• 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!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

Aderleth said:
1) Whether or not Jim Crow laws predates the 14th amendment is irrelevant to the fact that both anti miscegenation laws and school segregation were ended by Supreme Court decisions.

2) Maryland and Washington are in the North East? Okay. Doesn't change the fact that you just said that gay marriage would never pass, which is a demonstrably false statement.
Click to expand...

It does matter that Jim Crow Laws were in place before the Equal Protection Clause was added as an addendum to the Fourteenth Amendment...

Furthermore I have no desire to even argue these FACTS with people who either a) argue with their emotions or are ignorant to civics....

I'm going to go now. I will be back later; While I'm gone - show me a) where marriage is a law, b) how does not allowing gays to marry violate the constitution or Bill of Rights or c) has any precedence in US law ....

I don't want to hear ****ing opinions or ignorance of the constitution....
 
Mr.Nick said:
Furthermore I have no desire to even argue these FACTS with people who either a) argue with their emotions or are ignorant to civics....
Click to expand...

that was delightfully ironic

Mr.Nick said:
I'm going to go now. I will be back later; While I'm gone - show me a) where marriage is a law,
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a "law", it is contract

Mr.Nick said:
b) how does not allowing gays to marry violate the constitution or Bill of Rights
Click to expand...

Marriage is a contract and the individual has right to contract.

Mr.Nick said:
or c) has any precedence in US law ....

I don't want to hear ****ing opinions or ignorance of the constitution....
Click to expand...

Loving vs. Virginia
 
Mr.Nick said:
It does matter that Jim Crow Laws were in place before the Equal Protection Clause was added as an addendum to the Fourteenth Amendment...

Furthermore I have no desire to even argue these FACTS with people who either a) argue with their emotions or are ignorant to civics....

I'm going to go now. I will be back later; While I'm gone - show me a) where marriage is a law, b) how does not allowing gays to marry violate the constitution or Bill of Rights or c) has any precedence in US law ....

I don't want to hear ****ing opinions or ignorance of the constitution....
Click to expand...

how many people find this post hugely ironic and greatly entertaining.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Man you're a hoot.....

You want the truth? you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Your argument makes absolutely no ****ing sense. On one hand you claim opinion don't matter then you ****ing claim it does (only when it's your opinion)...
Click to expand...

It helps if you pay attention and if you understand Constitutional Law. It doesn't matter if an initiative passes 4,000,000 to 1, if the initiative is unconstitutional. The popular vote is moot.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'd rather have direct democracy than a democratic republic......

Furthermore all democracy is nothing more than "mob rule" - that's why we have a Bill of Rights and constitution. Presently marriage is not a ****ing right - therefore marriage can be defined by the state via the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

No matter if marriage is a right or not, equal protection of the laws is a right. And when people are treated differently by the laws, the state must show a legitimate state interest is furthered by that difference in treatment. Since marriage laws are gender neutral in their operation, make no restriction on those who cannot procreate but are of the "legal" gender combination, and no one is harmed by same sex relationships, then restrictions on entering into marriage based on sex/gender cannot be shown to further any legitimate state interest.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'd rather have direct democracy than a democratic republic......

Furthermore all democracy is nothing more than "mob rule" - that's why we have a Bill of Rights and constitution. Presently marriage is not a ****ing right - therefore marriage can be defined by the state via the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

watching how emotional you get is funny especially when you are just flat out wrong.
 
Mr.Nick said:
It does matter that Jim Crow Laws were in place before the Equal Protection Clause was added as an addendum to the Fourteenth Amendment...

Furthermore I have no desire to even argue these FACTS with people who either a) argue with their emotions or are ignorant to civics....
Click to expand...

Well done on the irony. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was intentional. And no the equal protection clause was not added as an addendum to the fourteenth amendment, it was just part of the text of the fourteenth amendment. What does matter is that this happened in the 1860's, whereas the two things you alleged to have been ended "because the constitution was amended or addendums were added to preexisting amendments" didn't, in fact, end until the 1950's-60's. So if your argument is that the fourteenth amendment - and not the two cases I mentioned - ended anti-miscegenation laws and segregation in schools, you're going to have to account for the roughly 90 year gap in your reasoning.

Mr.Nick said:
I'm going to go now. I will be back later; While I'm gone - show me a) where marriage is a law, b) how does not allowing gays to marry violate the constitution or Bill of Rights or c) has any precedence in US law ....
Click to expand...

Show you where marriage is a law? There are entire bodies of law about marriage. I'd suggest starting with the family law code of your home state. If you mean you want me to show you where the right to marry is constitutionally protected start with Maynard v Hill, continue on with Meyer v Nebraska, Skinner v Oklahoma, Griswold v Connecticut, and about ten other cases that make or reassert the point that marriage is a fundamental right under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

How does not allowing SSM violate the 14th amendment? Start by reading Varnum v Brien.
Where's the precedent? Start with Loving v Virginia.

Mr.Nick said:
I don't want to hear ****ing opinions or ignorance of the constitution....
Click to expand...

Again with the irony. You crack me up.
 
CriticalThought said:
When did anyone ask me to post the entire history of same sex marriage?

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity has had it out for same sex marriage for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

wow, that was a creepy read. most of those examples claim they were "like gay marriage" or similar too, but obviously it's open to interpritation and NOT hard facts. and certainly not enough historical evidence to justify a remake of a one of civilzation's most basic traditions. sorry
 
JoeTrumps said:
wow, that was a creepy read. most of those examples claim they were "like gay marriage" or similar too, but obviously it's open to interpritation and NOT hard facts. and certainly not enough historical evidence to justify a remake of a one of civilzation's most basic traditions. sorry
Click to expand...

We "remake" laws and traditions as we, as a society, grow all the time. Hence why we "remade" the tradition of owning slaves. Hence why we "remade" the tradition of treating women as less than men. We have even remade the tradition of having a small group of people ruling the people by having not only just a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Our form of government was unique in that time because it combined many ideas about government and put it into a working system in order to try to better ensure rights for the people are protected. It isn't perfect, but the basic system is better than many other forms of government when it comes to trying to protect rights and even just trying to treat citizens fairly.
 
Ikari said:
The rights and liberties of the individual are supreme, and the majority can be damned if they desire to infringe upon that.
Click to expand...

I was just illustrating a point.
 
JoeTrumps said:
wow, that was a creepy read. most of those examples claim they were "like gay marriage" or similar too, but obviously it's open to interpritation and NOT hard facts. and certainly not enough historical evidence to justify a remake of a one of civilzation's most basic traditions. sorry
Click to expand...

A remake? How exactly does allowing same sex couples to marry change anything about heterosexual marriages? That argument is odd. For someone claiming to care about "hard facts" you would think you could offer a better argument.
 
roguenuke said:
So were many interracial marriage bans and segregation of schools laws.
Click to expand...

i am glad you stated this.

the "will of the people" in voting is not a absolute, meaning you cannot make laws, which would take away rights of people, or deny people privileges, unless the state can show it is not in there interest.

that is why we have republican government and not democratic government,...or democracy.
 
CriticalThought said:
A remake? How exactly does allowing same sex couples to marry change anything about heterosexual marriages? That argument is odd. For someone claiming to care about "hard facts" you would think you could offer a better argument.
Click to expand...

Then I'll say it in language you can understand. How? by quoting your fearless leader. This is what PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Obama said when asked about gay marriage.

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

Oh Candidate Obama, you were so much more reasonable than the current version of you. But your a politician who saw which way the wind the liberal wind was blowing so did the politically expedient thing and jumped aboard. Like they care if you ACTUALLY believe it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I guess once you lose the point, all you can do is repeat.:shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
I guess once you lose the point, all you can do is repeat.:shrug:
Click to expand...

you know i am going to keep posting constutional law, until you get it, and get it out of you head, that you think you can take away the right to property of indivuals.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am glad you stated this.

the "will of the people" in voting is not a absolute, meaning you cannot make laws, which would take away rights of people, or deny people privileges, unless the state can show it is not in there interest.

that is why we have republican government and not democratic government,...or democracy.
Click to expand...

Actually the state has to show that a state interest is being furthered by a restriction in a law, such as not allowing people to marry based on their races, sexes/genders, or religions. You wrote that wrong.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you know i am going to keep posting constutional law, until you get it, and get it out of you head, that you think you can take away the right to property of indivuals.
Click to expand...

What law degree do you hold? Which justice are you? We have a process for these debates. This went through that process. So, no matter what you THINK, you've already lost the debate.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually the state has to show that a state interest is being furthered by a restriction in a law, such as not allowing people to marry based on their races, sexes/genders, or religions. You wrote that wrong.
Click to expand...

further?...how do you further your interest, by denying.

i dont see it that way, ....i would have to show that by gay marriage being made legal, it will not reduce my interest i currently have...be detrimental to the state.
 
ernst barkmann said:
further?...how do you further your interest, by denying.

i dont see it that way, ....i would have to show that by gay marriage being made legal, it will not reduce my interest i currently have...be detrimental to the state.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how you see it. That is how the SCOTUS sees it. The state must show a legitimate state interest is furthered by a restriction in a law that treats people differently for some reason/in some way. There is no state interest being furthered by restricting marriage on the basis of gender/sex because marriage is gender neutral in how it functions, there is no requirement of procreating in legal marriage, and same sex relationships/marriage in no way do harm.

So what state interest would be furthered by not allowing same sex couples to marry? Is there some measurable harm that same sex relationships actually do cause that the state simply doesn't reveal? Is there some plan to do away with all non-procreating marriages in the near future? Is there some plan to take away the rights of women or maybe men this time within marriage, making it so marriage is about one gender taking care of the other?

Example. Most age restrictions on any license or contract are based on the fact that people of younger ages, younger than 16/18 are more irresponsible and not able to either comprehend the responsibilities that come with being able to say drive or be in a marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't matter how you see it. That is how the SCOTUS sees it. The state must show a legitimate state interest is furthered by a restriction in a law that treats people differently for some reason/in some way. There is no state interest being furthered by restricting marriage on the basis of gender/sex because marriage is gender neutral in how it functions, there is no requirement of procreating in legal marriage, and same sex relationships/marriage in no way do harm.

So what state interest would be furthered by not allowing same sex couples to marry? Is there some measurable harm that same sex relationships actually do cause that the state simply doesn't reveal? Is there some plan to do away with all non-procreating marriages in the near future? Is there some plan to take away the rights of women or maybe men this time within marriage, making it so marriage is about one gender taking care of the other?

Example. Most age restrictions on any license or contract are based on the fact that people of younger ages, younger than 16/18 are more irresponsible and not able to either comprehend the responsibilities that come with being able to say drive or be in a marriage.
Click to expand...

the states already have constitutional laws on the books, they are looking to maintain the staus quo its baseline steady, of their laws, and not have them stuck down.

so they are not looking to further anything, they are saying, we deny SSM because its because a man and woman.

so the state has to show why marriage can only between a man and women, when trying to keep .........things already in place..that status quo
 
ernst barkmann said:
the states already have constitutional laws on the books, they are looking to maintain the staus quo its baseline steady, of their laws, and not have them stuck down.

so they are not looking to further anything, they are saying, we deny SSM because its because a man and woman.

so the state has to show why marriage can only between a man and women, when trying to keep .........things already in place..that status quo
Click to expand...

And they cannot legitimately say that because marriage, in the way it functions, is gender neutral. You cannot show any laws concerning how marriage works, including the rights, responsibilities, or laws pertaining to the end of a marriage, that are gender dependent. Not legally sound laws. Because in this country, the sexes are supposed to be treated equally unless such unequal treatment can be shown to further a state interest. You can't say that marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because it is between a man and a woman. That is circular logic. You must show why it must be between a man and a woman in accordance with the laws of marriage that deal with its operations/function.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Equal Protection Clause legal definition of Equal Protection Clause. Equal Protection Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well, turn to constitutional laws, for a while, and get out of the statutory section, to clear the air for yourself.
Click to expand...

If these laws coud be written so plainly that everyone would understand very nuance, there'd be no need for the courts to answer questions on them. You need to expand your reading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom