• 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

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.

I think eventually society will change enough that the Supreme Court will do that. Given the tack taken by the Supreme Court in the past, that will happen 20-40 years from now.
 
Here's the real dilemma facing the Supreme Court regarding Gay 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 disagree totally. There is no connection between gay marriage and polygamy or incest. And there is no public outcry or support for those things either. You might as well say that since we allow murder in war soon people will want the right to murder anytime.
 
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.

And your problem here is that it would not be an issue of rights based on people loving each other being able to marry, but rather on what is already established in the fact that restrictions in laws must be shown to further a state interest. This is not, nor has it been, about why same sex couples should be allowed to marry, but rather what interest the state has in preventing them from getting married and how that interest is exactly furthered in the restriction.

This same thing is true for each individual restriction and each individual state interest being furthered in each restriction.
 
I disagree totally. There is no connection between gay marriage and polygamy or incest. And there is no public outcry or support for those things either. You might as well say that since we allow murder in war soon people will want the right to murder anytime.

If the legal argument for gay marriage is that the state can't deprive people of the right to marry someone they love based on merely societal standards, tradition and an arbitrary assignment of marriage definition, then you've opened up everything. You may not see it, but I guarantee you the Supreme Court Justices are all aware of this.
 
I think eventually society will change enough that the Supreme Court will do that. Given the tack taken by the Supreme Court in the past, that will happen 20-40 years from now.

I believe it will be much sooner, since it is likely that we will reach half the states having legalized same sex marriage within the next decade or sooner.
 
If the legal argument for gay marriage is that the state can't deprive people of the right to marry someone they love based on merely societal standards, tradition and an arbitrary assignment of marriage definition, then you've opened up everything. You may not see it, but I guarantee you the Supreme Court Justices are all aware of this.

Who says there are no societal standards for marriage now? The standards have changed to include gays because it is the right thing to do. Do you think allowing incest and polygamy is the right thing to do? You would have a hard time convincing many that those are behaviors that we could embrace. A majority of Americans believe gays should have the right to marry.
 
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!

The arguments are not dependent on why a group deserves equal protection, but rather what state interest is being furthered in a restriction. The Constitution applies to the state, not the people, so the state has to justify their restrictions, the people do not have to justify their rights.

You are also failing in your evaluation of bisexuals. Bisexuals are absolutely no less likely to be monogamous than heterosexuals or homosexuals.
 
And your problem here is that it would not be an issue of rights based on people loving each other being able to marry, but rather on what is already established in the fact that restrictions in laws must be shown to further a state interest.

If the criteria is that a restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest, then what is the compelling state interest for restricting marriage to two people? Why not a man and two women? Why not father and daughter as long as the father has a vasectomy or the woman has her tubes tied? The argument of gay marriage is, IN FACT, that their right to marry the person they love is being denied because the relationship doesn't fit the accepted model. Well, plural marriage and incest marriages also don't fit the model and their rights to marry the people they love are being similarly restricted.
 
Who says there are no societal standards for marriage now? The standards have changed to include gays because it is the right thing to do. Do you think allowing incest and polygamy is the right thing to do?

Thank you. That's exactly what I'm trying to communicate here. If society changes their laws because they are compelled to decide they are the right thing to do, they may continue to exclude polygamy and incest and other deviant models. If the supreme court forces gay marriage based on some "right to marry" rationale; then the discretion of "the state" no longer applies and arguments about other relationships as marriage have legal support.
 
Well, if refuting is the same as conceding in your world, I can see where you are having all these problems.

You didn't refute anything. You conceded the point.

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

Why didn't you quote what Kennedy said? Gay Marriage is not about "Marriage Equality" now? First you claim gays aren't really gay, now you're claiming that the SSM movement has never been about marriage equality :lol:

Prove it. Bet you can't.

Prove that it was removed because of scientific reasons. Bet you can't.

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.

The facts there is no gay gene IS current science. No gay gene has been found.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Why don't you have equal rights?

well the two arguments that have won or are gaining traction are this. If i was gay unfair discrimination and a violation of equality as stated by courts in rulings and the second is the argument of gender discriminaiton not ruled on by courts yet but heard and also stated by courts themselves as possibilities of inequality.

all the deflections aside theres no logical reason to assume forced marriage lol
 
If the criteria is that a restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest, then what is the compelling state interest for restricting marriage to two people? Why not a man and two women? Why not father and daughter as long as the father has a vasectomy or the woman has her tubes tied? The argument of gay marriage is, IN FACT, that their right to marry the person they love is being denied because the relationship doesn't fit the accepted model. Well, plural marriage and incest marriages also don't fit the model and their rights to marry the people they love are being similarly restricted.

They are just bigots. Nothing more. They don't believe in "Marriage Equality"
 
If the criteria is that a restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest, then what is the compelling state interest for restricting marriage to two people? Why not a man and two women? Why not father and daughter as long as the father has a vasectomy or the woman has her tubes tied? The argument of gay marriage is, IN FACT, that their right to marry the person they love is being denied because the relationship doesn't fit the accepted model. Well, plural marriage and incest marriages also don't fit the model and their rights to marry the people they love are being similarly restricted.

Legally marriage functions as each having only one spouse. The laws would face a massive overhaul in order to allow people to have more than one legal spouse.

There are a couple of state interest being furthered by preventing incestuous marriages, including protecting offspring from genetic complications that are extremely prevalent in 1st degree incest and preventing undue influence that is of high likelihood in cases where the younger person was raised with the other.
 
What gives me pause on this is they could have voted for a nationwide decision today, so I don't know why the same judges would do so down the road. Just need that pig Scalia off the bench.


They could have...but I think they want to give public opinion time to catch up.
 
Thank you. That's exactly what I'm trying to communicate here. If society changes their laws because they are compelled to decide they are the right thing to do, they may continue to exclude polygamy and incest and other deviant models. If the supreme court forces gay marriage based on some "right to marry" rationale; then the discretion of "the state" no longer applies and arguments about other relationships as marriage have legal support.

You need not worry. There will be no brothers and sisters marrying and polygamy will remain a crime. I promise you that.
 
The arguments are not dependent on why a group deserves equal protection, but rather what state interest is being furthered in a restriction. The Constitution applies to the state, not the people, so the state has to justify their restrictions, the people do not have to justify their rights.

Well sure, but that is why there is no argument that applies to gay marriage that doesn't apply to polygamy.

Another point that can be argued now is whether laws banning gay relatives from marrying is unconstitutional. The laws that forbid family from marrying were grounded in the state's real concern of the high rate of genetic illness in children born of siblings or close relatives. But in a gay marriage that is no concern at all.

You are also failing in your evaluation of bisexuals. Bisexuals are absolutely no less likely to be monogamous than heterosexuals or homosexuals.

I'm not failing in my evaluation. I am assuming they are no less likely to engage in polygamy than gay or heterosexual couples.
 
You didn't refute anything. You conceded the point.

Wrong as usual.

Why didn't you quote what Kennedy said? Gay Marriage is not about "Marriage Equality" now? First you claim gays aren't really gay, now you're claiming that the SSM movement has never been about marriage equality :lol:

You want mne to quote him not saying something? Well that would be a neat trick. You got started on it since nothing you quoted from him said "marriage equality".

Prove that it was removed because of scientific reasons. Bet you can't.

You made the claim. Why am I not surprised you cannot back it up.

The facts there is no gay gene IS current science. No gay gene has been found.

Wrong once more. Current science is that there is no known gay gene, not that there is no gay gene. That is a very large, unsubtle difference.
 
Good. Now that equality and love has taken over, now we can start once again encouraging a positive marriage culture for straight people and gay people.
 
Well sure, but that is why there is no argument that applies to gay marriage that doesn't apply to polygamy.

Another point that can be argued now is whether laws banning gay relatives from marrying is unconstitutional. The laws that forbid family from marrying were grounded in the state's real concern of the high rate of genetic illness in children born of siblings or close relatives. But in a gay marriage that is no concern at all.

Yeah but that's just asking for massive abuse of the estate/gift tax. Marrying your kid(s) and then giving them everything tax free effectively breaks the system.

People will marry their kids when they're close to death, gift them everything and then die.
 
SO SO SO excited for this to happen. My cousin is one step closer to being able to marry her girlfriend :)
 
Well sure, but that is why there is no argument that applies to gay marriage that doesn't apply to polygamy.

Another point that can be argued now is whether laws banning gay relatives from marrying is unconstitutional. The laws that forbid family from marrying were grounded in the state's real concern of the high rate of genetic illness in children born of siblings or close relatives. But in a gay marriage that is no concern at all.

I'm not failing in my evaluation. I am assuming they are no less likely to engage in polygamy than gay or heterosexual couples.

Changing laws to accommodate same sex couples is only a change in the restriction. Changing laws to accommodate multiple spouses would take a complete overhaul of or at least affect our joint tax laws, our immigration laws pertaining to green cards/visas for spouses, our military dependent/spouse benefits, healthcare laws, qualifications for welfare/government assistance, housing laws, personal contracts covered by marriage, and more. These laws all operate the same for married couples, whether the spouses are a man and a woman, two men, or two women.

You mentioned bisexuals specifically. Since they are no more likely to want to be in a polygamous relationship than heterosexuals or homosexuals, then there would be no reason to single them out unless you have a misunderstanding of what being bisexual means.
 
Yeah, it's a good day for sure.

I also tend to think that since since Kennedy, and Sotomayor sided with the dissenters because they wanted a more broad ruling, and didn't want to turn the case away.

Certainly, their ruling in the DOMA case suggests support for that interpretation. Given the growing gap between younger cohorts who are better informed on the issue and who comprise a growing share of the population and older cohorts who represent a shrinking share of the population, a breakthrough is likely down the road. Younger cohorts recognize that homosexuality is not a disorder, birth defect, lifestyle choice, or abnormality. They find arguments along those lines based on fear or lack of understanding unpersuasive, as those arguments are not supported by credible data. Consequently, they view the issue of equal protection as it relates to marriage as a matter of civil rights that belong to all persons.

The political landscape is shifting on account of the demographic evolution. As a result, the position against marriage equality is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The retreating anti-equality elements are loudly objecting, but their objections are increasingly viewed as serving no legitimate interest. It would have been nice to have had a sweeping Brown v. Board of Education-type outcome, but today's rulings mark meaningful progress. Barring some radical development that shifts the fundamental perspectives of the rising younger cohorts, that progress will very likely be sustained going forward.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying that there hasn't been a hyper-liberalization of the country, usually to its detriment, in the past 40 years.

Sure, sure. Go ahead and get me a tinfoil hat.

Right now we have a better shot at undermining some of the arguments from the counter-culture Left of the 1960s and 1970s by encouraging strong marriages and two-parent family units. You didn't somehow think that this marriage institution was the same thing as those who were seeking to undermine social expectations entirely by questioning the entire concept of marriage and family structures, did you?
 
If the criteria is that a restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest, then what is the compelling state interest for restricting marriage to two people? Why not a man and two women? Why not father and daughter as long as the father has a vasectomy or the woman has her tubes tied? The argument of gay marriage is, IN FACT, that their right to marry the person they love is being denied because the relationship doesn't fit the accepted model. Well, plural marriage and incest marriages also don't fit the model and their rights to marry the people they love are being similarly restricted.

Oh that canard.

There are social burdens involved in polygamy (the most obvious being creditors not knowing whom to collect from for marital debt). Further, we tried polygamy (remember the bible) and it didn't work well for other reasons -- the wealthy wound up with lots of wives and the poor wound up with none -- a very volatile and unstable situation, as China is now learning due to its lack of marriageable females.

As to incest, it obviously lends itself it abusing children so that's reason enough to ban it.

NEXT VAPID RIGHTWING MEME!
 
Back
Top Bottom