• 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

wolfsgirl said:
I'm starting to think that you can not read polls. You specifically said that more people supported civil unions than marriage. I showed you that you were incorrect.

You still haven't even produced this poll you said backs up your claim.
Click to expand...

OK. Get an appointment with your proctologist. You need to have your head examined. Here it is from someone that DIDN'T put a stupid spin on this like you did.... the author of the CBS News article on the poll:

A new CBS News/New York Times Poll shows a solid majority of Americans support legal recognition for same-sex couples - though not necessarily through the official act of marriage - and the number of people who do support full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples is significantly higher among younger generations. (Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions - Political Hotsheet - CBS News) "Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions".

Unlike you, the author doesn't have his head shoved completely up his nether region and is cognizent of the fact that people who support gay marriage consider it a form of civil union. But... wait... you're going to pretend you can't understand what that author said, either, are you? I'm torn between sticking around to continue shining a spotlight on your willful ignorance or abandoning the pointless exercise of countering wanton stupidity and doing something productive. I'm leaning toward the latter. I've nothing to gain by dragging you kicking and screaming toward reality.
 
Papa bull said:
OK. Get an appointment with your proctologist. You need to have your head examined. Here it is from someone that DIDN'T put a stupid spin on this like you did.... the author of the CBS News article on the poll:

A new CBS News/New York Times Poll shows a solid majority of Americans support legal recognition for same-sex couples - though not necessarily through the official act of marriage - and the number of people who do support full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples is significantly higher among younger generations. (Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions - Political Hotsheet - CBS News) "Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions".

Unlike you, the author doesn't have his head shoved completely up his nether region and is cognizent of the fact that people who support gay marriage consider it a form of civil union. But... wait... you're going to pretend you can't understand what that author said, either, are you? I'm torn between sticking around to continue shining a spotlight on your willful ignorance or abandoning the pointless exercise of countering wanton stupidity and doing something productive. I'm leaning toward the latter. I've nothing to gain by dragging you kicking and screaming toward reality.
Click to expand...

That poll shows that more people would approve of marriage than civil unions also. It was from 2012 too. mine was from 2004-2013.
 
wolfsgirl said:
That poll shows that more people would approve of marriage than civil unions also. It was from 2012 too. mine was from 2004-2013.
Click to expand...

You keep asserting a false dilemma. The option of gay marriage / civil union isn't mutually exclusive and by selecting one, they are not signifying that they reject the other.

If it came to a vote, MOST people support some sort of civil union. And if "civil union" was the issue, it would win. If it was JUST gay marriage as the only sort of civil union up for vote, it would not. Fewer people approve of subset "gay marriage" than the superset of "legally recognized homosexual union".

If you still don't get it, then nevermind. I gave it my best shot and your willful ignorance isn't my problem to fix.
 
Papa bull said:
If it came to a vote, MOST people support some sort of civil union.
Click to expand...

And if marriage came to a vote, most people would support it according to recent polls
 
winston53660 said:
And if marriage came to a vote, most people would support it according to recent polls
Click to expand...

The only poll that will count is the one where we actually vote on issues, not merely opinions. This issue will go state by state and demographics, communities and standards are different. What works for California isn't necessarily what the people in Idaho want. That's why States rights are so important.
 
Papa bull said:
The only poll that will count is the one where we actually vote on issues, not merely opinions. This issue will go state by state and demographics, communities and standards are different. What works for California isn't necessarily what the people in Idaho want. That's why States rights are so important.
Click to expand...

Individual rights is what is important.
 
winston53660 said:
Individual rights is what is important.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also think homosexuals currently have all the same rights everyone else has and that demanding the state change the definition of it's sanctioned entities to accommodate your aberrant preferences isn't a right. In fact, the first clue about a "right" is that it doesn't require the government to take an action for you (like issue a marriage license). A right is something that you have the power to do for yourself. Speak for yourself. Move to another state yourself. Go to a meeting. Defend yourself. It's always a good first test for a "right". If it requires anyone else doing anything for you, it's not a right.
 
Papa bull said:
I agree. I also think homosexuals currently have all the same rights everyone else has and that demanding the state change the definition of it's sanctioned entities to accommodate your aberrant preferences isn't a right. In fact, the first clue about a "right" is that it doesn't require the government to take an action for you (like issue a marriage license). A right is something that you have the power to do for yourself. Speak for yourself. Move to another state yourself. Go to a meeting. Defend yourself. It's always a good first test for a "right". If it requires anyone else doing anything for you, it's not a right.
Click to expand...

So then I will ask you for the tenth or so time, why did Mr. and Mrs. Loving get the right to marry? According to you, you don't need a license for a right (which is wrong anyway, but going off this contention). They shouldn't have been granted marriage, according to your contention in those states where they didn't allow those of different races to marry.
 
Papa bull said:
I agree. I also think homosexuals currently have all the same rights everyone else has
Click to expand...

A woman doesn't have same right I have in marriage to marry a woman.
 
Papa bull said:
The only poll that will count is the one where we actually vote on issues, not merely opinions. This issue will go state by state and demographics, communities and standards are different. What works for California isn't necessarily what the people in Idaho want. That's why States rights are so important.
Click to expand...

Individual rights are much more important. It is foolish to limit the federal government to becoming a tyranny of the majority, only to allow the smaller, state governments to do so.
 
roguenuke said:
So then I will ask you for the tenth or so time, why did Mr. and Mrs. Loving get the right to marry? According to you, you don't need a license for a right (which is wrong anyway, but going off this contention). They shouldn't have been granted marriage, according to your contention in those states where they didn't allow those of different races to marry.
Click to expand...

They got permission to marry, not the "right" to marry. You don't a need license to exercise a right. Do you need a license to vote? Do you need a license to speak? Do you need a license to attend a church?

Of course not. Those are rights.
 
winston53660 said:
A woman doesn't have same right I have in marriage to marry a woman.
Click to expand...

She has the same "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex that you do. And the same "right" to marry someone of the same sex that you do. The rights are equal and that's assuming incorrectly that marriage is a "right". It may be a natural outcome of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but requiring a marriage means it is not a right... you can't marry your first cousin. You could if marriage was a right.
 
Papa bull said:
They got permission to marry, not the "right" to marry.
Click to expand...
Wrong!

The court stated CLEARLY that their basic right to marry could not be denied by Virginia. The court DID NOT give them any kind of "permission".

Stop with the horrible, imprecise, language.
 
Papa bull said:
She has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that you do. The rights are equal and that's assuming incorrectly that marriage is a "right".
Click to expand...

Marriage is a right and it is not equal when I can enter into a legal contract with a woman and a woman can't with another woman.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wrong!

The court stated CLEARLY that their basic right to marry could not be denied by Virginia. The court DID NOT give them any kind of "permission".

Stop with the horrible, imprecise, language.
Click to expand...

In this case, I think the imprecise language was the assignation of the word "right" to marriage. No right requires action by anyone else and by calling marriage a "right", the actual definition of "right" becomes suddenly quite nebulous when it should be quite clear.
Fundamental rights:

Right to self-determination[1]
Right to liberty[2]
Right to due process of law[2]
Right to freedom of movement[3]
Right to freedom of thought[4]
Right to freedom of religion[4]
Right to freedom of expression[5]
Right to peaceably assemble[6]
Right to freedom of association[7]
Right to marry[8]

Of these "rights", only the last one deviates in that it requires consent from others. Consent from government. Consent from a partner. It is a square peg in a round hole as a "right".
 
winston53660 said:
Marriage is a right and it is not equal when I can enter into a legal contract with a woman and a woman can't with another woman.
Click to expand...

If it was a "right", you should be able to enter into marriage with anything you want and without any permission from the state. It doesn't work out that way, does it?
 
Papa bull said:
If it was a "right", you should be able to enter into marriage with anything you want and without any permission from the state. It doesn't work out that way, does it?
Click to expand...

No one asks "permission" from the State to get married.
 
Papa bull said:
They got permission to marry, not the "right" to marry. You don't a need license to exercise a right. Do you need a license to vote? Do you need a license to speak? Do you need a license to attend a church?

Of course not. Those are rights.
Click to expand...

They got the right to marry. Look again. Equal protection of the laws is a right and the SCOTUS itself said that marriage is a right as well.

The right to marry and the Constitution

This goes into why a state cannot make a restriction on a driver's license or hunting license on the basis of sex/gender. Equal protection of the laws is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, even if the restriction is on something regulated by a license.
 
Papa bull said:
In this case, I think the imprecise language was the assignation of the word "right" to marriage. No right requires action by anyone else and by calling marriage a "right", the actual definition of "right" becomes suddenly quite nebulous when it should be quite clear.
Fundamental rights:

Right to self-determination[1]
Right to liberty[2]
Right to due process of law[2]
Right to freedom of movement[3]
Right to freedom of thought[4]
Right to freedom of religion[4]
Right to freedom of expression[5]
Right to peaceably assemble[6]
Right to freedom of association[7]
Right to marry[8]

Of these "rights", only the last one deviates in that it requires consent from others. Consent from government. Consent from a partner. It is a square peg in a round hole as a "right".
Click to expand...

And you are wrong. You are trying to fit things into your beliefs which isn't how our laws work. Equal protection of the laws is a right, even if the law is regulated via a license.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Maine Maryland and Washington state approved by voter referendum.
Click to expand...

I suppose you can get anything passed with enough money and political guilt/shaming. Added these were also very liberal states, and as early as 2009 voted exactly the opposite only to have their "state Legislatures pass it anyway". Then comes the referendum, and being outspent, shamed, guilt, and a feeling of utter hopelessness that your state government is going to do what it is going to do, I suppose people had other battles to fight that were more important.


Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage - the leading group opposing same-sex marriage - said those favoring so-called traditional marriage had been outspent by a margin of at least 4 to 1.

"Our opponents and some in the media will attempt to portray the election results as a changing point in how Americans view gay marriage, but that is not the case," Brown said in a statement. "Americans remain strongly in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The election results reflect the political and funding advantages our opponents enjoyed in these very liberal states."

In Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut, laws followed court rulings that same-sex couples could not be denied marriage rights. Legislatures approved the change in Vermont, New York and New Hampshire.

Before this year, ballot initiatives banning the legal recognition of same-sex marriage had succeeded in 31 states, and no state had ever approved same-sex marriage by popular vote.

Maine voters rejected gay marriage in a referendum in 2009 by 53 to 47 percent. In Washington and Maryland, where state legislatures previously passed laws expanding marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, it was up to citizens to decide whether to let the laws stand.
Click to expand...

From your link! ^^^


Tim-
 
roguenuke said:
They got the right to marry. Look again. Equal protection of the laws is a right and the SCOTUS itself said that marriage is a right as well.

The right to marry and the Constitution


This goes into why a state cannot make a restriction on a driver's license or hunting license on the basis of sex/gender. Equal protection of the laws is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, even if the restriction is on something regulated by a license.
Click to expand...

The marriage laws of all states have no restriction based on your sex or gender. You have the same rights and restrictions in regard to marry that anyone else has. The state has ALWAYS been able to put reasonable restrictions on what constitutes a legal marriage. And 120+ years after Lincoln freed the slaves, the Supreme court decided that mixed race was no longer a reasonable restriction. So cheer up. 120+ years after sodomy has been decriminalized, the supreme court may well decide that bans on same sex marriages are no longer a reasonable restriction.

At this point, they're quite reasonable. They may not be reasonable to YOU but they're certainly reasonable to the states that have them in place.
 
Papa bull said:
The marriage laws of all states have no restriction based on your sex or gender. You have the same rights and restrictions in regard to marry that anyone else has. The state has ALWAYS been able to put reasonable restrictions on what constitutes a legal marriage. And 120+ years after Lincoln freed the slaves, the Supreme court decided that mixed race was no longer a reasonable restriction. So cheer up. 120+ years after sodomy has been decriminalized, the supreme court may well decide that bans on same sex marriages are no longer a reasonable restriction.

At this point, they're quite reasonable. They may not be reasonable to YOU but they're certainly reasonable to the states that have them in place.
Click to expand...

The marriage laws of most states have restrictions based on sex/gender. I cannot marry a woman only because of my gender/sex, just as Mr. Loving could not legally be married to Mrs. Loving only because of her race.

Oh, it won't take that long for equality to come on this issue. It will be here much sooner.

And no, those are not reasonable. They are discriminatory and further no legitimate state interest.
 
roguenuke said:
And you are wrong. You are trying to fit things into your beliefs which isn't how our laws work. Equal protection of the laws is a right, even if the law is regulated via a license.
Click to expand...

And equal protections are in place. A homosexual can get married in all 50 states and in no state is there a denial based on "homosexuality". You can't choose a same-sex partner, but neither can anyone else. You can't marry your brother. But neither can anyone else. The rights are equal.
 
Papa bull said:
In this case, I think the imprecise language was the assignation of the word "right" to marriage. No right requires action by anyone else and by calling marriage a "right", the actual definition of "right" becomes suddenly quite nebulous when it should be quite clear.
Fundamental rights:

Right to self-determination[1]
Right to liberty[2]
Right to due process of law[2]
Right to freedom of movement[3]
Right to freedom of thought[4]
Right to freedom of religion[4]
Right to freedom of expression[5]
Right to peaceably assemble[6]
Right to freedom of association[7]
Right to marry[8]

Of these "rights", only the last one deviates in that it requires consent from others. Consent from government. Consent from a partner. It is a square peg in a round hole as a "right".
Click to expand...
Again, you are arguing from a position of ignorance, SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia stated that marriage is a basic, fundamental right THAT CANNOT BE DENIED BY THE STATE.

A marriage licence is a LEGAL CONTRACT between two people that the state recognizes and protects. The consent is between the partners to abide by whatever agreement, religious or legal, they enter into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom