• 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!

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

digsbe said:
There is equal rights, the people in states that voted and support SSM bans have every right to do so. SSM is not this over-hyped "equal rights" mantra that many want to push. It's a social issue that redefines legal marriage that people can support or not support and have those beliefs upheld in law.
Click to expand...

Do states have the right to define marriage as "only between fertile couples"...how about "only between people aged 18-40"? What if a state wants to define marriage as "only between people of the same religion". See how silly that is?
 
roguenuke said:
The legal definition of duck or chicken is based off of physical factors, including DNA among other things, that make that animal what it is. Such an analogy fails because marriage is not something with physical characteristics at all.
Click to expand...

Marriage, as defined in most states, does have a physical characteristic. It is one man and one woman joining together under state sanction.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) nice try but has me and others pointed out the problem was yours, you stated something that made no sense, so you failed again. mistake 1
2.) nope i NEVER said that it makes it MORE than law but it does make it so. See this is exactly why you post failed how you come to the determination that makes it so means more than law is illogical. mistake 2
3.) mistake 3
4.) see the answers above, your nonsensical inane illogical conclusions and made up assumptions are false therefore you question makes no sense.

if we were granted the right to kill for any reason the fact is it would no longer be murder
i would not support that and would personally think its wrong
but another fact would be we could kill for any reason and the law would make it so.

thanks for pointing out where you made your mistakes and why we diidnt understand anything you said.
Click to expand...

No you are being bull headed, but thanks for actually answering the question. Good grief.
 
Papa bull said:
Marriage, as defined in most states, does have a physical characteristic. It is one man and one woman joining together under state sanction.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You cannot touch marriage. You cannot smell or see or actually hear marriage. Marriage is an abstract. It is not defined by who is allowed to enter into it. It is defined in how it functions. That is why the "definition" of marriage as "two people of the same race" failed. That is why the DOMA definition of marriage as "a man and a woman" failed. Because that is not how marriage functions in law.
 
disneydude said:
Do states have the right to define marriage as "only between fertile couples"...how about "only between people aged 18-40"? What if a state wants to define marriage as "only between people of the same religion". See how silly that is?
Click to expand...

What's silly is that you are ignoring that the actual entity of marriage is a construct of one man plus one woman. Now you may go further to restrict some men and some women based on some other criteria, which may or may not be legal, but man and woman isn't a restriction, it's the essence of marriage. Without that, you have something else. And if you want something else, that's fine. I want my Nissan xTerra to be called a mountain bike so I can take it on woodland forest trails, but the mean people who make the laws say a bike is defined as a two-wheeled vehicle that is peddle powered and they're discriminating against my Nissan because of that.
 
disneydude said:
A little piece of paper (which ironically is your avatar) says you are wrong.
Click to expand...

good point...but David believes that only applies to people he personally wants it to apply to. And..."With Liberty and Justice For All"...part of the Pledge of Allegiance...David has petitioned to be removed.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
No you are being bull headed, but thanks for actually answering the question. Good grief.
Click to expand...

no, as i just proved you said things and assumed things that were nonsensical and factually untrue and thios was agreed on by other posters

you proved you made mistakes and were wrong :shrug:
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I can't say I would be against that. The government should have never gotten involved with marriage.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but so long as the government is involved then people deserve equal protection under the law.
 
AGENT J said:
no, as i just proved you said things and assumed things that were nonsensical and factually untrue and thios was agreed on by other posters

you proved you made mistakes and were wrong :shrug:
Click to expand...

Your and other posters opinion. Doesn't automatically make you correct.
 
roguenuke said:
No it doesn't. You cannot touch marriage. You cannot smell or see or actually hear marriage. Marriage is an abstract. It is not defined by who is allowed to enter into it. It is defined in how it functions. That is why the "definition" of marriage as "two people of the same race" failed. That is why the DOMA definition of marriage as "a man and a woman" failed. Because that is not how marriage functions in law.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a construct of black-letter law. A gas can is defined, not only as "a container" but by what you put in it. Marriage is similar to that. If you put water in a "gas can", it's not a gas can any more. It's a water can.
 
Wiseone said:
Fair enough, but so long as the government is involved then people deserve equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Unless of course, marriage is one man and one woman. They do have equal protection under that law.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes those failed arguments are quit idiotic
2.) i agree it probably will be a year before the first cases happens and a review in three.

i only wonder how many cases and if they will all be solid/big enough to force a sweeping rule or give them an ability to punt
Click to expand...

Hopefully the judge whose case does reach the USSC will rule as carefully as Walker did. It's been a while but I remember when I read his decision. Due to the emotional sensitivity of the case as well as the fact that he was gay* he knew that his decision would be gone through with a fine tooth comb. In the end it was airtight which is probably why the USSC had no choice but to dismiss it.

*Yes, I know, this is irrelevant but a lot of people saw that a conflict of interest, and all for stupid, irrelevant reasons.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Your and other posters opinion. Doesn't automatically make you correct.
Click to expand...

its not an opinion YOU already proved it. what dont you understand?
your assumptions were factaully wrong and thats where you made your mistakes, this fact wont change
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Unless of course, marriage is one man and one woman. They do have equal protection under that law.
Click to expand...

5 Justices on the Supreme Court say that you are wrong. Good luck tilting that balance anytime soon.
 
disneydude said:
5 Justices on the Supreme Court say that you are wrong. Good luck tilting that balance anytime soon.
Click to expand...

They actually said that in a ruling? Can you link to that please? I was under the impression that they punted on both issues.
 
Papa bull said:
What's silly is that you are ignoring that the actual entity of marriage is a construct of one man plus one woman. Now you may go further to restrict some men and some women based on some other criteria, which may or may not be legal, but man and woman isn't a restriction, it's the essence of marriage. Without that, you have something else. And if you want something else, that's fine. I want my Nissan xTerra to be called a mountain bike so I can take it on woodland forest trails, but the mean people who make the laws say a bike is defined as a two-wheeled vehicle that is peddle powered and they're discriminating against my Nissan because of that.
Click to expand...

What you are ignoring is that the "construct" of marriage has changed numerous times throughout history. Just because you want to cling desperately to a word doesn't mean that the rest of the world is bound by your defintion. Sorry.
 
Papa bull said:
Marriage is a construct of black-letter law. A gas can is defined, not only as "a container" but by what you put in it. Marriage is similar to that. If you put water in a "gas can", it's not a gas can any more. It's a water can.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a concept. It is not a concrete. If you cannot interact with something, it is an abstract. This should have been a basic concept learned in school. A gas can can be touched, marriage cannot.

If you put water in a gas can it is still a gas can. A gas can that cannot be used for gas without a major overhaul, but still a gas can.
 
Cardinal said:
Hopefully the judge whose case does reach the USSC will rule as carefully as Walker did. It's been a while but I remember when I read his decision. Due to the emotional sensitivity of the case as well as the fact that he was gay* he knew that his decision would be gone through with a fine tooth comb. In the end it was airtight which is probably why the USSC had no choice but to dismiss it.

*Yes, I know, this is irrelevant but a lot of people saw that a conflict of interest, and all for stupid, irrelevant reasons.
Click to expand...

im fine with them making sure the Is are dotted and Ts are crossed.
because with the fall of DOMA and SSCs already ruling that a ban is a violation of equality I cant really see an outcome where the RULE that a ban is ok. I can see them punting if the issues isnt pushed hard enough or the specific case isnt presented properly though.

and yes i agree with your last part.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Unless of course, marriage is one man and one woman. They do have equal protection under that law.
Click to expand...

Marriage is how the laws of marriage function, not the restrictions placed on who can legally enter into marriage.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
They actually said that in a ruling? Can you link to that please? I was under the impression that they punted on both issues.
Click to expand...

Yep. Have you read the opinion? Justice Kennedy writing for the majority said that there is no legitimate government interest in restricting marriage to straights only. The opinion essentially says that while states are free to define marriage, they must do so in a way that does not violate the 5th Amendment. Everyone, including Scalia knows that what Kennedy is saying is that he would strike down any state definition that discriminates against gays. If you don't have Kennedy....where are you going to get that 5th vote for government discrimination?
 
this question was totally dodged earlier but is there anybody that is ok with this example or that thinks when these issues are pushed to the courts they will find it ok?

for example im married to my wife in PA and we are granted all the state and federal rights.

she is traveling in SC and gets in a car accident is it right for them not to notify me to make medical decisions if that state does recognize my marriage?
what if she dies? can they just not tell me since they dont see us as married?
of if i go there to i not have visitation rights since in that state we arent married?
etc etc etc

can she be forced to testify against me in that state?
can she legally cheat in that state?

etc etc etc

with the fall of doma its examples and reality like this that will eventually push the issues and equality will happen in every state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom