• 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!

US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

digsbe said:
And don't try to correlate this with women's rights or minority rights, totally separate issues.
Click to expand...

as proven by facts many times already that you choose to ignore they are NOT separate issues, womans rights, minority rights and interracial marriage were all equal/human.civil rights issues just like SSM. THis fact doesnt change simply because you dont like it and it destroys your argument.
 
disneydude said:
Was it wrong with inter-racial marriage as well Digs? Afterall....Saying to an entire voting block and class of people that their legally held beliefs and laws can no longer be on the books because they "violate the Constitution" and forcing those laws, that have been held for many years and wanting to be changed due to changes in public opinion, is wrong. Telling people that they have no right to make or enforce marriage laws like upholding traditional homogenous marriage does turn a voting class of people into second class citizens and restricts their freedoms, correct?
Click to expand...

Not a valid comparison because reasons.
 
deuce said:
this is one of the most ridiculous posts i've ever seen on this board, and that's saying a lot.

you don't get to vote in an unconstitutional law that takes away someone else's rights. Sorry if that bothers you so much. Wait, no i'm not.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding ding ding
 
disneydude said:
LOL....your attempts to spin this as an example of "Authoritarian Government" is laughable. This is an example of the Court upholding the rights of the citizens of this great country to enjoy the freedom to love and marry and be free of discrimination by the state.
Click to expand...

Yeah? go look up what legal marriage is... Outside of Church vows...

What is it tell me!!!!
 
Deuce said:
This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying a lot.

You don't get to vote in an unconstitutional law that takes away someone else's rights. Sorry if that bothers you so much. Wait, no I'm not.
Click to expand...

Some may see it as that, and honestly I could care less and expect many of your opinion to see my post and views that way.

The state's should have the right to define marriage and uphold the traditional definition of marriage that has been the legal precedence for many years. There have been no new amendments to the Constitution regarding sexuality or private sex practices. People have been making the political and ethical arguments that one's personal sex choices and relationships are somehow a protected right and no state can uphold traditional marriage because those sex practices and relationships do not fit within that definition. If they want this a Constitutional Amendment should be added, rulings shouldn't happen due to changes in public opinion or judicial activism. Stretching the Constitution to make classes of people, based on their sexual preferences and practices, protected classes and revoking and denying people the ability to make laws that are very much in line with past popular beliefs is tyranny. It is tyrannical to force the states that have upheld traditional marriage, and the people of those states who voted on such, to remove those laws is making those people second class citizens, trampling on their state's right to govern, and imposing a social view in a tyrannical way without an amendment ratified into the Constitution. I don't think any rational person would say that such rulings would happen 50 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago, only until recently with political pushes and changes in social beliefs do we see these things. People lost political battles, and now they want to force their opinion and beliefs into laws by trying to enshrine their views as the ultimate law of the land and in doing so restricting the freedoms of others to vote. I have absolutely no problem if states want to legalize SSM or if they want to uphold traditional marriage. However, that should be left up to the states and the Constitution, as it is now, should not force states that uphold traditional marriage to reject legally held definitions and having social changes on the issue be the driving force behind revoking the voting privileges and rights of others.
 
Deuce said:
Not a valid comparison because reasons.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely a valid comparison. The anti-marriage equality bigots don't want to view themselves as being similar to the anti-inter-racial marriage bigots....but when they look in the mirror...that is exactly what is staring back at them.
 
Deuce said:
A belief you never once expressed until it became clear same-sex marriage was a fight you were losing.
Click to expand...

I care more about the contractual idea of marriage than I do religious...

Marriage is a contract - not a state sponsored recognition like most of the gay proponents believe it is.
 
digsbe said:
Some may see it as that, and honestly I could care less and expect many of your opinion to see my post and views that way.

The state's should have the right to define marriage and uphold the traditional definition of marriage that has been the legal precedence for many years. There have been no new amendments to the Constitution regarding sexuality or private sex practices. People have been making the political and ethical arguments that one's personal sex choices and relationships are somehow a protected right and no state can uphold traditional marriage because those sex practices and relationships do not fit within that definition. If they want this a Constitutional Amendment should be added, rulings shouldn't happen due to changes in public opinion or judicial activism. Stretching the Constitution to make classes of people, based on their sexual preferences and practices, protected classes and revoking and denying people the ability to make laws that are very much in line with past popular beliefs is tyranny. It is tyrannical to force the states that have upheld traditional marriage, and the people of those states who voted on such, to remove those laws is making those people second class citizens, trampling on their state's right to govern, and imposing a social view in a tyrannical way without an amendment ratified into the Constitution. I don't think any rational person would say that such rulings would happen 50 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago, only until recently with political pushes and changes in social beliefs do we see these things. People lost political battles, and now they want to force their opinion and beliefs into laws by trying to enshrine their views as the ultimate law of the land and in doing so restricting the freedoms of others to vote. I have absolutely no problem if states want to legalize SSM or if they want to uphold traditional marriage. However, that should be left up to the states and the Constitution, as it is now, should not force states that uphold traditional marriage to reject legally held definitions and having social changes on the issue be the driving force behind revoking the voting privileges and rights of others.
Click to expand...

In other words, you believe it was wrong for the Court's to strike down inter-racial marriage bans because states should be free to discriminate if they want to? Afterall, "traditional" marriage before striking down inter-racial marriage bans did not involve marriages between the races. THAT would have been "non-traditional" at the time. So are you for tradition or against it Digs?
 
digsbe said:
Some may see it as that, and honestly I could care less and expect many of your opinion to see my post and views that way.

The state's should have the right to define marriage and uphold the traditional definition of marriage that has been the legal precedence for many years. There have been no new amendments to the Constitution regarding sexuality or private sex practices. People have been making the political and ethical arguments that one's personal sex choices and relationships are somehow a protected right and no state can uphold traditional marriage because those sex practices and relationships do not fit within that definition. If they want this a Constitutional Amendment should be added, rulings shouldn't happen due to changes in public opinion or judicial activism. Stretching the Constitution to make classes of people, based on their sexual preferences and practices, protected classes and revoking and denying people the ability to make laws that are very much in line with past popular beliefs is tyranny. It is tyrannical to force the states that have upheld traditional marriage, and the people of those states who voted on such, to remove those laws is making those people second class citizens, trampling on their state's right to govern, and imposing a social view in a tyrannical way without an amendment ratified into the Constitution. I don't think any rational person would say that such rulings would happen 50 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago, only until recently with political pushes and changes in social beliefs do we see these things. People lost political battles, and now they want to force their opinion and beliefs into laws by trying to enshrine their views as the ultimate law of the land and in doing so restricting the freedoms of others to vote. I have absolutely no problem if states want to legalize SSM or if they want to uphold traditional marriage. However, that should be left up to the states and the Constitution, as it is now, should not force states that uphold traditional marriage to reject legally held definitions and having social changes on the issue be the driving force behind revoking the voting privileges and rights of others.
Click to expand...
AHHHH wall of text!!



9157610.jpg
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)Marriage isn't a right first off all
2.) and secondly marriage is a state recognized contract..
3.)Want to argue with that?
4.)Why not just argue for anarchy and abolish the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution while we're at it or are you just selective in which rights you recognize and those you don't?
5.)As far as I'm concerned the State and Feds shouldn't be involved in the "marriage businesses" for numerous reasons.
Click to expand...

1.) facts prove you wrong on this already has pointed out by many posters
2.) yes it is but doesnt allow them to violate individual rights
3.) nothing to argue facts prove you wrong and all you have is opinion
4.) yes that should be your argument since thats what you want you think its ok for the state to violate individual rights
5.) you are free to have this opinion
 
disneydude said:
In other words....
Click to expand...
10th Amendment. Marriage is a right, but it's not a specifically enumerated right, so according to the 10th Amendment regulating the right of marriage falls to the states.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yeah? go look up what legal marriage is... Outside of Church vows...

What is it tell me!!!!
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal contract of committment. It is still laughable to believe that a court saying that a state cannot impose discriminatory limitations on the rights of its citizens to enter into that contract is somehow "Authoritarian". If anything....it is the exact opposite.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Marriage isn't a right first off all....
Click to expand...
Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry:


1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”


2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.


3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”


5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”


6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”


7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”


8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”


9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”


10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”


11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”


12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”


13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”


14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”


Marriage itself is a right, and the right to marry someone of the same-sex falls under your right to free association.
 
The real legal argument here is that if someone is truly gay or are using the "loophole" as a tax evasion mechanism - yeah like that Adam Sandler movie....

Social welfare is already abused - why would this be any different.

What we going to do hire social welfare workers making union wages to check up on these alleged "gay couples" to ensure they're "gay."

It may sound comedical but it's true...
 
Jerry said:
10th Amendment. Marriage is a right, but it's not a specifically enumerated right, so according to the 10th Amendment regulating the right of marriage falls to the states.
Click to expand...

Exactly....however, as Judge Kennedy indicated in the DOMA decision (if you read it you would know).....While states are free to requlate marriage, they must do so in a way that does not violate the Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. THIS is what got SCALIA all up in arms. The writing is on the wall. The SCOTUS said...sure states you can continue to regulate marriage, but you cannot violate the Constitution while doing so. In other words, you cannot restrict marriage to heterosexuals only unless there is a legitimate state interest in doing so...and so far, the anti-marriage equality folk have been unable to come up with a legitimate state interest in doing so that comports with Constitutional muster.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Some may see it as that, and honestly I could care less and expect many of your opinion to see my post and views that way.

The state's should have the right to define marriage and uphold the traditional definition of marriage that has been the legal precedence for many years. There have been no new amendments to the Constitution regarding sexuality or private sex practices. People have been making the political and ethical arguments that one's personal sex choices and relationships are somehow a protected right and no state can uphold traditional marriage because those sex practices and relationships do not fit within that definition. If they want this a Constitutional Amendment should be added, rulings shouldn't happen due to changes in public opinion or judicial activism. Stretching the Constitution to make classes of people, based on their sexual preferences and practices, protected classes and revoking and denying people the ability to make laws that are very much in line with past popular beliefs is tyranny. It is tyrannical to force the states that have upheld traditional marriage, and the people of those states who voted on such, to remove those laws is making those people second class citizens, trampling on their state's right to govern, and imposing a social view in a tyrannical way without an amendment ratified into the Constitution. I don't think any rational person would say that such rulings would happen 50 years ago or maybe even 30 years ago, only until recently with political pushes and changes in social beliefs do we see these things. People lost political battles, and now they want to force their opinion and beliefs into laws by trying to enshrine their views as the ultimate law of the land and in doing so restricting the freedoms of others to vote. I have absolutely no problem if states want to legalize SSM or if they want to uphold traditional marriage. However, that should be left up to the states and the Constitution, as it is now, should not force states that uphold traditional marriage to reject legally held definitions and having social changes on the issue be the driving force behind revoking the voting privileges and rights of others.
Click to expand...

FACTS
there is no tyranny
government protected equal/individual rights
freedom to vote is intact
states rights are intact
rights of others are intact
NOBODY is made a second class citizen by granting equal rights
there is no force on the people

theres no facts to support they hyperbole you keep posting, its emotional ranting based on nothing else
 
Mr.Nick said:
Marriage isn't a right first off all and secondly marriage is a state recognized contract..
Click to expand...
Of course it is a right decided by various legal decisions:

Skinner v Oklahoma: "Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man" Google Scholar

Loving v Virginia: "“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Google Scholar

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFeur: "“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Carey v Population Services International: “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.” 14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Zablocki v. Redhail:“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.” Google Scholar

Turner v Safely: "“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” Google Scholar

MLB v SLJ: “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” M. L. B. v. S. L. J. - 519 U.S. 102 (1996) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Want to argue with that?
Click to expand...
With what exactly? That somehow giving people equal protection under the law somehow leads to "authoritarianism"?


Why not just argue for anarchy and abolish the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution while we're at it or are you just selective in which rights you recognize and those you don't?
Click to expand...
Where am i arguing for "anarchy"?


As far as I'm concerned the State and Feds shouldn't be involved in the "marriage businesses" for numerous reasons.
Click to expand...
Well your opinion certainly seems to be loosing, and I say about god damn time. Equality now!
 
Jerry said:
Thank you. That's the quote I needed for future use. The next time I object to some random pro-SSM argument, I will inevitable be accused of trying to put the government in the bedroom, or some similar nonsense. I trust you won't mind my quoting you so as to set them straight (no pun intended).

Matters of public policy are everyone's business. It doesn't need to directly effect you in any way for you to have a say as a tax-paying voter.
Click to expand...

To have an opinion on an issue i cant express that opinion because you dont like it? Is that what you are getting at?
 
Jerry said:
Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry:


1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”


2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.


3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”


5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”


6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”


7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”


8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”


9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”


10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”


11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”


12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”


13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”


14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”


Marriage itself is a right, and the right to marry someone of the same-sex falls under your right to free association.
Click to expand...


The courts are probably one of the more powerful and ****ed up systems in our brand of democracy....... The courts overrule direct democracy and insert their own powertower...

300 million US citizens don't need 50-100 district judges overruling direct democracy, while they waste taxpayer money after and appeal has been made - that's hard earned money down to toilet after the voice of the people have spoken and a minority didn't agree with the conclusion..... Imagine if our presidential elections were this ****ed up every year.

Makes no sense to me....

Especially if progressives believe Gore won in 2004.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The real legal argument here is that if someone is truly gay or are using the "loophole" as a tax evasion mechanism - yeah like that Adam Sandler movie....

Social welfare is already abused - why would this be any different.

What we going to do hire social welfare workers making union wages to check up on these alleged "gay couples" to ensure they're "gay."

It may sound comedical but it's true...
Click to expand...
Based on the number of extramarital affairs and divorces, I'd say that it's pretty questionable how many heteros are married in a fraudulent way. As a matter of fact, how many folks do you know, I know about 5 couples, who are separated longer than 2 two years and aren't divorced yet, why???? because they want to keep getting the benefits of being married, taxes as well as all other benefits, like insurance for spouse and so on.
 
UPDATE

1/5/14 Version 4.0


19 States with Equal Rights or in limbo


Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 (appealing to supreme court! :) )
Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective
Oklahoma - Currently Stayed

21 States Working Towards Equal Rights


13 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska (Suit to be filed this month)
Kentucky
Idaho
Louisiana
Michigan (Feb 2014 Trial)
Mississippi
North Carolina
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Texas (Jan 2014 Trial, Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Virginia (two different suits, one involves Prop8 lawyers) Hearing will be before Jan 30th
West Virginia


4 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decesion Pending and 2016 ballot)
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.


3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Colorado
Florida
Oregon


thats 39 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!
 
Jerry said:
10th Amendment. Marriage is a right, but it's not a specifically enumerated right, so according to the 10th Amendment regulating the right of marriage falls to the states.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, hence the feds have no involvement in the situation considering they have to amendment for marriage.
 
disneydude said:
Marriage is a legal contract of committment. It is still laughable to believe that a court saying that a state cannot impose discriminatory limitations on the rights of its citizens to enter into that contract is somehow "Authoritarian". If anything....it is the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Then what you call a prenup?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom