• 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

scatt said:
To "gender-based" clarification, of course.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand. Making the classification isn't the state interest. The state needs to show an interest or they don't get to make that classification at all.

Basically, the state can't discriminate using gender as a basis without showing a solid reason. A law that makes it illegal for women to drive wouldn't stand up to an equal protection challenge, because no state interest is served by making only men drive cars.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
You don't seem to understand. Making the classification isn't the state interest. The state needs to show an interest or they don't get to make that classification at all.

Basically, the state can't discriminate using gender as a basis without showing a solid reason. A law that makes it illegal for women to drive wouldn't stand up to an equal protection challenge, because no state interest is served by making only men drive cars.
Click to expand...

The fact that marriage didn't mean same sex is why.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The fact that marriage didn't mean same sex is why.
Click to expand...

"Marriage doesn't mean sex" is a state interest? What does the state gain by making that determination?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
"Marriage doesn't mean sex" is a state interest? What does the state gain by making that determination?
Click to expand...

Same sex.

Yeah, the state is not burdened by definition changes for political reasons.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Same sex.

Yeah, the state is not burdened by definition changes for political reasons.
Click to expand...

Maybe "the state can't be arsed to grant freedom" is an important interest in your authoritarian universe, but in the real world that doesn't pass the test.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Maybe "the state can't be arsed to grant freedom" is an important interest in your authoritarian universe, but in the real world that doesn't pass the test.
Click to expand...

The state specifically removes freedom. What you mean is the state first bans freedom and then occasionally removes that ban.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The state specifically removes freedom. What you mean is the state first bans freedom and then occasionally removes that ban.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in your authoritarian viewpoint it's acceptable for the state to fail to remove that ban because doing so is an inconvenience. Just another authority-worshiping conservative. Let's not bother the government by demanding equal protection under the law :roll:
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Yes, and in your authoritarian viewpoint it's acceptable for the state to fail to remove that ban because doing so is an inconvenience. Just another authority-worshiping conservative. Let's not bother the government by demanding equal protection under the law
Click to expand...

Except authoritarianism is the exact opposite of my position. I support no state intervention into any marriage. The ban being there is state intervention into marriage.

Try and keep up.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Except authoritarianism is the exact opposite of my position. I support no state intervention into any marriage. The ban being there is state intervention into marriage.

Try and keep up.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're an authoritarian. You literally just said that equal protection under the law can be circumvented if providing equal protection is a "burden" on the state. That is the ultimate authoritarian idea.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Yes, you're an authoritarian. You literally just said that equal protection under the law can be circumvented if providing equal protection is a "burden" on the state. That is the ultimate authoritarian idea.
Click to expand...

I said I support no state intervention into any marriage, and then pointed out that marriage does not mean same sex people.

I didn't say it, turbo said it. He said what is the excuse they can use, and using that question from the premise of yours and his, that the state must exist, I answered. Again, I do not support state intervention into any marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Gay marriage is not a "right" yet
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




Tell that to all of the gay people getting married in Utah.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for your self." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
I said I support no state intervention into any marriage, and then pointed out that marriage does not mean same sex people.

I didn't say it, turbo said it. He said what is the excuse they can use, and using that question from the premise of yours and his, that the state must exist, I answered. Again, I do not support state intervention into any marriage.
Click to expand...

You said the state interest in defining marriage as not meaning same-sex was that changing a definition is a burden. I don't care what you claim to think about marriage contracts. I was asking about an equal protection challenge and your idea of a state interest is that equal protection is a "burden." Maybe you think marriage contracts shouldn't exist. Fine, that's your belief. But back in reality, they do exist. If the state is going to recognize them and apply a gender-based distinction regarding a contract between two private individuals, it has to show an important state interest in making that distinction.

And your answer was that equal protection is a "burden." The ultimate authoritarian answer: the state can dodge equal protection if it doesn't feel like providing it. A real "small government" type would agree that if marriage contracts are going to exist, a gender-based classification is unacceptable in absence of a compelling reason to justify it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
You said the state interest in defining marriage as not meaning same-sex was that changing a definition is a burden. I don't care what you claim to think about marriage contracts. I was asking about an equal protection challenge and your idea of a state interest is that equal protection is a "burden." Maybe you think marriage contracts shouldn't exist. Fine, that's your belief. But back in reality, they do exist. If the state is going to recognize them and apply a gender-based distinction regarding a contract between two private individuals, it has to show an important state interest in making that distinction.

And your answer was that equal protection is a "burden." The ultimate authoritarian answer: the state can dodge equal protection if it doesn't feel like providing it. A real "small government" type would agree that if marriage contracts are going to exist, a gender-based classification is unacceptable in absence of a compelling reason to justify it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that requires the premise of the state existing. Freedom is always a burden to the state.

Contracts can and do exist irrelevant of any state, and that is reality.

Your problem is that you think I support the state like you, but I do not support the state because of what it entails.

shrubnose said:
Tell that to all of the gay people getting married in Utah.
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for your self." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Click to expand...

I have no desire to go to Utah.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Yeah, that requires the premise of the state existing. Freedom is always a burden to the state.

Contracts can and do exist irrelevant of any state, and that is reality.

Your problem is that you think I support the state like you, but I do not support the state because of what it entails.



I have no desire to go to Utah.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming to be an anarchist?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Yeah, that requires the premise of the state existing. Freedom is always a burden to the state.

Contracts can and do exist irrelevant of any state, and that is reality.

Your problem is that you think I support the state like you, but I do not support the state because of what it entails.


I have no desire to go to Utah.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Then don't go to Utah.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Your problem is that you think I support the state like you, but I do not support the state because of what it entails.
Click to expand...

Then what type of government DO you support then since what we have is a representative democracy that in fact holds power to the states.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Nope, anarchists claim you can do whatever you want.



I stay away from flyover locations if at all possible.
Click to expand...

Anarchists think the state shouldn't exist, which is what you implied.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

TheNextEra said:
Then what type of government DO you support then since what we have is a representative democracy that in fact holds power to the states.
Click to expand...

The United States is a constitutional republic. It has never been a democracy.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The United States is a constitutional republic. It has never been a democracy.
Click to expand...

"Representative democracy" and "Republic" mean the same thing.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
"Representative democracy" and "Republic" mean the same thing.
Click to expand...

No, they are very different. The term republic is not going to be pushed aside because recently people like the idea of calling everything but North Korea a democracy. Democracy is very specific, and the US is not one.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
No, they are very different. The term republic is not going to be pushed aside because recently people like the idea of calling everything but North Korea a democracy. Democracy is very specific, and the US is not one.
Click to expand...

A representative democracy is where people vote for representatives...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
A representative democracy is where people vote for representatives...
Click to expand...

Like I said, calling everything a democracy now will not be used to push aside the word republic. A democracy is simply majority force rule, and base rules exclude a democracy from existing.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Like I said, calling everything a democracy now will not be used to push aside the word republic. A democracy is simply majority force rule, and base rules exclude a democracy from existing.
Click to expand...

Why do you think anyone cares about "pushing aside" the word republic and what relevance is this to the conversation?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Why do you think anyone cares about "pushing aside" the word republic and what relevance is this to the conversation?
Click to expand...

Because they continue to claim the US was a democracy ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom