman", you establish that the definition of marriage must be changed to accommodate people that have deviant love relationships, then polygamy is in.

If homosexual marriage is mandated by equal rights, polygamy is the next logical step and there's no decision that would force gay marriage that wouldn't also force polygamy. Only by letting states legislate their own marriage laws can we keep things reasonable. Eventually homosexuals will be able to marry in all 50 states, but it will take state legislatures to make it legitimate and to preclude even more perverse changes to the definition of marriage.

The nature of the decision is that the state has no legitimate state interest being furthered by a restriction on marriage based on sex/gender. This is the basis of the decision, which in this case the "state" being the federal government.
 
By his suggestion that this isn't the end point, it seems he's basing his statement and view of the ruling off the same one as Your Star...assuming that all this does is set up the next court case to come in and tell all states that they must acknowledge and treat equally the marriage that occurs in another state that wouldn't have occured in their own...which he seems to be suggesting is a trampling of state rights by essentially forcing every state to adhere to whatever standard any particular state wishes to set.

Based on that sort of logic, I can kind of get the point...it's kind of a "two steps forward, one step back" type of thing or losing a battle to win the war. That the ruling itself doesn't directly trample states rights, but lays the clear and present pathway that will likely be used shortly to trampled said state rights.

Not sure I really agree, but can at least see the logic behind it.
When the court decides to rule on the unconstitutionality of bans on SSM, and finds such bans unconstitutional, it will not be a blow to states rights since a state never had a right to deny a fundamental right of an individual.
 
The nature of the decision is that the state has no legitimate state interest being furthered by a restriction on marriage based on sex/gender. This is the basis of the decision, which in this case the "state" being the federal government.

WRONG. The nature of the decision is that the state (federal government) has no legitimate state interest being furthered by overruling the state (as in actual state) definition of marriage.
 
1) The genetic aspects of homosexuality, or lack thereof, are not proven. You cannot make an absolute statement like this.

This is true. We don't know if it's genetic or not. The good news is that if it does turn out to be genetic, then we will probably be able to cure it.
 
WRONG. The nature of the decision is that the state (federal government) has no legitimate state interest being furthered by overruling the state (as in actual state) definition of marriage.

They included that they had no legitimate state interest being furthered in overruling those states' definitions where the states were trying to protect their citizens by allowing them to enter into same sex marriages. They didn't address the other states in their ruling, from what I read.
 
No they have not. That is irrelevant to whether they are now or not. Until you get a ruling which defines polygamists as a legal class, there is no precedent here that helps recognize polygamy. The opposite in fact. Your calling me a bigot is not going to change the legal realities. You are however entitled to your ignorant opinions.

Right. Precedent. Thank you for conceding my point. Bigot.

Odd. A search of the two rulings on that terms comes back negative...

Read Kennedy's majority opinion

DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution

Didn't say gay. Said person.

The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare con- gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group

Didn't specify gays. Specifically a "politically unpopular group" like Polygamists and other multiple marriage group advocates.

DOMA singles out class of persons deemed by State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty'...

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Like Polygamists:lol:

Your knowledge of history is flawed, unsurprisingly. It was changed due to the results of research. Repeating the same failed definition is not going to make it right. I have not claimed a gay gene nor that being gay was a race, those are just random straw men.

No it wasn't. It was changed for political reasons. When it was removed from the DSM criteria it was not done so because of a scientific breakthrough

1) The genetic aspects of homosexuality, or lack thereof, are not proven. You cannot make an absolute statement like this.
2) The premise of the statement implies a lack of understanding of genetics. Genes aren't magic on/off switches. It's probable that homosexuality has both genetic and environmental factors.
3) Why would this even be relevant?

There is no gay gene
 
SCOTUS said there is no Federal definition of what marriage is. They sent the issue back to the states.

Redress parroting the good Cap'n would have you believe your "knowledge of history is flawed", however, as I beat down the good Cap'n with the facts a year or so ago, it appears that Redress' knowledge of history is the one that is flawed.

Not Sick: The 1973 Removal of Homosexuality from the DSM | Mind of Modernity

The above link gives you a first-hand, contemporaneous folding of events. I suggest listening to the audio parts I, II.

A snippet or two..

… this version of events was discarded anyway. Discarded after the family went on vacation to the Bahamas to celebrate my grandfather’s 70th birthday. I remember it well. I also remember my grandfather stepping out from his beach front bungalow on that first day followed by a small well-built man, a man that later during dinner my grandfather introduced to a shocked family as his lover, David. David was the first of a long line of very young men that my grandfather took up with after my grandmother’s death. It turned out that my grandfather had had gay lovers throughout his life, had even told his wife-to-be that he was homosexual, two weeks before their wedding. And so in 1981 the story that my family told about the definition in the DSM changed dramatically.

According to Alix Spiegel, from the 40’s through the early 60’s, the APA was a very conservative organization, largely uninterested in “weighing in on the issues of the day.” In her interviews with psychiatrists who were members of the APA in 1970, when the forces behind the definition change began to take shape, she was told that the overwhelming majority of the APA believed that homosexuality was indeed a mental illness – “even the ones of us who were gay,” added Dr. John Fryer.


While developments in medicine and advances in genetic study and different brain imaging technologies have no doubt increased the importance of being aligned with “science” when it comes to psychiatric debate, this is not a new phenomenon, nor was it new in the ‘70’s. At the same time, stories like this one makes it plain that the progress of certain disciplines may be driven just as much by personal and political factors as it is by actual scientific progress. I wonder if the removal of the homosexuality diagnosis in 1973 wasn’t the beginning of the end for psychoanalysis, as well as the first move towards the more standardized, symptom-based diagnoses of the 1980 DSM-III. This seems reasonable, considering that Robert Spitzer was chairman of the task force responsible for creating the new edition and directed the development of the revised edition published in 1987 (DSM-III-R).

As the APA prepares for the publication of the DSM-V in 2013, I believe it’s worthwhile to keep this story in mind. Some of the proposed changes seem to have more to do with a desire to remove a stigmatizing label than real “scientific” evidence. And like homosexuality, the pathology of which was for a many years assumed but never proven, the scientific understanding of some of the older DSM diagnoses is not particularly strong. Studying the history of psychiatry can’t necessarily prove or disprove the validity of a diagnosis, but it may help us to remain cautious as we go forward.

Well, written, and factual. Make of it what you will.


The truth in summation is that the science used to justify removing homosexuality from the DSM II consisted of ink blot tests, and a sample of 30 individuals that had no internalized homophobia. THAT, is a fact that no one can dispute!


Tim-
 
They included that they had no legitimate state interest being furthered in overruling those states' definitions where the states were trying to protect their citizens by allowing them to enter into same sex marriages. They didn't address the other states in their ruling, from what I read.

Exactly. The state was doing what it thought was right for it's citizens and the supreme court saw no reason to overrule them from doing what they thought was right for their citizens. Other states have made other decisions and the supreme court's position as a precedent on this would be not to overturn those decisions, either.
 
Right. Precedent. Thank you for conceding my point. Bigot.

Well, if refuting is the same as conceding in your world, I can see where you are having all these problems.

Read Kennedy's majority opinion





Didn't say gay. Said person.



Didn't specify gays. Specifically a "politically unpopular group" like Polygamists and other multiple marriage group advocates.





Like Polygamists:lol:

So not using the term means the term is in there. Well done!



No it wasn't. It was changed for political reasons. When it was removed from the DSM criteria it was not done so because of a scientific breakthrough

Prove it. Bet you can't.

There is no gay gene

There is no known gay gene. There is possibly a gene or more likely a set of genes that impact orientation, but that is conjecture at this point. Saying there is no gay gene however is unsupportable with current science.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

1.)It was intended as a commentary on our times.

Don't you have equal rights now?

1.) still made no sense
2.) depends on how you are asking, im not gay but the answer is no
 
Exactly. The state was doing what it thought was right for it's citizens and the supreme court saw no reason to overrule them from doing what they thought was right for their citizens. Other states have made other decisions and the supreme court's position as a precedent on this would be not to overturn those decisions, either.

And the fact that the states cannot show how restricting marriage based on sex/gender in any way furthers a legitimate state interest will come up when further cases reach the SCOTUS from other states. Those bans will eventually be struck down on this basis.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

1.) still made no sense
2.) depends on how you are asking, im not gay but the answer is no

Why don't you have equal rights?
 
And the fact that the states cannot show how restricting marriage based on sex/gender in any way furthers a legitimate state interest will come up when further cases reach the SCOTUS from other states. Those bans will eventually be struck down on this basis.

I doubt it. I don't think the supreme court is going to try to legislate this from the bench and I believe they will go to some great lengths in order to avoid doing it. This is something the supreme court rightly wants the people to work out on their own.
 
In order for this ruling to apply to polygamy, it has to be close to same sex marriage. You admit it isn't. So your previous assertion is wrong

How so? Are you assuming that both marriages are heterosexual?

By the Gay rights argument what right does the government have to say that a wife can't also marry a woman? It would seem that these "marriage is between two people" laws are discriminating against bisexuals!
 
Loving is one of many cases where marriage was defined as a right. While you may not like it, marriage is recognized legally as a right in the US.

The federal governemnt is not ever getting out of marrraige. Not in the foreseeable future. Maybe in a few hundred years, but even then probably not.

We'll see what happens, but I'd argue that this ruling as well as other decisions in other countries going forward will do a lot to bring about the removal of marriage as a criteria for government benefit and/or tax advantage. Since procreation will no longer be one of the cornerstones of government sanctioned marriage, there may come a time in the not too distant future when the tax benefits will simply acrue to the having of children only and no tax benefit related to the marriage of individuals. When you think about it, there really is no benefit to society or to individuals that directly results from government sanctioned marriage.

The more open marriage becomes, the less rational there is for giving special tax advantages to the certificate. There will be a time, perhaps not in my lifetime, but at some point, single people will be claiming prejudicial treatment under any number of tax laws that favor married individuals as opposed to single people, whether they cohabitate with an informal partner or by themselves. After all, equal protection under the law should not be based on a government definition that discriminates against an individual based on their life status.
 
Here's the real dilemma facing the Supreme Court regarding Homosexual Marriage:

Society is moving toward allowing it. But if the Supreme court makes it an issue of rights based on people loving each other being able to marry, then challenges for polygamy and incest will have something very solid to go on. If, on the other hand, legislatures define marriage based on what the people think is right, then eventually public opinion will result in the public's will being the law. There is no rationalization for gay marriage in terms of constitutional rights that wouldn't end up being support for other deviant relationship models as marriage, as well, so the Supreme Court rightfully recognizes that it's playing with fire on this issue and prefers, as much as possible, not to touch it.
 
I doubt it. I don't think the supreme court is going to try to legislate this from the bench and I believe they will go to some great lengths in order to avoid doing it. This is something the supreme court rightly wants the people to work out on their own.

Given time and the right case, plus a few more states legalizing same sex marriage, I have every belief that they will strike down these laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom