• 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 Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

WorldWatcher said:
In addition, from Arizona, I don't know if there are others with similar requirements:
" Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce. "​


Format Document


>>>>
Click to expand...

This actually leans in my direction: not only is procreation not a marriage requirement, sometimes it's prohibited.

Not sure such a provision is constitutionally justified, though. I am super skeptical of the government deciding that a particular person "shouldn't" have children.
 
apdst said:
Marriage is an example of government intrusion, i.e. government banning gay marriage is example of too much government intrusion in our private lives. You know damn well what I meant. You're just being argumentative.
Click to expand...

Only government intrusion that is asked for in order to make the process easier and more efficient for recognizing the legal relationship of the couple. Legal kinship. If marriage is government intrusion then so are birth certificates and adoption papers and any form of domestic partnership arrangement the government sets up.
 
roguenuke said:
Only government intrusion that is asked for in order to make the process easier and more efficient for recognizing the legal relationship of the couple. Legal kinship. If marriage is government intrusion then so are birth certificates and adoption papers and any form of domestic partnership arrangement the government sets up.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be illegal, if not for the government making it illegal.

Just WOW! :lamo
 
apdst said:
Government is being unfair, by being intrusive.

Even when someone agrees with your passions, you still want to argue with them. Libbos! :roll:
Click to expand...

No. They are being unfair by being restrictive, not intrusive.

Being intrusive means that the invasion is unwelcome or annoying in some way. Since people want to get married and request for their marriages to be recognized by the government, then legal marriage cannot be intrusive.

Intrusive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

in·tru·sive
adjective \in-ˈtrü-siv, -ziv\

: annoying someone by interfering with their privacy : intruding where you are not wanted or welcome
 
roguenuke said:
No. They are being unfair by being restrictive, not intrusive.

Being intrusive means that the invasion is unwelcome or annoying in some way. Since people want to get married and request for their marriages to be recognized by the government, then legal marriage cannot be intrusive.

Intrusive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

in·tru·sive
adjective \in-ˈtrü-siv, -ziv\

: annoying someone by interfering with their privacy : intruding where you are not wanted or welcome
Click to expand...

Right!
 
roguenuke said:
It is a part of history and you are going to reject any source I give. Show a reliable source that says that interracial couples were treated the same as same race couples in the US prior to Loving. I dare you. Or better yet, show me a reliable source that shows that women had the same rights within a marriage in pretty much any of those civilizations I named, or even our own up til about a half century or less ago.
Click to expand...

http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf
 
apdst said:
It wouldn't be illegal, if not for the government making it illegal.

Just WOW! :lamo
Click to expand...

It isn't illegal to marry a person of the same sex. It is illegal to claim them as a legal spouse. That is simply unfair, not intrusive. In fact, it would basically be the opposite of intrusive since applying for a legal marriage means inviting, wanting the government to recognize your marriage.

If you have a better plan for how the government is supposed to keep track of legal spousal arrangements and give people what they want (legal benefits connected to legal kinship, such as being a spouse), go for it and show us. People are actually requesting the government to recognize their marriages as legal.
 
apdst said:
Right!
Click to expand...

The very fact that people bother to go to the government to get marriage licenses means that they are wanted, and welcome. Or are you unaware that you will not be arrested for getting married without the license as long as you don't claim your "spouse" on legal documents?
 
roguenuke said:
And what exactly is this supposed to prove? It in no way proves anything whatsoever that I asked for.
Click to expand...

It's a source showing that there were ancient societies that treated women as equals.
 
roguenuke said:
The very fact that people bother to go to the government to get marriage licenses means that they are wanted, and welcome. Or are you unaware that you will not be arrested for getting married without the license as long as you don't claim your "spouse" on legal documents?
Click to expand...

LOL...people go to the government for a marriage license, because they have to. Without one, you can't be legally married.

You want the government regulating marriage? Well, you can reap what you sow.
 
Paleocon said:
It's a source showing that there were ancient societies that treated women as equals.
Click to expand...

It did not prove such a thing.

Now, personally I believe, from what I've read, that women in that ancient culture were treated much more equal to men than in any other culture I've heard of up til now. However, there is also a lot of evidence that they had no issue with same sex marriages either, possibly very much related to the fact that they didn't see women as property in the way that those cultures that rose up from Abrahamic roots did.
 
apdst said:
LOL...people go to the government for a marriage license, because they have to. Without one, you can't be legally married.

You want the government regulating marriage? Well, you can reap what you sow.
Click to expand...

No. They go because they want to. A marriage license is the cheapest and easiest way to set up many contracts with one simple one. It costs less than $100 to name a single person as your spouse, having many legal rights that would require much more legal paperwork to obtain otherwise, and some that you can't really get without something akin to adoption coming into play.

It is not illegal to say someone you are technically not legally married to is your lifelong spouse, mate. It is only illegal to do this when you are attempting to get something from the government for this relationship.
 
apdst said:
LOL...people go to the government for a marriage license, because they have to. Without one, you can't be legally married.

You want the government regulating marriage? Well, you can reap what you sow.
Click to expand...

It is our system. And it allows benefits to be attached. Again, our system. Changing it because you (universal you) just don't want gays treated equal is kind of an asshole move.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is our system. And it allows benefits to be attached. Again, our system. Changing it because you (universal you) just don't want gays treated equal is kind of an asshole move.
Click to expand...

That makes zero sense.
 
apdst said:
That makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

I can type slower if it helps.

There's no movement to take the government out of marriage absent the extending the rights to include homosexuals. Now piece it together.
 
Boo Radley said:
I can type slower if it helps.

There's no movement to take the government out of marriage absent the extending the rights to include homosexuals. Now piece it together.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for over-reaching government, those rights would already exist for gays.
 
apdst said:
If it wasn't for over-reaching government, those rights would already exist for gays.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Nothing would keep someone from refusing to recognize a person as another's spouse at all if not for the government having certain laws surrounding marriage and recognition of spouses via the government. No protections at all would exist for spouses in fact.
 
apdst said:
If it wasn't for over-reaching government, those rights would already exist for gays.
Click to expand...


Backed by those who oppose equal rights. Government isn't something separate from the people. It largely reflects our prejudices.
 
Boo Radley said:
Backed by those who oppose equal rights. Government isn't something separate from the people. It largely reflects our prejudices.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine said government is used to manage people where they fail or can't manage themselves.
 
Perotista said:
A friend of mine said government is used to manage people where they fail or can't manage themselves.
Click to expand...

You might seek other opinions. People say very silly things.
 
Boo Radley said:
You might seek other opinions. People say very silly things.
Click to expand...

Very true, we all say silly things from time to time. But I think he had a point, if you think about it, our government tries to manage our daily lives and how we live. Whether that is what we want or not is another question.
 
Perotista said:
Very true, we all say silly things from time to time. But I think he had a point, if you think about it, our government tries to manage our daily lives and how we live. Whether that is what we want or not is another question.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't believe that. I live everyday with no real interference. Sure, I can't harm others. But nothing prevents me from living my life as I want to live it.
 
Perotista said:
Very true, we all say silly things from time to time. But I think he had a point, if you think about it, our government tries to manage our daily lives and how we live. Whether that is what we want or not is another question.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on your definition of "manage." I work where I choose to work. I eat what I choose to eat. I don't have a bed time. I am friends with the people I want to be friends with.

But they also dictate that I must periodically prove I am safely able to fly an aircraft so that I don't kill my passengers, so I guess they're overly intrusive.
 
Ikari said:
The government is required to deny same sex couples access to contract as the Marriage License is government issued and recognized contract. That force needs to be legitimized, and can only be done so if the exercise has infringed upon the rights of others. When we elicit government force for issues which do not infringe upon the rights of others, rarely is that force legitimate.
Click to expand...


I do not understand the usage of force in this issue. A State may decide to allow marriage between same sex couples or not. The issue is academic with me since I will not likely marry myself. I am concerned that the Courts are using this as an ideological issue and might not be careful in its reasoning in mandating on a must issue basis. I do not yet see that there can be a good reasoning to override the Power of a State for marriage here and if it is done it must be done very carefully or we will see what can arise out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom