• 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

Mr.Nick said:
Yes, it does, hence the feds have no involvement in the situation considering they have to amendment for marriage.
Click to expand...


yes they do since they are protecting equal/individual rights
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yes, it does, hence the feds have no involvement in the situation considering they have to amendment for marriage.
Click to expand...
And there's the problem. Gays are so caught up with getting what they want that they don't care about respecting the Constitution. So long as they get their agenda item, **** the country.

I support SSM, but the way to accomplish it is with the introduction of the 28th Amendment defining marriage. Then the 14th Amendment applies and all states will have to comply.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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


With what exactly? That somehow giving people equal protection under the law somehow leads to "authoritarianism"?



Where am i arguing for "anarchy"?



Well your opinion certainly seems to be loosing, and I say about god damn time. Equality now!
Click to expand...


I suppose many view gay marriage as an act of acceptance rather than a contract....

I think that's where people get confused with my position on the issue.
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)I suppose many view gay marriage as an act of acceptance rather than a contract....

I think that's where people get confused with my position on the issue.
Click to expand...

1.) as usual you suppose wrong
2.) nobody is confused on your position you support discrimination and violating equal and individual rights
 
AGENT J said:
yes they do since they are protecting equal/individual rights
Click to expand...
The only proper way to protect equal rights across state lines is to make a Federal amendment.
 
disneydude said:
The chips are falling faster and faster. Another win for the good guys....freedom loving Americans and those who oppose bigotry and discrimination. America is continue on her progression to fully become the land of the free.
Click to expand...
So according to you then the majority of the population are bigots who discriminate. So having a referendum now days is meaningless, if some progressive fascist smuck disagrees they shop it to a idealogical judge who will rule on socialist progessive idealogy & not the constitution. Welcome to a top down Authoritarian state as long as it go's your way who cares about the will of the majority huh?

The only bigots that I see in this issue are the ones who call others bigots for having a differing opinion.
 
What i love about this ruling:
http://www.oknd.uscourts.gov/docs/d50f87b8-eebd-49bf-a18a-cc6e8acda53e/04cv848.pdf

is that it directly mentions the US constitution and the 14th many times.

THis could be bigger than expected actually, this is stayed with the other case and now the ruling itself will be judge and this could force SCOTUS to do a direct ruling that would effect the nation instead of a narrow one.

I dont want to get my hopes up but yes, it has big potential!!! :D:D:D:D:D
 
Jerry said:
And there's the problem. Gays are so caught up with getting what they want that they don't care about respecting the Constitution. So long as they get their agenda item, **** the country.

I support SSM, but the way to accomplish it is with the introduction of the 28th Amendment defining marriage. Then the 14th Amendment applies and all states will have to comply.
Click to expand...

That's my position as well.
 
Summerwind said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to imply without any proof that gay couples would be more atonement.
 
digsbe said:
That's my position as well.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Your position is that people should be allowed to vote in laws that are unconstitutional.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I suppose many view gay marriage as an act of acceptance rather than a contract....

I think that's where people get confused with my position on the issue.
Click to expand...

Then whats your argument then?
 
Mr.Nick said:
I suppose many view gay marriage as an act of acceptance rather than a contract....

I think that's where people get confused with my position on the issue.
Click to expand...

Do you accept same-sex marriage now? Because two dudes can get married now in several states.

It seems to me that you're indicating that not only do you refuse to accept same-sex marriage, you want to ensure that nobody else accepts it.
 
Deuce said:
No it's not. Your position is that people should be allowed to vote in laws that are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

My position is that the Constitution, as written, does not force states to recognize SSM or change their definitions. As it is now it should be fully Constitutional to uphold traditional marriage. I support SSM, but not by judicial tyranny driven by social changes and public opinion.
 
digsbe said:
My position is that the Constitution, as written, does not force states to recognize SSM or change their definitions. As it is now it should be fully Constitutional to uphold traditional marriage. I support SSM, but not by judicial tyranny driven by social changes and public opinion.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law is not judicial tyranny it doesn't matter what you or the public thinks.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Are you trying to imply without any proof that gay couples would be more atonement.
Click to expand...
Simply pointing out that according to your stated concern about two same sex individuals using marriage fraudulently, seems to me plenty of heterosexual couples are doing the same in that they don't live in the same house, they don't have sex with each other, they don't behave in any matrimonial way but still claim the legal benefits of marriage, intentionally and mainly to retain those benefits. Are you outraged about those folks defrauding the benefits of marriage as you claim concern about it happening if SSM is legal?
 
Iron Yank said:
1.)So according to you then the majority of the population are bigots who discriminate.
2.) So having a referendum now days is meaningless, if some progressive fascist smuck disagrees they shop it to a idealogical judge who will rule on socialist progessive idealogy & not the constitution.
3.) Welcome to a top down Authoritarian state as long as it go's your way who cares about the will of the majority huh?
4.) The only bigots that I see in this issue are the ones who call others bigots for having a differing opinion.
Click to expand...

1.) two things he didnt even come close to saying that and the majority or americans support equal rights but thats just a bonus since it doesnt matter
2.) it if violates individual rights and equal rights yes its crap, basic rights 101
3.) nope protecting rights is the exact opposite
4.) good thing that didnt happen
 
Jerry said:
And there's the problem. Gays are so caught up with getting what they want that they don't care about respecting the Constitution. So long as they get their agenda item, **** the country.

I support SSM, but the way to accomplish it is with the introduction of the 28th Amendment defining marriage. Then the 14th Amendment applies and all states will have to comply.
Click to expand...

The "Equal Protection Clause" justifies just about anything social that congress would like to legislate.

The Fourteenth obviously has its merits but I would like to see it repealed given the notion that it creates requisite for just about anything our congress would like to pass as a social issue.

Maybe in some circles its a fabulous clause and Amendment but in others its a financial burden, which should should be highly debated by intelligent people/representatives that can understand the pro's and cons of the issue(s) both socially, ethically and economically..
 
digsbe said:
Hopefully such an intrusion of rights will be repealed and reversed. Turning voters that have issues with changing the definition of marriage into second class citizens in lieu of social changes and progressives/liberals wanting to declare perversion as a protected right worthy enough to completely redefine the English language is not something that should happen. When in doubt, when politics don't go your way just file with the courts and hope some activist judges will give your opinion on a political/social issue legal protection :shrug: everyone does it.

If this insanity is upheld I sincerely hope that there is a revolt and maybe even a split of the union. For far too long the rights of people have been eroded by this progressive philosophy of anit-religion and anti-voter's rights/sate's when issues are not popular among secular liberals/progressives. Such a sweeping change of hundreds of years of marital practice should not happen due to perversion becoming more socially acceptable, especially not without a Constitutional Amendment that removes the rights of states to define marriage.
Click to expand...

How the hell does gay marriage turn you into a second class citizen?
 
Deuce said:
Equal protection under the law is not judicial tyranny it doesn't matter what you or the public thinks.
Click to expand...

Equal protection means protecting the rights of voter's and respecting state laws and autonomy on marriage policy. Losing a political battle in a state and trying to work around it in the courts with courts reacting on social opinion and personal values is tyranny. The judge in this case waited 9 years before making this ruling and quoted the current case in Utah as precedence (one that has stay and is being appealed).
 
Mr.Nick said:
The "Equal Protection Clause" justifies just about anything social that congress would like to legislate.

The Fourteenth obviously has its merits but I would like to see it repealed given the notion that it creates requisite for just about anything our congress would like to pass as a social issue.

Maybe in some circles its a fabulous clause and Amendment but in others its a financial burden, which should should be highly debated by intelligent people/representatives that can understand the pro's and cons of the issue(s)..
Click to expand...

Look, it's a so-called American who doesn't believe in equal protection under the law. I didn't think those still existed.

Is there some "financial burden" you perceive arising from same-sex marriage?
 
digsbe said:
My position is that the Constitution, as written, does not force states to recognize SSM or change their definitions. As it is now it should be fully Constitutional to uphold traditional marriage. I support SSM, but not by judicial tyranny driven by social changes and public opinion.
Click to expand...

The Constitution as written doesn't have the marriage license in it. That was made by bigots afraid of interracial marriage. It's being used in it's original context today by trying to deny other's the ability to marry cause some people think it's icky. If there was no marriage license, there would be no issue. So take it up with that, and move to remove it. Otherwise, it remains government recognized and issued contract, and the individual has right to contract.
 
Ikari said:
How the hell does gay marriage turn you into a second class citizen?
Click to expand...

The act of taking away state's rights to set policy and removing the ability of citizens to vote on an issue that should be perfectly acceptable for them to vote on and have their beliefs put into law restricts them to second class citizens and overlooks their right to vote and their state's right to make policy for the state.
 
digsbe said:
Equal protection means protecting the rights of voter's and respecting state laws and autonomy on marriage policy.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It means the opposite. It means protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority or of the state.

digsbe said:
The act of taking away state's rights to set policy and removing the ability of citizens to vote on an issue that should be perfectly acceptable for them to vote on and have their beliefs put into law restricts them to second class citizens and overlooks their right to vote and their state's right to make policy for the state.
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to vote away someone else's rights. You've never had that right, and you never will.
 
digsbe said:
The act of taking away state's rights to set policy and removing the ability of citizens to vote on an issue that should be perfectly acceptable for them to vote on and have their beliefs put into law restricts them to second class citizens and overlooks their right to vote and their state's right to make policy for the state.
Click to expand...

The will of the majority is secondary to the rights of the minority. It's always been that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom