• 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:
So the same as your mother?
Click to expand...

You're probably right considering she is buried and doesn't pay taxes anymore. So is that a yes then?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

TheNextEra said:
You're probably right considering she is buried and doesn't pay taxes anymore. So is that a yes then?
Click to expand...

I guess I would contribute more, so that was a low bar for comparison.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
So just the "bulk" were a decade ago?

The bulk of gay marriage has been approved not by a majority of the voters, but court order or legislation.
Click to expand...

And - so what?

From July, 2013 poll:
Gallup Gay Marriage Poll Finds Majority Of U.S. Citizens Would Support Nationwide Marriage Equality Law

Fifty-two percent of respondents in a new Gallup Politics poll would support a law that would legalize same-sex marriage across all 50 U.S. states. On the flip side, 43 percent of the poll's participants said they would vote against such a law.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Moderator's Warning:
Okey doke. That should be the end of the personal comments and baiting. Or...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
I can observe the actual voting records, and polls can never counter a vote. One is proven, and it isn't the poll.
Click to expand...

Sure. But it also doesn't matter if SSM becomes legal through voting or through the courts or through the legislature - those are all valid ways for laws to get made...EXCEPT - people cannot vote to take away constitutional rights from other people; votes that do that are unconstitutional and cannot be upheld.

You can vote all day long to ban left-handed people from marrying, but it's never going to be allowed to take effect.

So it doesn't matter if SSM was from legislature or courts; it's still valid.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Sure. But it also doesn't matter if SSM becomes legal through voting or through the courts or through the legislature - those are all valid ways for laws to get made...EXCEPT - people cannot vote to take away constitutional rights from other people; votes that do that are unconstitutional and cannot be upheld.

You can vote all day long to ban left-handed people from marrying, but it's never going to be allowed to take effect.

So it doesn't matter if SSM was from legislature or courts; it's still valid.
Click to expand...

It matters if you claim to care about what the majority wants.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Republicans need for the Supreme Court to declare banning gay marriage unconstitutional to take that issue off the table. That still leaves immigration and abortion for them to conten
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
It matters if you claim to care about what the majority wants.
Click to expand...

Two different things here.

1) a) can something become law by the legislature passing it without voters passing it? YES
b) can courts uphold or invalidate laws, whether passed by the legislature or voters YES

2) Does majority vote triumph over all? ONLY WHEN IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. What the majority wants is, of course, figured into who they vote into the legislature, who they vote into judgeships, and when they vote on referendums or initiatives. And of course majority vote is important. But - majority cannot take away rights from minorities.

Do you really think it's ok for majority vote to overrule our federal constitution?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Two different things here.

1) a) can something become law by the legislature passing it without voters passing it? YES
b) can courts uphold or invalidate laws, whether passed by the legislature or voters YES

2) Does majority vote triumph over all? ONLY WHEN IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. What the majority wants is, of course, figured into who they vote into the legislature, who they vote into judgeships, and when they vote on referendums or initiatives. And of course majority vote is important. But - majority cannot take away rights from minorities.

Do you really think it's ok for majority vote to overrule our federal constitution?
Click to expand...

That is great, but you claim the majority wants it. You claim it. I can show you they do not want it through votes, you can pretend they do with polls.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
That is great, but you claim the majority wants it. You claim it. I can show you they do not want it through votes, you can pretend they do with polls.
Click to expand...


If you can show that people NOW would vote the same as the people of a decade ago, please do.

But what you have is a form of illogic based on historical actions, because something happened in the past does not mean the conditions that generated that outcome remain valid today. As a matter of fact voting trends during general elections have mirrored the trend line of polls on same sex Civil Marriage. Wide margins a decade ago, narrow victories of discriminatory laws in 2008/2009, narrow victories for Same-sex Civil Marriage in 2012.


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

WorldWatcher said:
If you can show that people NOW would vote the same as the people of a decade ago, please do.

As a matter of fact voting trends during general elections have mirrored the trend line of polls on same sex Civil Marriage. Wide margins a decade ago, narrow victories of discriminatory laws in 2008/2009, narrow victories for Same-sex Civil Marriage in 2012.
Click to expand...

You can guess at their votes int he future, but we have recorded votes already. I have already said gay marriage is legally coming to all states eventually, just not yet, and not because of democratic votes (yet).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Sure. But it also doesn't matter if SSM becomes legal through voting or through the courts or through the legislature - those are all valid ways for laws to get made...EXCEPT - people cannot vote to take away constitutional rights from other people; votes that do that are unconstitutional and cannot be upheld.

You can vote all day long to ban left-handed people from marrying, but it's never going to be allowed to take effect.

So it doesn't matter if SSM was from legislature or courts; it's still valid.
Click to expand...


Maybe the states believe there could be alot of Big Money in it for them :)
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
You can guess at their votes int he future, but we have recorded votes already. I have already said gay marriage is legally coming to all states eventually, just not yet, and not because of democratic votes (yet).
Click to expand...

It already has come due to democratic votes now. Whether most of the time it was courts or not, doesn't really change the fact that it has already happened due to direct votes, considering most laws are supposed to be made by our representatives, not direct voting.

We have recorded votes that tell us that the tide has turned. It is not the fault of history that bureaucracy works slower than the actual voting sentiment. If you took votes from all the states that currently have same sex marriage legal right now, the vast majority of those states would vote to simply keep it legal, even if it was a court ruling that made it legal to begin with. The same could not be said 50 years ago after the Loving ruling which struck down the interracial marriage bans of at least 15 states. The vast majority, if not all of those states, if given the chance to vote on it, would have voted to keep their interracial marriage bans in place. We know this because at least two states still had those bans on their books, despite efforts to change them in the past, up til the 90s (SC) and 2000 (AL). Another of those states (Miss) was polled about the issue after the turn of this century and it was found that the majority of people would still vote to not allow interracial marriages by law.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
It already has come due to democratic votes now. Whether most of the time it was courts or not, doesn't really change the fact that it has already happened due to direct votes, considering most laws are supposed to be made by our representatives, not direct voting.

If you took votes from all the states that currently have same sex marriage legal right now, the vast majority of those states would vote to simply keep it legal, even if it was a court ruling that made it legal to begin with.
Click to expand...

Direct vote is the issue being put up for a vote. This has happened 4 times.

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

Bodhisattva said:
If you don't like it then don't express bigoted opinions... pretty simple.
Click to expand...

I can't help your inability to understand the statement.


Rights are being denied. I assume that you think that the Plessy (1896) Decision was a good one?
Click to expand...

So, are you stating that a judicial decision could be wrong??? Like this one.

No. It is accurate and intelligent to label a bigot as a bigot.
Click to expand...

I guess I just have to be blunt instead of being nice. It is stupid when you get it wrong.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
In essence, until a SCOTUS ruling is overturned by another ruling or change to a law it addressed or change to the Constitution itself, the ruling is part of the Constitution or at least how the Constitution is interpreted. It is called precedent, and it is a major component of what every student of law learns about during their first years. There is no actual written law that says that police officers cannot shoot an unarmed (not considered dangerous) suspect while he is fleeing. But Tennessee v Garner decision says this and all law enforcement officers are bound by this decision.
Click to expand...

Not really part of the Constitution though, is it? The decisions are supposed to be based on the Constitution. When a judge makes a decision like that, it is treated as a law, not a Constitutional amendment. If it was considered part of the Constitution, even the SCOTUS would not be able to overturn it. I don't think lower courts have that power.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Direct vote is the issue being put up for a vote. This has happened 4 times.

California?
Click to expand...

If it was voted on in Cali today, it would end up same sex marriage legal here, the same thing that happened with the court decision. The numbers were simply too close in the 2008 vote for Prop 8 when you compare public sentiment from then to now here in Cali to say anything different. Old people died, young people have reached voting age, voters have moved in and out, and opinions have changed steadily to legalizing same sex marriage across the country.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Not really part of the Constitution though, is it? The decisions are supposed to be based on the Constitution. When a judge makes a decision like that, it is treated as a law, not a Constitutional amendment. If it was considered part of the Constitution, even the SCOTUS would not be able to overturn it. I don't think lower courts have that power.
Click to expand...

Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. It really isn't that hard to figure out unless you simply don't like that Clause or don't approve of more freedom for everyone and would rather use the Constitution to restrict rights, particularly individual rights, rather than prevent the government from taking away/denying freedoms, even by the votes of the majority.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
If it was voted on in Cali today, it would end up same sex marriage legal here, the same thing that happened with the court decision. The numbers were simply too close in the 2008 vote for Prop 8 when you compare public sentiment from then to now here in Cali to say anything different. Old people died, young people have reached voting age, voters have moved in and out, and opinions have changed steadily to legalizing same sex marriage across the country.
Click to expand...

You hope, you mean.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
You hope, you mean.
Click to expand...

No hope needed. I see the numbers. I know how voting and trends work. The trend is for legalizing same sex marriage. Support for same sex marriage being legal is only going up and at a recognizable amount. I'm betting that if given time a person could in fact find a workable algorithm for the increase in support for same sex marriage that would easily show the likelihood of voting results on this issue given most known factors for each state. The curves for support and rejection of same sex marriage are pretty easy to see. The trends are almost linear with a crossing that occurred a few years back, with support coming up as being over rejection.

The simple truth is that court decisions take less time, especially in states that still have a majority rejecting ssm, than the bureaucracy and trending time does when it comes to gaining support for a vote to have it and putting it on the ballot. It doesn't change the fact that restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender are still unconstitutional because they cannot be shown to further any state interest, let alone an important one.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
No hope needed. I see the numbers. I know how voting and trends work. The trend is for legalizing same sex marriage. Support for same sex marriage being legal is only going up and at a recognizable amount. I'm betting that if given time a person could in fact find a workable algorithm for the increase in support for same sex marriage that would easily show the likelihood of voting results on this issue given most known factors for each state. The curves for support and rejection of same sex marriage are pretty easy to see. The trends are almost linear with a crossing that occurred a few years back, with support coming up as being over rejection.

The simple truth is that court decisions take less time, especially in states that still have a majority rejecting ssm, than the bureaucracy and trending time does when it comes to gaining support for a vote to have it and putting it on the ballot. It doesn't change the fact that restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender are still unconstitutional because they cannot be shown to further any state interest, let alone an important one.
Click to expand...

The only numbers there are is the vote against gay marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The only numbers there are is the vote against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

No, in the end, all that matters is the result, same sex marriage being legal. It doesn't matter how it happens when it comes about because legally, it is still the same effect, same sex couples can get married. It would only be a matter of time before votes went the same way.

Or are you going to suggest that we should have a vote on interracial marriage in the South, to see if their votes would now be different than those cast before a court ruling changed those laws?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
No, in the end, all that matters is the result, same sex marriage being legal. It doesn't matter how it happens when it comes about because legally, it is still the same effect, same sex couples can get married. It would only be a matter of time before votes went the same way.

Or are you going to suggest that we should have a vote on interracial marriage in the South, to see if their votes would now be different than those cast before a court ruling changed those laws?
Click to expand...

Cool, but the majority voted against it in California.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Cool, but the majority voted against it in California.
Click to expand...

A small majority in 2008. If you cannot understand that public opinion and therefore voting results change with time, particularly with issues such as this, then you are simply ignoring facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom