• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand the purpose of a Constitution.
 
Iron Yank said:
So the Mormans convinced the black community to majority vote against it? Nice try, also polls can be skewed and regularly are by the statist run propaganda machine called the media. If you were to have another vote today, if people wernt being bullied & villified by the gay mafia, I'd bet it would lose again.

Ya gotta like how the left twists what the constitution really means. If they are not ignoring it outright :roll:

I'm not the one thats seeing things from a narrow perspective here. I didnt grow up in a 1 party state where the educational system was dominated by far left wing thought. Where having a difference of opinion can get you called all kinds of names villified as a hater and in places like Hollywood and academia you will not be given a job cause you dont tow the leftist line. I'm sure you are a nice enough guy but I think you may want to consider the possibility that its you the one that is being lied to and propagandized. Some of us see it so clearly and some of us are oblivious to what this corrupt progressive authoritarian goverment is lying about.
Click to expand...
I didn't grow up in California. I grew up in an ultra red-wing state...so that blows your theory there to shreds...and you obviously don't see clearly...because your talking points are right out of the playbook of the right-wing radio blowhards.
 
Not giving a **** about the rule of law and pretending imaginary rights are in plain English documents = "the good guys?"

Uh-huh. Suuuuure.

While contracts should be freely made between consenting adults, this is a matter for the legislature. The courts pretending the Constitution says anything about this whatsoever is obscene and absurd. It's an act of boldface lying to the public.
 
JayDubya said:
Not giving a **** about the rule of law and pretending imaginary rights are in plain English documents = "the good guys?"

Uh-huh. Suuuuure.

While contracts should be freely made between consenting adults, this is a matter for the legislature. The courts pretending the Constitution says anything about this whatsoever is obscene and absurd. It's an act of boldface lying to the public.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law applies to the states. Gender is one of several protected classifications. In order to uphold a gender-based classification, a state must show an important state interest in making that classification, and show that their measure is substantially related to that interest. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is a gender-based classification that limits my freedom to choose with whom I enter a particular legal contract.

It is a matter for the courts to overturn an unconstitutional law. Under equal protection, the burden is on the state to justify its discrimination.

Provide that state interest.

You want to talk about rule of law? You're the one defending an unconstitutional law under some guise of states' rights.
 
Deuce said:
You want to talk about rule of law? You're the one defending an unconstitutional law under some guise of states' rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would like to talk about how you can pretend the Constitution says anything about gay marriage, as written, as ratified, or even as amended.

The hallucinations of others is not much justification when talking about the written word and the rule of law. Why should I care about "state interest" when there is nothing in the text about any such thing?

You want to pretend that in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was written - written as it was, chiefly in regard to the practices of slavery like its peers the 13th and 15th - it was intended and in fact did apply to gay marriage, that gay marriage has been an official constitutional right since 1868, despite not being explicitly stated as such.

Okay. Show me some indication of the authors of the 14th amendment protesting the absence of legal gay marriage since apparently every state was "violating the Constitution" ever since 1868, as you are claiming. Honestly, this is like pretending executions are "cruel and unusual" by Constitutional standards despite them being a common punishment in 1791, when the 8th Amendment was ratified... It doesn't logically add up.


I mean, again, sure, I don't think anyone should be forbidden from making such a contract with whomever they like, regardless of their gender, but to pretend the text says something it doesn't and then to force such hallucinations on others remains tyrannical absurdity.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
Yes, I would like to talk about how you can pretend the Constitution says anything about gay marriage, as written, as ratified, or even as amended.

The hallucinations of others is not much justification when talking about the written word and the rule of law.

You want to pretend that in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was written - written as it was, chiefly in regard to the practices of slavery like its peers the 13th and 15th - it was intended and in fact did apply to gay marriage, that gay marriage has been an official constitutional right since 1868, despite not being explicitly stated as such.

Okay. Show me some indication of the authors of the 14th amendment protesting the absence of legal gay marriage.
Click to expand...

So, to clarify, you don't think it's right to apply the law equally on the basis of gender? You think the constitution doesn't support that?
 
Deuce said:
So, to clarify, you don't think it's right to apply the law equally on the basis of gender? You think the constitution doesn't support that?
Click to expand...

So to clarify, you do think the right to gay marriage was explicitly put into the Constitution as a constitutional right in 1868 and that right has been violated ever since then?
 
JayDubya said:
So to clarify, you do think the right to gay marriage was explicitly put into the Constitution as a constitutional right in 1868 and that right has been violated ever since then?
Click to expand...

Not explicitly, no. Because that's not what the word "explicit" means. Interesting how you didn't answer the question...

But I do believe in equal protection under the law on the basis of gender, and that precludes the existence of a same-sex marriage ban. Barring that "important state interest," which you have failed to provide.

Maybe I'm just a small government type, but to me the burden is on the state to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.
 
Deuce said:
Equal protection under the law applies to the states. Gender is one of several protected classifications. In order to uphold a gender-based classification, a state must show an important state interest in making that classification, and show that their measure is substantially related to that interest. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is a gender-based classification that limits my freedom to choose with whom I enter a particular legal contract.

It is a matter for the courts to overturn an unconstitutional law. Under equal protection, the burden is on the state to justify its discrimination.

Provide that state interest.

You want to talk about rule of law? You're the one defending an unconstitutional law under some guise of states' rights.
Click to expand...

Provide the state interest in restricting incestual marriages. After you cite birth defects, explain why they still restrict incestual gay marriages. Or provide the state interest in being involved in a marriage contract at all.
 
Samhain said:
Or provide the state interest in being involved in a marriage contract at all.
Click to expand...

Good one. I'm not sure there is one.

What I am sure about is that the Constitution says nothing about forcing the states to recognize all contracts.

While I'd personally like the states to recognize almost all contracts, including those of same-sex couples who want to cohabitate and share property and all those other things that come with a standard marriage contract, I can also read a plain English document.

The Constitution is not a "living document." If you want gay marriage to be a constitutional right, there is an amendment process.
 
Samhain said:
Provide the state interest in restricting incestual marriages. After you cite birth defects, explain why they still restrict incestual gay marriages. Or provide the state interest in being involved in a marriage contract at all.
Click to expand...

Classic deflection. You can't answer my question so you spit out another one assuming I can't answer either. You would be wrong. I can answer any of those questions, but since you're still dodging mine, I'm going to ignore yours. Debate honestly, or don't bother me.

JayDubya said:
Good one. I'm not sure there is one.

What I am sure about is that the Constitution says nothing about forcing the states to recognize all contracts.

While I'd personally like the states to recognize almost all contracts, including those of same-sex couples who want to cohabitate and share property and all those other things that come with a standard marriage contract, I can also read a plain English document.

The Constitution is not a "living document." If you want gay marriage to be a constitutional right, there is an amendment process.
Click to expand...

Does the constitution provide equal protection on the basis of gender or doesn't it?
 
Deuce said:
Classic deflection. You can't answer my question so you spit out another one assuming I can't answer either. You would be wrong. I can answer any of those questions, but since you're still dodging mine, I'm going to ignore yours. Debate honestly, or don't bother me.
Click to expand...

You've asked me no question. The core of your opinion, is that equal protection applies unless the state can prove interest.

What is the state's interest in a marriage contract?
 
Samhain said:
You've asked me no question. The core of your opinion, is that equal protection applies unless the state can prove interest.

What is the state's interest in a marriage contract?
Click to expand...

Now he goes to semantics.

I made the initial request for a state interest in barring two same-gender individuals from entering a marriage contract. You provide that interest, and I'll provide several for marriage contracts in general. (although it's a bit of a red herring because there isn't an equal protection challenge that I'm aware of regarding the existence of marriage in general)
 
JayDubya said:
Good one. I'm not sure there is one.

What I am sure about is that the Constitution says nothing about forcing the states to recognize all contracts.

While I'd personally like the states to recognize almost all contracts, including those of same-sex couples who want to cohabitate and share property and all those other things that come with a standard marriage contract, I can also read a plain English document.

The Constitution is not a "living document." If you want gay marriage to be a constitutional right, there is an amendment process.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are dead wrong. There is no need for an amendment because, you may not be aware, but there is a little something in the United States Constitution called the "Equal Protection Clause". What the Equal Protection Clause says is that the government cannot pass laws that deny its citizens equal protection under the law. This requires the government to justify any disparate treatment of a group of individuals by showing that there is a legitimate/important/compelling governmental interest behind the disparate treatment (depending on the class and right/privilege involved). You have to understand Constitutional Law if you want to participate in the conversation.
 
digsbe said:
I edited that, was a tad too harsh.

And yes, maybe not a war but at least rebellion and a split of the union. In America the Constitution has been used to legalize and protect abortion, and now they are wanting to try and use it to protect perverted definitions of marriage coupled with moronic rulings and lawsuits against "religion" on government property and whatnot. I would hope that this is the last straw that breaks the camel's back if it is upheld. I for one do not want to live in a nation that restricts my freedoms to vote on social issues, legalizes things with Constitution protection that I consider to be the biggest ethical evil of our time (abortion) and backs the secular while restricting the rights of expression of the religious. Tyranny due to social change is wrong, especially without new Amendments to the Constitution. I know many may think my opinions or beliefs on the issue are extreme or harsh, but they are. As a citizen I'm sick of such things happening and it worries me to see that the Constitution of this country wants to protect such evils, it's inhumane and should not be tolerated by people of like mind up to the point of rebellion and separation from the union.


Incorrect. 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 marriage does turn a voting class of people into second class citizens and restricts their freedoms.

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

What if a totally RED state, like say Texas somehow found itself in the same predicament with an judge ruling away the will of the people on a social matter were to say, F-U Judge, and inform it's State employees that the ruling of the people is the law, and NOT that of the court. Ok, so the USSC would have to rule on this once and for all, and say they rule that States don't have a right to define marriage, and rule with gays, and then the state says screw you, you're misapplying the meaning of what citizens have a right to decide for themselves. So then what? What is the Federal government going to do about it? I ask in all seriousness because the Fed's can cut off any federal funding or they could use force (Doubtful), but using force would cause an outright rebellion from the other states. The point here is that these lower court rulings are emotional, and in my honest well educated opinion, are not based on the proper interpretations of the Constitution.

I've stated many times that, citizens have a right to decide for themselves, and as locally as possible what kind of community they want to live in. Mobility allows those that do not agree to reside elsewhere, and if your laws are so far out there, then no one will live there and the town, municipality, or State will go bankrupt, or be forced to change due to a lack of constituency. With all the in and outs of what the Founders wanted in a nation, this one thing rings true on every level. The founders wanted the states to be sovereign republics, and within the states themselves they wanted the localities to direct public policy. The thinking was, and still is that, if a locality is run properly, the locality will stand or fall based on its policies. The Federal government was only ever needed to regulate commerce between the states, protect our borders, have a standing army, and to conduct trade, and wage war. The Federal government by slowly but surely disproportionately taxing all US citizens has grown to a point where they buy the states compliance or punish if not complaint with its wishes. This to me, is wrong headed, and we deserve the government we have, but no one in their right mind would want a government that forces social policy on its citizens by judicial fiat.

For the record, DO NOT say that SSM is about equality. I disregard that philosophy. Homosexuality is a sexual fetish, no different than any other fetish. Heterosexuality is the baseline potential of all humans, and most animals, IMO, and however and whenever someone waivers from that, whether exclusively or partially doesn't change that assertion, IMO. If a heterosexual engages in anal sex, that is a fetish, if they engage in drinking someone else's urine, that is a fetish, if it's in wanting to have sex with a child, that is a fetish. Some fetishes have become socially acceptable while some others remain not so much, but make no mistake, when it comes to what is socially acceptable, the people should decide. No one wants to take away the homosexual fetish and of those that wish to practice it either exclusively, or on occasion, but lets all please stop pretending that homosexuality is on equal ground with heterosexuality, and therefore in my opinion not worthy of any claim to equal marriage rights.


Tim-
 
Deuce said:
Now he goes to semantics.

I made the initial request for a state interest in barring two same-gender individuals from entering a marriage contract. You provide that interest, and I'll provide several for marriage contracts in general. (although it's a bit of a red herring because there isn't an equal protection challenge that I'm aware of regarding the existence of marriage in general)
Click to expand...

I don't think the state should be involved in marriage contracts, so I see no state interest in having any marriage laws.

You, however, have started with the assumption that the state should be involved, and therefore, should not violate the equal protection clause with their involvement.
 
Samhain said:
I don't think the state should be involved in marriage contracts, so I see no state interest in having any marriage laws.

You, however, have started with the assumption that the state should be involved, and therefore, should not violate the equal protection clause with their involvement.
Click to expand...

No, I've started with the assumption that the state is involved. Since it is, equal protection applies.

You are free to present a legal argument for overturning all marriage laws, but I'd suggest another thread so as to not derail this one with a separate topic. I'd be interested to see the argument.
 
JayDubya said:
1.)Not giving a **** about the rule of law and pretending imaginary rights are in plain English documents = "the good guys?"

Uh-huh. Suuuuure.

2.) While contracts should be freely made between consenting adults, this is a matter for the legislature. The courts pretending the Constitution says anything about this whatsoever is obscene and absurd. It's an act of boldface lying to the public.
Click to expand...

1.) caring about the law is what these ruling are based on so your post fails there
2.) failed strawman and your claim is the only boldface lie

rights and the constitution were both protected, your opinion is meaningless
 
JayDubya said:
1.)Yes, I would like to talk about how you can pretend the Constitution says anything about gay marriage, as written, as ratified, or even as amended.

2.)The hallucinations of others is not much justification when talking about the written word and the rule of law. Why should I care about "state interest" when there is nothing in the text about any such thing?

3.) You want to pretend that in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was written - written as it was, chiefly in regard to the practices of slavery like its peers the 13th and 15th - it was intended and in fact did apply to gay marriage, that gay marriage has been an official constitutional right since 1868, despite not being explicitly stated as such.

Okay. Show me some indication of the authors of the 14th amendment protesting the absence of legal gay marriage since apparently every state was "violating the Constitution" ever since 1868, as you are claiming. Honestly, this is like pretending executions are "cruel and unusual" by Constitutional standards despite them being a common punishment in 1791, when the 8th Amendment was ratified... It doesn't logically add up.


I mean, again, sure, I don't think anyone should be forbidden from making such a contract with whomever they like, regardless of their gender, but to pretend the text says something it doesn't and then to force such hallucinations on others remains tyrannical absurdity.
Click to expand...

1.) it factually doesnt have to this is why your whole made up argument complete fails and nobody educated, honest and objective falls for it
2.) the written words you speak of proof your post wrong as usual
3.) equal rights, game over
4.) see 3
5.) i agree now stop pretending equal rights doesn't apply because facts prove otherwise
 
JayDubya said:
So to clarify, you do think the right to gay marriage was explicitly put into the Constitution as a constitutional right in 1868 and that right has been violated ever since then?
Click to expand...

translation: you cant defend you failed and destroyed claim so you try your strawman again and it still fails. Nobody buys your strawman its a complete failure.
 
Hicup said:
{edit]

For the record, DO NOT say that SSM is about equality. I disregard that philosophy. Homosexuality is a sexual fetish, no different than any other fetish. Heterosexuality is the baseline potential of all humans, and most animals, IMO, and however and whenever someone waivers from that, whether exclusively or partially doesn't change that assertion, IMO. If a heterosexual engages in anal sex, that is a fetish, if they engage in drinking someone else's urine, that is a fetish, if it's in wanting to have sex with a child, that is a fetish. Some fetishes have become socially acceptable while some others remain not so much, but make no mistake, when it comes to what is socially acceptable, the people should decide. No one wants to take away the homosexual fetish and of those that wish to practice it either exclusively, or on occasion, but lets all please stop pretending that homosexuality is on equal ground with heterosexuality, and therefore in my opinion not worthy of any claim to equal marriage rights.


Tim-
Click to expand...

sorry you dont get to "disregard" FACTS
so your failed strawman complete fails and your opinion is factually wrong :shrug:

everybody honest, educated and objective will keep saying equal rights and equality because thats the facts.

Rights, laws, court cases and court precedence will all keep referring to equality because again thats the facts.
Facts > Tim's proven wrong OPINION
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
No, I've started with the assumption that the state is involved. Since it is, equal protection applies.

You are free to present a legal argument for overturning all marriage laws, but I'd suggest another thread so as to not derail this one with a separate topic. I'd be interested to see the argument.
Click to expand...

100% correct
 
a351 said:
That's quite the statement. Many minority groups would still be out in cold with that attitude. This might-makes-right attitude is entirely antithetical to the freedom and equal citizenship you apparently hold in such high regard.
Click to expand...

Every minority group would be. The majority tends to be satisfied with the status quo, laws being made to tailor to them, while ignoring that everyone is in the minority in some regard.

So let's begin state bans on people in top 1% of income being able to marry! That will teach those white hetero males who's boss.
 
Jerry said:
I'm not gay, evangelical, or live in OK, so please stop flaunting your bedroom practices in my face by making threads like these. It's non of anyone's business and I'll thank you to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Rofl, this is *newsworthy*. You don't like it, stay away. Stop flaunting your own bedroom practices by mentioning you're not gay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom