• 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

Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. This argument failed when it was interracial marriage and it fails for same sex marriage.

Plus, equal protection involves an element of state interest being furthered. A restriction can be in place that treats people differently based on certain factors, but only if it can be shown to further at least a legitimate state interest. Restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender further no legitimate state interest, restrictions on marriage based on blood relation further legitimate state interests.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's where the bear will hit the buckwheat. Right there. What will be debated in court is the state's interest. It does have an interest in endorsing only heterosexual marriages. It's not doing it arbitrarily. The only remaining question going forward is whether the argument of the state's interest is compelling or not and whether the supreme court will eventually reverse itself on it's recent decision and reasoning that the definition of marriage is the domain of the state and not to be overridden by the federal government without an important state interest in doing so.

If it was as cut and dried as you would like to think it is, homosexual marriage would already be the law of the land. It will be an uphill battle instead of the done deal you pretend it is.
 
roguenuke said:
No it isn't. This argument failed when it was interracial marriage and it fails for same sex marriage.

Plus, equal protection involves an element of state interest being furthered. A restriction can be in place that treats people differently based on certain factors, but only if it can be shown to further at least a legitimate state interest. Restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender further no legitimate state interest, restrictions on marriage based on blood relation further legitimate state interests.
Click to expand...

Well, good luck with that. You'd already have what you wanted it if was the slam-dunk you're pretending it is. This isn't settled at all.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Absolutely flat out false. Only a handful of states recognize a legal contract of marriage between SS partners.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals probably ARE married in all 50 states. Not one has a law excluding someone based on a question and answer of "are you homosexual" and "yes".
 
Papa bull said:
Well, good luck with that. You'd already have what you wanted it if was the slam-dunk you're pretending it is. This isn't settled at all.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Unfortunately, with all laws and levels of government, there comes a certain amount of social acceptance or at least indifference that must exist to get equality. This is why it took nearly a century to free the slaves and another century to get rid of institutionalized/legal racial inequalities. And over two centuries to gain gender equality in just most areas (my particular job in the Navy was only available to women starting in 1994). But the more equality that is given/gained, the faster it is for the next group to gain equality.
 
Texmex said:
Only if you are a sodomite. For God-fearing people it is a sad day indeed, not unexpected, but sad.
Click to expand...

1: I don't fear God. I embrace Him. Anyone that fears God doesn't really believe in Him.

2: God made homosexuals just like He made you and me. Because of that it would be silly to think that He considers their behavior as sinful. Only heterosexual males who wrote the bible and who want to control other peoples lives don't want it or like it. Not that I blame them for not liking it, after all during that war the other side loved to humilate those it conquered as a form of pshycological warfare. (wish i could remember which war that was :p )
 
Papa bull said:
Homosexuals probably ARE married in all 50 states. Not one has a law excluding someone based on a question and answer of "are you homosexual" and "yes".
Click to expand...
You are making a non-sequitur argument, no one is arguing a homosexual cannot marry a hetero, the topic and context is SSM. Stop the infantile argument.
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong. Unfortunately, with all laws and levels of government, there comes a certain amount of social acceptance or at least indifference that must exist to get equality. This is why it took nearly a century to free the slaves and another century to get rid of institutionalized/legal racial inequalities. And over two centuries to gain gender equality in just most areas (my particular job in the Navy was only available to women starting in 1994). But the more equality that is given/gained, the faster it is for the next group to gain equality.
Click to expand...

Wrong? LOL. You are reality-challenged today. This is NOT settled. That is why you can't marry someone of the same sex in Ohio nor even be treated as married by Ohio if you marry in some state that thought following in Canada's footsteps on this social engineering was a good idea. The fact that this isn't settled is unquestionable. The only thing questionable is how you can be so out of touch with reality as to claim that it is. I was getting to the point with you that I thought whatever you said would be somewhat reasonable but now.... everything you say has to be checked for reality again because this shows a huge break with it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are making a non-sequitur argument, no one is arguing a homosexual cannot marry a hetero, the topic and context is SSM. Stop the infantile argument.
Click to expand...

A homosexual can marry a homosexual in all 50 states. They just can't marry someone of the same sex in most of them. But neither can anyone else, whether homosexual or not. This is equal rights. Homosexuals are treated no differently than anyone else. That's actually the problem for the homosexuals. They're treated just like everyone else. What they're petitioning for is a special extension of marriage laws JUST FOR THEM.
 
Papa bull said:
A homosexual can marry a homosexual in all 50 states. They just can't marry someone of the same sex in most of them. But neither can anyone else, whether homosexual or not. This is equal rights. Homosexuals are treated no differently than anyone else. That's actually the problem for the homosexuals. They're treated just like everyone else. What they're petitioning for is a special extension of marriage laws JUST FOR THEM.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, the courts in those states where SSM is recognized have found that the state CANNOT DENY their right to marry (to enter in a legal contract of marriage recognized by the state). No "special extension" is required, you have backwards once again.
 
Papa bull said:
A homosexual can marry a homosexual in all 50 states. They just can't marry someone of the same sex in most of them. But neither can anyone else, whether homosexual or not. This is equal rights. Homosexuals are treated no differently than anyone else. That's actually the problem for the homosexuals. They're treated just like everyone else. What they're petitioning for is a special extension of marriage laws JUST FOR THEM.
Click to expand...

I would call this the weakest and most infantile argument against SSM
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wrong again, the courts in those states where SSM is recognized have found that the state CANNOT DENY their right to marry (to enter in a legal contract of marriage recognized by the state). No "special extension" is required, you have backwards once again.
Click to expand...

The extension is to extend the definition of marriage.... well, in thinking it through, you may be right, because it's not even an extension of marriage but an extension in terms of actually redefining the whole concept of marriage... JUST FOR THEM.

Most states still consider homosexual marriage to be an oxymoron. And I think that view is actually the sane view.
 
Papa bull said:
The marriage laws of all states have no restriction based on your sex or gender
Click to expand...

Papa bull said:
A homosexual can marry a homosexual in all 50 states. They just can't marry someone of the same sex in most of them. But neither can anyone else, whether homosexual or not.
Click to expand...

Any one else spot the contradiction?
 
Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...

marriage is a civil union.
 
Papa bull said:
The extension is to extend the definition of marriage.... well, in thinking it through, you may be right, because it's not even an extension of marriage but an extension in terms of actually redefining the whole concept of marriage... JUST FOR THEM.

Most states still consider homosexual marriage to be an oxymoron. And I think that view is actually the sane view.
Click to expand...
You are just repeating the same error again, you cannot bring yourself to the viewpoint that we, and by extension the state, cannot deny marriage to partners of different races as we once did. We have recognized that we cannot discriminate against people based on their religion, their sex, their age, their race...or their sexual orientation (we are getting back to the suspect class argument that you walked away from).

Again, it is not a granting of rights, it is recognizing that the inherent right cannot be denied.
 
captainawesome said:
marriage is a civil union.
Click to expand...

I agree. So why do homosexuals want to fight over the name? Just accept civil unions if they carry all the rights, privileges and benefits of the ones called "marriage". So, as many have pointed out, fighting over the name is childish.... and yet homosexuals are doing that.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are just repeating the same error again, you cannot bring yourself to the viewpoint that we, and by extension the state, cannot deny marriage to partners of different races as we once did. We have recognized that we cannot discriminate against people based on their religion, their sex, their age, their race...or their sexual orientation (we are getting back to the suspect class argument that you walked away from).

Again, it is not a granting of rights, it is recognizing that the inherent right cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

You're right. I can't bring myself to the viewpoint you have. Nor can the state I live in. That's why there are no same sex marriages here. And there won't be any tomorrow. And there won't be any next year. Your opinion is your opinion but that's not the opinion that counts when it comes the law.
 
Papa bull said:
Wrong? LOL. You are reality-challenged today. This is NOT settled. That is why you can't marry someone of the same sex in Ohio nor even be treated as married by Ohio if you marry in some state that thought following in Canada's footsteps on this social engineering was a good idea. The fact that this isn't settled is unquestionable. The only thing questionable is how you can be so out of touch with reality as to claim that it is. I was getting to the point with you that I thought whatever you said would be somewhat reasonable but now.... everything you say has to be checked for reality again because this shows a huge break with it.
Click to expand...

It will be settled within, very likely, the next decade (possibly much sooner, since it seems that Kennedy is actually for overturning these laws). And my generation and younger support same sex marriage in large majorities. As the older generations die off and younger generations grow to be legal voters, we will have a cemented majority who support same sex marriage. We will see even more states legalize same sex marriage over the next couple of years on their own. More bans will go down. And more suits will go up to the Court, this time some that do not have issues with standing.
 
Papa bull said:
I agree. So why do homosexuals want to fight over the name? Just accept civil unions if they carry all the rights, privileges and benefits of the ones called "marriage". So, as many have pointed out, fighting over the name is childish.... and yet homosexuals are doing that.
Click to expand...

Why are you arguing over a name. Marriage is a civil union. So we want civil unions. its called marriage.
 
winston53660 said:
Any one else spot the contradiction?
Click to expand...

If they can, then their deck is a few cards short just like yours. A gay man and a gay woman can get married to each other in all 50 states. There is no exclusion based on gender or even sexual preference. Jim McGreevey resigned his governorship in New Jersey for having a homosexual fling with someone he put on the government payroll. Same sex marriages were not legal in his state but he was married. Being a homosexual didn't prevent him from being married and having kids.
 
captainawesome said:
Why are you arguing over a name. Marriage is a civil union. So we want civil unions. its called marriage.
Click to expand...

Why are homosexuals arguing over a name? Call them civil unions and most of the bickering goes away. But nooooooo..... homosexuals want to argue over a name. It does take two to argue, you know.
 
roguenuke said:
It will be settled within, very likely, the next decade (possibly much sooner, since it seems that Kennedy is actually for overturning these laws). And my generation and younger support same sex marriage in large majorities. As the older generations die off and younger generations grow to be legal voters, we will have a cemented majority who support same sex marriage. We will see even more states legalize same sex marriage over the next couple of years on their own. More bans will go down. And more suits will go up to the Court, this time some that do not have issues with standing.
Click to expand...

Legislating it state by state is the right thing to do. Homosexual advocates need to win the hearts and minds of the people. If you think you're going to do that by calling them hateful bigots, you're not too sharp. And lots of homosexuals posting on this here aren't too sharp.
 
Papa bull said:
You're right. I can't bring myself to the viewpoint you have. Nor can the state I live in. That's why there are no same sex marriages here. And there won't be any tomorrow. And there won't be any next year. Your opinion is your opinion but that's not the opinion that counts when it comes the law.
Click to expand...
You avoided the point (no surprise) that the issue is not "extending" anything, it is instead the ending of denying a right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom