• 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!

Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
None of those examples are relevant, they are not a good comparison at all. Slavery was legal in some states, but it was clearly prohibited by the Constitution, Not so here.
Click to expand...

Seriously? The inter-racial marriage laws 'aren't relevant'? huh

You do know that the SC has declared marriage a constitutional right, don't you? even people in prison can get married - even if they are in there for life.

Slavery was totally allowed in the constitution as originally drafted.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Tell it to Deuce -- he's the one making that argument, not me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, did not mean to imply YOU were making the argument; just continuing on with your questions about his stand
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I find your name calling a bit offensive. People in this country are allowed to have religious beliefs and faiths, not to be diminished by the ignorant, intolerant views of the leftist that feel a need to dump their hate on us.
Click to expand...

LOL.....sure...people are entitled to have whatever beliefs they like. They can believe that blacks are inferior to whites, that Mexicans are dirty, that women should be subservient to men...that gays are immoral. Except it doesn't make any of the above true....they are still entitled to their views. However, what the bigots of the world are not entitled to do is to inflict those views when it directly effects another human being. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
All well and good, but I don't like being called a bigot because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

And on a different level, it is an atrocious abuse of states rights when a federal judge's single opinion overturns the decision made by the people of that state. It's not slavery, no one is being forced to hand their life over to someone else.
Click to expand...

It is discrimination and that is what all the judicial opinions that I've seen have been based on.

It's not really up to you to decide how important this is to other people...how would you feel if you were not allowed to marry? As a matter of fact, I have seen marriage described exactly like that....'handing your life over to someone else.' It's that important....to many people their love being legally recognized in front of God and/family etc is the most important thing to them.

And as has been discussed in this thread, the states' will does not over rule the Constitution and the majority may not vote on the rights of the minority.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Yes, you have. And many courts disagree with you. I've pointed them out many, many times. To the extent that they mention "gender classification" at all, they reject it as a basis of equal protection. Why? Because both sexes are treated equally under the law. In fact, in Perry, what you are arguing HERE is exactly what the proponents of Proposition 8's SSM ban argued, and Judge Walker rejected it as poppycock, because, as he said, let's face it -- no one but homosexual couples have a stake in it.

Instead, their rulings are on the basis of equal protection as to homosexuality. Get it? Not gender, homosexuality.




No, they DO disagree with you, and I'm not at all misinterpreting what you said. What you said is just plain wrong. Why you continue to cling to it, I have no idea. Honestly, what does it gain you?
Click to expand...

So what you're telling me is that you think homosexuals can't marry someone of the opposite gender. Got it.

The laws do discriminate against homosexuals - by making a gender-based classification. How is this so hard for you to understand? I asked you before to show me a single law or constitutional amendment that referenced sexuality instead of gender. You never did. Instead, you went to court decisions. Why? Is it because the laws and amendments look like this?

Texas Constitution said:
Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

One man and one woman. Exactly what I said. Nothing in there mentions sexual attraction. Get it now? Is this still something that eludes you?

The method chosen to discriminate against homosexuals was a gender-based classification. The courts haven't contradicted what I've said. Because I agree with them. Homosexuals are being discriminated against. Through the use of a gender-based classification.

You're confusing the offense and the tool used to perform it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
It is discrimination and that is what all the judicial opinions that I've seen have been based on.

It's not really up to you to decide how important this is to other people...how would you feel if you were not allowed to marry? As a matter of fact, I have seen marriage described exactly like that....'handing your life over to someone else.' It's that important....to many people their love being legally recognized in front of God and/family etc is the most important thing to them.

And as has been discussed in this thread, the states' will does not over rule the Constitution and the majority may not vote on the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...

Ah, but's it's okay for other people to "inflict" their view that marriage needs to be changed to suit them on me? I can no more marry someone of the opposite sex than a gay person can, and gays are permitted to marry the opposite sex just as I can. Same rules for everyone.

Civil unions are available for that, and I am all for them granting the same rights of marriage. So why must they trample on marriage specifically? Why don't they just get those rights with a civil union? Why should it be called the same thing, when there are such huge differences? Some bigotry/hatred of the Catholic Church perhaps?

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the definition of marriage should be changed.
And how hypocrital can you get? Obama blatantly violated the Constitution all over the place, and you are silent. But you now run for the protection of the Constitution when you think it will help you. Leave it alone if you are not willing to stand up for it all the time.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Ah, but's it's okay for other people to "inflict" their view that marriage needs to be changed to suit them on me? I can no more marry someone of the opposite sex than a gay person can, and gays are permitted to marry the opposite sex just as I can. Same rules for everyone.
Click to expand...
The same logic was used for interracial marriage bans, and rejected. Nothing is being inflicted upon you. You don't have to marry a dude, you don't have to go to their wedding, you don't have to approve of their union. Quite frankly, nobody will care. You have the right to disapprove, and the right to express that disapproval. What you don't have is the right to restrict somebody else's rights based solely on your moral disapproval.

Civil unions are available for that, and I am all for them granting the same rights of marriage. So why must they trample on marriage specifically? Why don't they just get those rights with a civil union? Why should it be called the same thing, when there are such huge differences? Some bigotry/hatred of the Catholic Church perhaps?
Click to expand...
Is it trampling on voting to expand voting rights to women and minorities?
By the way, Civil unions aren't equal to marriage and never have been. Plus, America rejected that whole "separate but equal" thing a while back. You know why? "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the definition of marriage should be changed.
Click to expand...
There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to a definition of a word.

And how hypocrital can you get? Obama blatantly violated the Constitution all over the place, and you are silent. But you now run for the protection of the Constitution when you think it will help you. Leave it alone if you are not willing to stand up for it all the time.
Click to expand...

Deflection.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Ah, but's it's okay for other people to "inflict" their view that marriage needs to be changed to suit them on me? I can no more marry someone of the opposite sex than a gay person can, and gays are permitted to marry the opposite sex just as I can. Same rules for everyone.

Civil unions are available for that, and I am all for them granting the same rights of marriage. So why must they trample on marriage specifically? Why don't they just get those rights with a civil union? Why should it be called the same thing, when there are such huge differences? Some bigotry/hatred of the Catholic Church perhaps?

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the definition of marriage should be changed.
And how hypocrital can you get? Obama blatantly violated the Constitution all over the place, and you are silent. But you now run for the protection of the Constitution when you think it will help you. Leave it alone if you are not willing to stand up for it all the time.
Click to expand...

I asked how it affected you....you said nothing. Feel free to tell me now. How does it affect your marriage....existing or potential? How did birracial marriage harm anyone? You are not 'protected' from other people's 'views,' esp. those that do not infringe on any of your own rights.

And separate but equal was knocked down by SCOTUS decades ago as unConstitutional, so civil unions would not be acceptable.

THey are only trampling on marriage according to 'you' and your belief system. You are welcome to your belief system....it's still available for you to fulfill. If you ask the majority of Americans today, it's not likely you'd find the 'huge differences' you claim.

And there's no 'definition' of marriage in the Constitution to change....it's just enumerated as a right, as others have stated (altho not I).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
So what you're telling me is that you think homosexuals can't marry someone of the opposite gender. Got it.

The laws do discriminate against homosexuals - by making a gender-based classification. How is this so hard for you to understand? I asked you before to show me a single law or constitutional amendment that referenced sexuality instead of gender. You never did. Instead, you went to court decisions. Why? Is it because the laws and amendments look like this?



One man and one woman. Exactly what I said. Nothing in there mentions sexual attraction. Get it now? Is this still something that eludes you?

The method chosen to discriminate against homosexuals was a gender-based classification. The courts haven't contradicted what I've said. Because I agree with them. Homosexuals are being discriminated against. Through the use of a gender-based classification.

You're confusing the offense and the tool used to perform it.
Click to expand...

It's not about what I say -- it's about what YOU say, and that the courts have nearly uniformly said the opposite.

You've been given many, many examples of courts specifically refuting you. Repeating yourself over and over will not make it any less so.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
It's not about what I] say -- it's about what YOU say, and that the courts have nearly uniformly said the opposite.

You've been given many, many examples of courts specifically refuting you. Repeating yourself over and over will not make it any less so.
Click to expand...

No, you're just failing to understand I actually agree with the courts. I completely agree that homosexuals have been discriminated against. The argument that got you into this tirade wasn't refuting that. Rather, it was explaining that the method used to discriminate against homosexuals was through the use of a gender-based classification, not through the use of a sexuality-based classification. I understand how you came to this point of confusion, and I'm sorry for not clarifying it sooner. But I've done that now, there's nothing more I can do to help with your obsession over what you perceive my argument to be.

The only way to prove me wrong is to provide a state that cites sexuality in its law or constitutional amendment.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Ah, but's it's okay for other people to "inflict" their view that marriage needs to be changed to suit them on me? I can no more marry someone of the opposite sex than a gay person can, and gays are permitted to marry the opposite sex just as I can. Same rules for everyone.
Click to expand...

Do you want to marry someone of the opposite sex though? If no, then no, the rules aren't the same. The rules being the same would be people allowed to marry a partner of their choice as long as that preference is 1) consensual under the law and 2) not harmful to either party. This immediately discards any arguments you may have for marriage between animals and people or people and objects or people and children or insert odd marriages here.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
The same logic was used for interracial marriage bans, and rejected. Nothing is being inflicted upon you. You don't have to marry a dude, you don't have to go to their wedding, you don't have to approve of their union. Quite frankly, nobody will care. You have the right to disapprove, and the right to express that disapproval. What you don't have is the right to restrict somebody else's rights based solely on your moral disapproval.


Is it trampling on voting to expand voting rights to women and minorities?
By the way, Civil unions aren't equal to marriage and never have been. Plus, America rejected that whole "separate but equal" thing a while back. You know why? "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal.
Click to expand...

What kind of comparison are you trying to make with voting rights? I don't see how that supports your position at all. All people could not vote. All people can get married. Gays want to change marriage to include same sex. So no, it is not trampling on voting to allow all people to vote.

Do you favor those that pay more taxes getting more votes? That would be changing voting rights.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
What kind of comparison are you trying to make with voting rights? I don't see how that supports your position at all. All people could not vote. All people can get married. Gays want to change marriage to include same sex. So no, it is not trampling on voting to allow all people to vote.
Click to expand...
So why is it "trampling" on marriage if other people are allowed to marry? I mean, serious question here: if two dudes get married, how does it affect your life? Can you articulate any kind of harm whatsoever? If not, what business is it of yours who marries who?

Do you favor those that pay more taxes getting more votes? That would be changing voting rights.
Click to expand...
Um, no? Our constitution precludes that idiocy.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
No, you're just failing to understand I actually agree with the courts.
Click to expand...

No, you don't, because the courts specifically reject the gender-based discrimination argument, and flat out say that all these state laws specifically prohibit homosexuals from marrying. Not that the "effect" of gender discrimination is discrimination against homsexuals, but that the marriage laws themselves discriminate against homosexuals, directly.

That is the opposite of what you say. :shrug: That isn't going to change no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
I asked how it affected you....you said nothing. Feel free to tell me now. How does it affect your marriage....existing or potential? How did birracial marriage harm anyone? You are not 'protected' from other people's 'views,' esp. those that do not infringe on any of your own rights.

And separate but equal was knocked down by SCOTUS decades ago as unConstitutional, so civil unions would not be acceptable.

THey are only trampling on marriage according to 'you' and your belief system. You are welcome to your belief system....it's still available for you to fulfill. If you ask the majority of Americans today, it's not likely you'd find the 'huge differences' you claim.

And there's no 'definition' of marriage in the Constitution to change....it's just enumerated as a right, as others have stated (altho not I).
Click to expand...

Oh, so now you care how it affects me, do you? I though it didn't matter what I thought.
Seperate but equal? Are you kidding me? I didn't know same sex couples went to seperate schools, water fountains, bathrooms, etc... LOL!
Really, it's an enumerated right?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
No, you don't, because the courts specifically reject the gender-based discrimination argument,
Click to expand...

Gender-based classification. If you can't be arsed to read my posts, stop responding.

edit: Or wait.... you don't know what that means, do you? You think classification and discrimination are the same thing in this context? No wonder you've been confused. Sorry, man. I should have figured this out sooner.

Classification is a term used describing how the law actually is functioning, and on what basis. Like the Texas Constitution example I posted earlier, it defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This is why I use the term "gender-based classification." The actual legal language refers to gender. The discrimination, of course, is against homosexuals.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Oh, so now you care how it affects me, do you? I though it didn't matter what I thought.
Seperate but equal? Are you kidding me? I didn't know same sex couples went to seperate schools, water fountains, bathrooms, etc... LOL!
Really, it's an enumerated right?
Click to expand...


So it doesn't affect you. You're admitting that?
Ok, so tell me again why you think you have the authority to deny this to someone?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Oh, so now you care how it affects me, do you? I though it didn't matter what I thought.
Seperate but equal? Are you kidding me? I didn't know same sex couples went to seperate schools, water fountains, bathrooms, etc... LOL!
Really, it's an enumerated right?
Click to expand...

No...you STATED it trampled on marriage, you STATED that another view was being "inflicted" on you. I cant care or not care if you dont explain how SSM affects you.

And civil unions for SSM instead of marriage is the unConstitutional 'separate but equal'... It's a specific example just like the ones you used.

Others have quoted where marriage is an enumerated right, here in this thread. *I* have based my argument on what several justices have, discrimination. If the govt is going to accord benefits, privileges, and legal rights to marriage, then it is discriminatory to deny gays those same things. That has been judicial opinion.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Gender-based classification. If you can't be arsed to read my posts, stop responding.

edit: Or wait.... you don't know what that means, do you? You think classification and discrimination are the same thing in this context? No wonder you've been confused. Sorry, man. I should have figured this out sooner.

Classification is a term used describing how the law actually is functioning, and on what basis. Like the Texas Constitution example I posted earlier, it defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This is why I use the term "gender-based classification." The actual legal language refers to gender. The discrimination, of course, is against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

That's just backpedaling, belied by your follow-up:

Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.
Click to expand...

Especially when you posted it when arguing with someone about marriage laws discriminating against homosexuality.

Fine, though; you're going to continue to bleat on in your self-imposed ignorance, and your own mental "legal" construct which has nothing to do with what's going on in reality. That's no skin off my nose.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
That's just backpedaling, belied by your follow-up:



Especially when you posted it when arguing with someone about marriage laws discriminating against homosexuality.

Fine, though; you're going to continue to bleat on in your self-imposed ignorance, and your own mental "legal" construct which has nothing to do with what's going on in reality. That's no skin off my nose.
Click to expand...

And it's no skin off my nose if you continue to ignore the example I've given of the Texas Constitution. It doesn't say homosexuals aren't allowed to get married. It says two men or two women can't get married. Understand now? If not... well, Have a nice day.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Hatuey said:
Do you want to marry someone of the opposite sex though? If no, then no, the rules aren't the same.
Click to expand...
That's because it is not the same thing.

1) consensual under the law and 2) not harmful to either party. This immediately discards any arguments you may have for marriage between animals and people or people and objects or people and children or insert odd marriages here.
Click to expand...

It also discards any Constitutional protections that you are claiming.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
And it's no skin off my nose if you continue to ignore the example I've given of the Texas Constitution.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even matter to anything I've said. Oh, the straws you grasp.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:

It doesn't even matter to anything I've said. Oh, the straws you grasp.
Click to expand...

It matters to what ive said, which is the focus of your current obsession.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
All well and good, but I don't like being called a bigot because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

And on a different level, it is an atrocious abuse of states rights when a federal judge's single opinion overturns the decision made by the people of that state. It's not slavery, no one is being forced to hand their life over to someone else.
Click to expand...

Bigots are defined by their beliefs, which are bigoted. I won't call you a bigot but I will say that your beliefs are bigoted. This is amply demonstrated by how you believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman when the facts show that it can also be between a man and a a man, or a woman and a woman.

And it's too bad if you don't like that

And as far as states rights goes, it doesn't exist. Governments do not have any rights; only powers. Your belief to the contrary, is contrary to the facts, so this belief of yours is equally bigoted.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
It matters to what ive said, which is the focus of your current obsession.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't, because it's no different from any other marriage law which was struck down on the specific basis that it disallows homosexuals from marrying.

What you wish the legal disposition of all this was does not make it the legal disposition of it. Again, I don't know why you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and scream rather than accept the reality of it, but that's your own concern.

But go ahead; keep claiming that there are no laws which keep homosexuals from marrying, no matter how many courts say otherwise. Really, g'head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom