• 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

It's an interesting idea, but Zablocki is pretty tangential to marriage cases, as opposed to Loving and Griswold, which protected marriage and marital privacy with strict scrutiny, and Lawrence, which eschews the more common forms of scrutiny, but most resembles strict.

Either way, I think the big thing that will be necessary to really protect SSM is for it to be afforded the same level of constitutional protections that heterosexual marriage enjoys. Rational basis simply won't cut it, and I think that will be the real moment when the debate comes to an end.

I don't think there is a problem with rational basis covering it because there simply isn't a rational reason that restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender further any state interest at all, anywhere.
 
your statement is exactly why I would take away benefits, people marry now days for the strict financial benefits. In a free society people should not be dependent on the government.

People get the legal marriage mainly for the legal protections of marriage, not the financial benefits (not most anyway). But that isn't their main reason for getting married. The logic is flawed because it makes assumptions about others that really aren't (for the most part) true.
 
Except you fail to recognize that there exists a marriage penalty for some marriages that makes up for almost any money that other couples get from tax breaks in their marriage and that weddings and marriages themselves provide extra revenue to numerous businesses that then pay taxes for that. Married people tend to be more responsible than single people, meaning they are more likely to provide for themselves/each other, rather than relying on others to provide for them. Married people tend to buy larger ticket items together, such as houses rather than living in apartments. This means multiple more revenue streams for the state. The sexes/genders of those involved in the marriages doesn't change these facts.

Those links I provided plus so many more explain these things much better and why your logic fails. You are thinking of this way too simplistically, likely because you don't (for whatever real reason) don't want same sex couples to get married and it really has nothing to do with this feigned concern for the economic or financial impact of allowing same sex marriage.

well as was said earlier by someone on the other end of this debate is that gays can get "married" now but just reap no benefits. so all these things you are talking about is more of the mind set of being married no actual benefits. So without legalizing gay marriage you can still have all the benefits you stated and not have more loop holes to our system.
 
well as was said earlier by someone on the other end of this debate is that gays can get "married" now but just reap no benefits.


Actually that's not true, since we are talking about the legal aspects of "marriage" anyone that gets Civilly Married (i.e. those recognized as valid under the law) do receive the legal rights, responsibilities, and benefits of such a Civil Marriage. Some are denied these from the State, but all valid Civil Marriages are recognized by the Federal government now based on the jurisdiction of where the Civil Marriage was entered into.



>>>>
 
well as was said earlier by someone on the other end of this debate is that gays can get "married" now but just reap no benefits. so all these things you are talking about is more of the mind set of being married no actual benefits. So without legalizing gay marriage you can still have all the benefits you stated and not have more loop holes to our system.

If I can reap benefits from it though, so should same sex couples. And most of those benefits have no effect on you or the economy at all. How is it bad that a spouse can get time off work (by law) to be there for their spouse and pay their own respects should their spouse's relatives die? This is covered by marriage laws. How is it bad that a person is given entitlement to something they bought with their spouse should the spouse die without having to either pay taxes for that or be challenged over it by disgruntled family members who simply did not approve of the marriage?

You still haven't shown how marriage does harm to our society, whereas I've provided evidence that shows that marriage not only benefits society as a whole, but even on a financial level. All you have given us is your opinion that seems to be based solely on a dislike of same sex marriage.

Without legalizing same sex marriages, same sex couples are not treated equally under the law to opposite sex couples, and you can't show any legitimate reason why they shouldn't be. Speculation of possible future problems isn't proof or even evidence of any reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. You cannot show that there would be a heavy increase in people getting married to someone of the same sex purely for benefits.
 
your statement is exactly why I would take away benefits, people marry now days for the strict financial benefits. In a free society people should not be dependent on the government.

Other than social security, and possibly tax benefits there are not a whole lot of financial benefits of marriage. There are tons of legal protections though.
 
The funny thing is that some couple tried this (and in fact got away with it for years) up in Washington. The woman claimed she was a single mother renting part of a house (a rather large house) from this man (who was claimed to be just her landlord and nothing more) in Washington state. The state paid her rent and some utilities plus she got extras. The state eventually found out that she was in fact married to the man she was "renting" from and that they had defrauded the government out of millions (that I believe they have to pay back, I know they got into major trouble for it). Such a scam though would easily work if the couple simply doesn't get married. They could even set up private contracts to cover some of the stuff done through marriage.

The thing is, those contracts are bunk. I have a medical POA, and was still denied entrance into my fiancees room during a visit to the ER. I have seen wills overturned by family members that didn't approve of a couple, family members that had not been a part of their lives for over a decade.
I have spent thousands of dollars to attorneys to try to protect myself and my family as best I can, but I also know that those contracts can be overturned by a judge.
 
The thing is, those contracts are bunk. I have a medical POA, and was still denied entrance into my fiancees room during a visit to the ER. I have seen wills overturned by family members that didn't approve of a couple, family members that had not been a part of their lives for over a decade.
I have spent thousands of dollars to attorneys to try to protect myself and my family as best I can, but I also know that those contracts can be overturned by a judge.

Oh I agree if you want the legitimate marriage thing and that is your reason for wanting to get married. But if a couple is more interested in not getting caught defrauding the government, then...
 
you open the door for allowing people to marry there best friend for the benefits not for actually being gay homo sexuality is such a minority... that for the benefits that would come to homosexuals is out weighed by the negatives, so I stick to my above noted compromise to create equality.

If there are negatives with homosexuals, there are also negatives with heterosexuals. One group is not likely any more inclined to abuse than the other.
 
I don't think there is a problem with rational basis covering it because there simply isn't a rational reason that restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender further any state interest at all, anywhere.

It is true that no such rational reason exists, but having different standards for one type of marriage than for the other reinforces a separation that really oughtn't to be there.
 
Every argument has to have a principle to it so my question is this... Allowing gay marriage benefits gays in what way?

The benefit is that we are seen as equal. We will have the same rights to marry the person we love. When you stand on the majority side it is easy for them many to look down their noses at the minority.
I think the proposal in Oklahoma is awesome. They will ban all marriage. Then the majority will find out what it's like. I think it would serve them all right. Equal is the benefit.
 
The "person I love" argument is an extremely poor ones, me is the case with most emotional based political arguments. It's one of the only arguments that actually legitimately can be said applies equally to polygamy, incest, and under-age marriage.
 
The "person I love" argument is an extremely poor ones, me is the case with most emotional based political arguments. It's one of the only arguments that actually legitimately can be said applies equally to polygamy, incest, and under-age marriage.

Not sure I agree. It can be stated more narrowly. But objection to a personal choice, which a mate is, and who we live is big in that choice here, has to have more behind it than a group of people don't like it. There has to be a valid reason to oppose it. Goes for anything you can list (such a list is usual used to taint homosexuals).
 
Everything being said is debating what is more beneficial. the simple logical fact is you cant have reduced taxes and more government handouts and at the same time also have more taxes for the government and less government spending. So I will just again say the compromise would be taking away any benefits that heterosexuals have in order to provide equality. it may not be what you want to create equality but is something that I am wiling to compromise on to make sure homosexuals are equal.

All tax cuts are bad, you heard it here.

Also, Texashonor wants spouses to be compelled to testify against each other, wants to eliminate automatic child custody/inheritance, wants to eliminate automatic medical power of attorney... on and on.
 
All tax cuts are bad, you heard it here.

Also, Texashonor wants spouses to be compelled to testify against each other, wants to eliminate automatic child custody/inheritance, wants to eliminate automatic medical power of attorney... on and on.

Yup me as a heterosexual male am willing as YOU said again I repeat YOU SAID. I am willing to give up MY RIGHTS to testify against my spouse, Medical power of attorney so on and so forth so that YOU may be equal I am sacrificing because you argument is I have rights that YOU dont and I AM willing to give up the rights I HAVE to make sure YOU ARE EQUAL.
 
Yup me as a heterosexual male am willing as YOU said again I repeat YOU SAID. I am willing to give up MY RIGHTS to testify against my spouse, Medical power of attorney so on and so forth so that YOU may be equal I am sacrificing because you argument is I have rights that YOU dont and I AM willing to give up the rights I HAVE to make sure YOU ARE EQUAL.

And why does this make more sense then granting the rights to same sex couples?
 
Every argument has to have a principle to it so my question is this... Allowing gay marriage benefits gays in what way?

the principle is equal rights :shrug:

very easy to understand
 
And why does this make more sense then granting the rights to same sex couples?

by doing this gays would have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
 
by doing this gays would have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

making all americans have LESS rights and ALL OF US have rights infringed on

no thanks thats stupid
 
@ Deuce

there are not as many Pros as there are Cons simple fact and the second argument goes to if you agree with Gays then how can you make Polygamy illegal. as long as things are consensual then why have them illegal?

Ah. The slippery slope logical fallacy... coupled with the false equivalency logical fallacy. Here's a tip. There is no reason to believe that SSM will lead to polygamy... AND SSM and polygamy are not equivelent... nor is SSM and marrying your brother, a child, or an animal. So, ALL of these arguments are nothing but logical fallacies and diversions. Just thought you should know.
 
by doing this gays would have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

yep very good but I think a lot of us want gay right and hetero sexual rights to be equal to one another because their equivalent to one another and we want to do this without taking rights away from either of them
 
yep very good but I think a lot of us want gay right and hetero sexual rights to be equal to one another because their equivalent to one another and we want to do this without taking rights away from either of them

well as people always say we live in a republic so the majority rules and I could see a majority of people saying that if it were deemed unconstitutional that they would be more willing to give up there rights as heterosexual couples then have an unbalanced system.
 
well as people always say we live in a republic so the majority rules and I could see a majority of people saying that if it were deemed unconstitutional that they would be more willing to give up there rights as heterosexual couples then have an unbalanced system.

honestly I see the majority of people supporting gay marriage with a minority opposing and a smaller minority against all legal marriage
 
honestly I see the majority of people supporting gay marriage with a minority opposing and a smaller minority against all legal marriage

It doesnt matter what "you see" or what you want to see you have to stick to the facts. It is a fact that the majority of people don't support gay marriage and that isn't an estimation, it is a fact.
 
It doesnt matter what "you see" or what you want to see you have to stick to the facts. It is a fact that the majority of people don't support gay marriage and that isn't an estimation, it is a fact.

not so sure about that and its defiantly not a fact that most people would rather give up legal marriage then let gay people have it
 
Back
Top Bottom