• 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

Kal'Stang said:
I'd answer the rest of your post but I don't have time at this moment. For now consider the following....



There are lots of Rights that people have that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. That was the whole point of the 9th Amendment being added to the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." IE: Not all the rights that we have are explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true. The main issue is where the Rights of the People are and the Powers of the State are. The set up that we have is a sort of Game with subtle rules and I do not trust the State much farther than I trust the Federal part of government. That said since determining what is considered valid for marriage is at the State level is very much an established given. I do not trust what I see is a arbitrary rulings on the Federal Courts against the State laws here.
 
blarg said:
they don't have the power to violate the 14th amendment of the untied states in their determination
Click to expand...

The question is whether the existing standard of marriage is between two people of different genders and maintaining that standard somehow violates the 14th Amendment now.
 
blarg said:
how do you separate gay marriage from gender? and equal protection for all citizens is established so any law that violates it is unconstitutional

what loop holes would let you endanger or exploit children if you alow gay marriage do to the that gay marriage is an identical situation and institution to heterosexual marriages that we allow?
Click to expand...

I suspect that these decisions are more on ideological grounds than an interpretation of Constitutional Law. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer but I really do hope that these decisions are based on sound reasons and not just "we should go this way because its the 21st Century and we should do so because we think it is better". On the latter I am saying that a Judges version of the "lawyers disease" can occur. They make reasoning justifying their ruling and not being careful to see if it opens up abuses like I suggested.
 
Shadow Serious said:
The question is whether the existing standard of marriage is between two people of different genders and maintaining that standard somehow violates the 14th Amendment now.
Click to expand...

It does violate the 14th amendment. A gender-based distinction (limiting a contract to a male and a female) requires an "important state interest" be served and that the measure is "substantially related" to that interest.

Shadow Serious said:
I suspect that these decisions are more on ideological grounds than an interpretation of Constitutional Law. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer but I really do hope that these decisions are based on sound reasons and not just "we should go this way because its the 21st Century and we should do so because we think it is better". On the latter I am saying that a Judges version of the "lawyers disease" can occur. They make reasoning justifying their ruling and not being careful to see if it opens up abuses like I suggested.
Click to expand...


The rulings are based on sound reasons. You should read them.
 
Deuce said:
The constitution does require equal protection regarding gender. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is a gender-based distinction.
Click to expand...

It is the assumption under common law and has been so since this country's beginnings under the Constitution until recently.




Don't confuse marriage with sex. Ask any married man: marriage and sex are not the same thing. Sex is not a requirement for marriage, nor is procreation.
Click to expand...

I understand this point even though I am not married nor will I ever intend to get married.


...precisely why your mention of sexual identity earlier is erroneous.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who brought it up.

Gender is a protected classification.
Click to expand...

Men and women are coequal under the law but that doesn't make them identical.

Same with gender!
Click to expand...

I believe that is the point that in this country is a the point of contention.


Well, it is that, actually. That's the intent: discrimination against homosexuals. Tradition doesn't matter. Your approval doesn't matter. My approval doesn't matter. Everyone had the same access to same-race marriages too.
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view. But there is a difference between the State deciding between the wrong sort (which it should not) and the wrong equipment (which is in my view open).


Why
is your comfort level relevant here? "Too quickly?" Was interracial marriage done too quickly? Women's rights?
Click to expand...

The problem is that the society needs a little time to even know how to think on such things. Some States will have same sex marriages and they already do. The best argument that I can see is that marriage with respect to the State should be separated from the religious underpinnings that are apparently behind some of the opposition. And by some time I do not mean more than say a decade since that will be enough time to go thru any legal metaphysical reasoning that each State would make arguments pro or con. I really do not want gay marriage to be the next abortion rights struggle where people are seeking to use political means to force the issue one way or another.


Your disapproval of court action on a different issue affects your approval of their handling of same-sex marriage? That's bizarre.
Click to expand...

I do not trust government. And with respect to the Courts even the appearance of ideological motivations poisons its intended role as a means of Justice.
 
Deuce said:
Interracial marriage was a new idea.
Click to expand...

The marriage of two people of different groups (one or both who are hated by the other) is nearly timeless. At least as old as marriage itself.


Literally the opposite of the truth. Loving v. Virginia literally declared marriage to be a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

If so then I am wrong but I think of marriage on more of a metaphysical level that one of Rights or even under contract law.

Equal protection is not a universal magic bullet. The state can still uphold unequal protection when an important enough interest exists in doing so. With children, preventing them from entering permanent legal contracts is a pretty clear interest - children lack the emotional and intellectual capacity to make such decisions in their own best interests, or anyone else's for that matter
Click to expand...
.

I do not think that that will happen either especially since most people recognize that children are not adults and can not be held to a standard of that of an adult. But I do worry about unforeseen issues if the case law is not set up properly. Multiple marriage is an example. We do not even have a means on making determinations of degree of responsibility if the case law forced that issue forward.


Such an interest does not exist in banning same-sex marriage. There are certainly state interests in the existence of marriage, and the promotion of stable families, procreation, and all that jazz that goes with marriage. But the banning of same-sex marriages does not in any way further any of those interests, nor does same-sex marriage cause any sort of demonstrable harm. Therefore same-sex marriage bans do not pass the test of equal protection, but the age requirement does pass the test of equal protection. Marrying animals and furniture are just stupid, desperate diversions from real discuss. Animals and furniture aren't people, they don't have rights.
Click to expand...

This is a good argument for its recognition. With respect to your comment on furniture I would point out in the not too distant future when we have sentient AI someone may want to marry a AI insted of another human and that issue would have to be addressed similarity at that time.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The Supreme Court has ruled about 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant, it is the supreme law of the land. Now, considering it's a fundamental right, a state does not have the right to deny it to certain people while granting it to others. That is discrimination, plain and simple, and it has no place in a free society. All citizens should be equal under the law. I don't think that's too extreme of a concept.
Click to expand...

I tend to think marriage in more metaphysical terms than those of contract law. Entering into contracts is a fundamental right so marriage would follow there.

I think your Illinois gun example is actually perfect. The state was violating its citizens rights, so the Supreme Court came in and overruled it, which is precisely what is happening right now with SSM. Personally I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the government whatsoever, but for some reason it is, and as long as it is, the government can not choose to whom it doles out that right.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind the Supreme Court ruling was a split decision by ideological Judges. Because of that I do not trust the Courts as guarantors of Rights here. Since the Judges who are ruling on behalf of gay marriage seem to be ideological I cannot assume that this is a good ground on the issue so I worry.
Bahahahahahah! You're so furious that they're giving gays equal rights that you're calling for their heads. Jesus ****ing christ you must really hate gays.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree that the government and marriage may have to be separated eventually. I do not care if same sex marriage exists (or not) I personally do not intend to marry myself and my only concern in this is that the Court uses good reasoning if they determine that the Power of the State must be tempered in the case of gay marriage. And I do not hate gay people.
 
WorldWatcher said:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​


Could you help me out here with a couple of things:

1. Where in Section 1 of the 14th is race "explicitly" mentioned as a requirement to be eligible for equal protection under the law?

2. Since Section 1 does identify "All persons", "citizens", and "any person" - why do homosexuals not qualify as "a person" or "a citizen"?​



>>>>
Click to expand...

Memory is faulty and since I do not focus on this issue very much I misremembered what the Constitution does say on this. My main concern is if we are going to have gay marriage being ruled as a right by the Courts that the Courts are careful in doing so and to avoid any ideological filters that they may now have so we do not have any surprises in the future.
 
Deuce said:
It does violate the 14th amendment. A gender-based distinction (limiting a contract to a male and a female) requires an "important state interest" be served and that the measure is "substantially related" to that interest.




The rulings are based on sound reasons. You should read them.
Click to expand...

I will try when I have time but I worry when I see anything that looks ideological being done by the Courts.
 
blarg said:
how do you separate gay marriage from gender? and equal protection for all citizens is established so any law that violates it is unconstitutional

what loop holes would let you endanger or exploit children if you alow gay marriage do to the that gay marriage is an identical situation and institution to heterosexual marriages that we allow?
Click to expand...

hmm needs work hears a start

what loop holes would let you endanger or exploit children if you allow gay marriage, do to the fact, that gay marriage is an identical situation and institution to heterosexual marriages that we allow?
 
Paleocon said:
Procreation. Sodomy is not conducive to procreation.
Click to expand...

and so marriage with any 1 who is infertile contradicts the purpose of marriage?

and should not be allowed?

doesn't seem like you need to be married to have kids might help with raising them

but then infertile couples can raise kids and some times 1 of them is not infertile themselves and has had a child already who can benefit from marriage
 
Paleocon said:
Show a reliable source.



Should the US completely rearrange every aspect of its government? Why not?
Click to expand...

um ending the discrimination against same sex couples would not be an example of that
 
apdst said:
It wouldn't be illegal, if not for the government making it illegal.

Just WOW! :lamo
Click to expand...

I agree making something illegal just because you want it to be illegal is ridiculous
 
a351 said:
How can one make this statement? Most of our progress in the realm of social law has come through a public discussion of what should be considered moral and commonly accepted in modern societies. It's simple enough to make the argument for why SSM falls into these categories and certainly preferable to dismissing the process altogether.
Click to expand...

You missed context.
 
Paleocon said:
Procreation. Sodomy is not conducive to procreation.
Click to expand...

Procreation is not the purpose of marriage. We no understand what the problem with your argument is. At it's very core, it's foundation is incorrect.

Btw... thank you for posting that particular comment of mine in your signature. With every post, it is a constant reminder of how wrong you are.
 
Shadow Serious said:
The question is whether the existing standard of marriage is between two people of different genders and maintaining that standard somehow violates the 14th Amendment now.
Click to expand...

how it a question individuals are forbidden to make a contract and receive rights based on gender where the contract and rights have nothing to do with gender
 
Shadow Serious said:
I suspect that these decisions are more on ideological grounds than an interpretation of Constitutional Law. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer but I really do hope that these decisions are based on sound reasons and not just "we should go this way because its the 21st Century and we should do so because we think it is better". On the latter I am saying that a Judges version of the "lawyers disease" can occur. They make reasoning justifying their ruling and not being careful to see if it opens up abuses like I suggested.
Click to expand...

the ideological grounds are we should go this way because its what give are citizens equal protection under the law and that it increases liberty and fairness and are defense from the whims of others with out doing nay one any harm

the people who oppose gay marriage are more likely to bring up time often in an appeal to tradition

so im still not sure what kind of abuse your worried about
 
Shadow Serious said:
It is the assumption under common law and has been so since this country's beginnings under the Constitution until recently.






I understand this point even though I am not married nor will I ever intend to get married.




I am not the one who brought it up.



Men and women are coequal under the law but that doesn't make them identical.



I believe that is the point that in this country is a the point of contention.




I understand your point of view. But there is a difference between the State deciding between the wrong sort (which it should not) and the wrong equipment (which is in my view open).


Why

The problem is that the society needs a little time to even know how to think on such things. Some States will have same sex marriages and they already do. The best argument that I can see is that marriage with respect to the State should be separated from the religious underpinnings that are apparently behind some of the opposition. And by some time I do not mean more than say a decade since that will be enough time to go thru any legal metaphysical reasoning that each State would make arguments pro or con. I really do not want gay marriage to be the next abortion rights struggle where people are seeking to use political means to force the issue one way or another.




I do not trust government. And with respect to the Courts even the appearance of ideological motivations poisons its intended role as a means of Justice.
Click to expand...

see what I amen about bringing up time as if it was relevant coupled with an appeal to tradition
 
Paleocon said:
That the purpose of marriage is contradicted by same-sex relations.
Click to expand...

What YOU think the purpose of marriage is is contradicted by same sex relations. No one gives a **** what your holy book has to say about it. If we let your bible decide, we'd have all kinds of crazy ass marriages:

biblical-marriage.jpg


All of these are perfectly acceptable. But if a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman, then it gets disgusting! Ha!
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it does all depend on how one looks at. Personally as a child of the 1950's, I would like to return to that society. It was far from perfect, we had more than our share of problems, but society was not near a violent, we left our doors to the house unlocked, to our cars when we went to town, and Washington D.C. might was well have been on Mars for all the effect they had on us. But to each his own.
 
Shadow Serious said:
It is the assumption under common law and has been so since this country's beginnings under the Constitution until recently.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
I understand this point even though I am not married nor will I ever intend to get married.
Click to expand...
No you don't, because you called it an issue of sexual identity.
I am not the one who brought it up.
Click to expand...
You discussed it.
Men and women are coequal under the law but that doesn't make them identical.
Click to expand...
A distinction of gender is still being made under the law.
I believe that is the point that in this country is a the point of contention.
Click to expand...
Equal protection on the basis of gender is not a point of contention.
I understand your point of view. But there is a difference between the State deciding between the wrong sort (which it should not) and the wrong equipment (which is in my view open).
Click to expand...
What do you mean "wrong equipment" and "wrong sort?"

The problem is that the society needs a little time to even know how to think on such things. Some States will have same sex marriages and they already do. The best argument that I can see is that marriage with respect to the State should be separated from the religious underpinnings that are apparently behind some of the opposition. And by some time I do not mean more than say a decade since that will be enough time to go thru any legal metaphysical reasoning that each State would make arguments pro or con. I really do not want gay marriage to be the next abortion rights struggle where people are seeking to use political means to force the issue one way or another.
Click to expand...
I see no reason to wait until people are comfortable with civil rights.
Marriage with respect to the state is separated from the religious underpinnings. The government doesn't care whether or not you got married in a church or a 7-11.
I do not trust government. And with respect to the Courts even the appearance of ideological motivations poisons its intended role as a means of Justice.
Click to expand...
Actions are more important than appearances. Reality is more important than opinion. People are being discriminated against and it needs to stop.
 
Perotista said:
Exactly, it does all depend on how one looks at. Personally as a child of the 1950's, I would like to return to that society. It was far from perfect, we had more than our share of problems, but society was not near a violent, we left our doors to the house unlocked, to our cars when we went to town, and Washington D.C. might was well have been on Mars for all the effect they had on us. But to each his own.
Click to expand...

The 1950s was ****ed up. Your childhood memories seem nicer because you were a child at the time. You weren't aware of how ****ed up things were because children don't know these things.
 
Shadow Serious said:
That is absolutely true. The main issue is where the Rights of the People are and the Powers of the State are. The set up that we have is a sort of Game with subtle rules and I do not trust the State much farther than I trust the Federal part of government. That said since determining what is considered valid for marriage is at the State level is very much an established given. I do not trust what I see is a arbitrary rulings on the Federal Courts against the State laws here.
Click to expand...

Then you are simply in denial of the obvious. The state has to be able to justify restrictions in its laws that show people being treated differently, unequal. That is the EPC of the 14th, and it has been extended to laws when it comes to marriage and it has included all sorts of characteristics used to determine restrictions, many times with those things being struck down (Turner v Safley, Zablocki v Redhail, and Loving v VA). Those are all cases where state marriage restrictions were struck down as unconstitutional because the state was unable to show how those restrictions actually further any state interest. Currently, they cannot show how restricting marriage based on sex/gender furthers any legitimate state interest.
 
Shadow Serious said:
I tend to think marriage in more metaphysical terms than those of contract law. Entering into contracts is a fundamental right so marriage would follow there.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court ruling was a split decision by ideological Judges. Because of that I do not trust the Courts as guarantors of Rights here. Since the Judges who are ruling on behalf of gay marriage seem to be ideological I cannot assume that this is a good ground on the issue so I worry.


I would have to agree that the government and marriage may have to be separated eventually. I do not care if same sex marriage exists (or not) I personally do not intend to marry myself and my only concern in this is that the Court uses good reasoning if they determine that the Power of the State must be tempered in the case of gay marriage. And I do not hate gay people.
Click to expand...

The part of marriage we are discussing is contract law. Same sex couples can already have the metaphysical/personal marriage. The contract is what is being denied to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom