• 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!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]

wolfsgirl said:
1. Civil unions and domestic partnerships do not provide equal protection of the laws (14th amendment)
2. Not being legally married denies the 1100+ federal benefits and protections of marriage to same sex couples. Again not equal protection of the law (14th amendment)
3. Not all rights are enumerated in the constitution. The supreme court has deemed marriage fundamental right in 14 separate cases.

AMENDMENT XIV

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.

We have laws and legal protections called marriage.
The state can not deny equal protections of the laws without showing how doing so would further a compelling state interest.
Click to expand...

Wrong, a civil union can be whatever you want it to be as can a domestic partnership. Marriage is not an equal protection issue it is a state issue no matter how many times you state it. Exactly what benefits do married people have that cannot be provided in a civil union or domestic partnership
 
Paperview said:
Ah, so you're against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Well alrighty then.
Click to expand...

What part of stupidity don't you understand. A private business owner should be allowed to be stupid and lose their business because of that stupidity.
 
Paperview said:
BTW: Heads up: The AZ law was vetoed.

Too bad. So sad.
Click to expand...

No person who believes in free enterprise and capitalism should ever deny another business person's right to be stupid and lose their business. You seem to not understand that concept
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, a civil union can be whatever you want it to be as can a domestic partnership. Marriage is not an equal protection issue it is a state issue no matter how many times you state it. Exactly what benefits do married people have that cannot be provided in a civil union or domestic partnership
Click to expand...

Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities such as:

  • Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
  • Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
  • Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
  • Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
  • ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
  • Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
  • Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
  • Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
  • The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization. LINK
I suspect you knew this though.
 
AGENT J said:
Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down - ABC News
credit: wolfsgirl


Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Gay Marriage Ban - NBC News
Federal judge strikes down Texas ban on gay marriage, postpones action pending appeal | Fox News

Judge Calls Texas Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional - WSJ.com
Judge Rules Texas' Gay Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional | The Texas Tribune

Wooooowhooooo and another one goes down
2/26/14 Version 5.2

22 States with Equal Rights (4 pending)

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 Currently Stayed and wiil be ruled on with OK)
Oklahoma - Currently Stayed and wiil be ruled on with UT)
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - Janurary 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Kentucky - Feburary 2/14/14 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages) which will lead to their ban being defeated
Virgina - Feburary 2/14/14 (Stayed)
Texas - Feburary 2/26/2014 (pening 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective

18 States Working Towards Equal Rights

10 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska (Suit to be filed this month)
Idaho
Louisiana
Michigan (Feb 2014 Trial)
Mississippi
North Carolina
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)
West Virginia

4 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decesion Pending and 2016 ballot)
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Colorado
Florida
Oregon

thats 39 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

Also 3 State Attorney Generals no longer defending the constitutionality of bans, joining the case against them or reviewing their constitutionality
Nevada
Oregon
Pennsylvania

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

This will certainly be good for Republicans in the coming elections.
 
Conservative said:
What part of stupidity don't you understand. A private business owner should be allowed to be stupid and lose their business because of that stupidity.
Click to expand...

Worked back then,

jacksonMI_dfe5511ec4_fullsize_zps31a51071.jpg


Right?
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, a civil union can be whatever you want it to be as can a domestic partnership. Marriage is not an equal protection issue it is a state issue no matter how many times you state it. Exactly what benefits do married people have that cannot be provided in a civil union or domestic partnership
Click to expand...

Wrong, the federal government does not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. If the federal government does not recognize them then they do not get those 1100+ benefits and legal protections that go with marriage. That is not equal protection of the law.
 
Paperview said:
Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities such as:

  • Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
  • Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
  • Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
  • Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
  • ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
  • Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
  • Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
  • Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
  • The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization. LINK
I suspect you knew this though.
Click to expand...

Of course I knew that and also know that it is as easy as changing the law in Congress to grant those rights to a civil union but no, you want to overturn centuries of common law and tradition and the question is why?
 
wolfsgirl said:
Wrong, the federal government does not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. If the federal government does not recognize them then they do not get those 1100+ benefits and legal protections that go with marriage. That is not equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an easy solution to me vs. what you are doing
 
Conservative said:
Never really understood why people like you would openly support stupidity. Let these dumbasses go out of business
Click to expand...

100 years of segregating them and denying them equal rights - after slavery --, and decades and decades of Jim Crow laws shouted they would have just gone out of business. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.


So what if people are denied equal protection, amirite? Let that invisible hand of the free market work it's magic.

lol You people crackle me up.
 
Paperview said:
100 years of segregating them and denying them equal rights - after slavery --, and decades and decades of Jim Crow laws shouted they would have just gone out of business. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.


So what if people are denied equal protection, amirite? Let that invisible hand of the free market work it's magic.

lol You people crackle me up.
Click to expand...


Again, you miss the point, why would you support by spending your money in a location that didn't want you as a customer? You people are the ones cracking me up. Anyone that discriminates should lose their business because of stupidity and losing business yet you prop them up by forcing customers into their business. That makes absolutely no sense
 
Conservative said:
It is the malcontents who aren't getting their way that call laws bad. Sounds like a bunch of spoiled kids not getting their way. There is absolutely no reason that a civil union or domestic partnership wouldn't suffice vs. overturning centuries of tradition and common law
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with calling it a civil union if we did that for all marriages. Otherwise it's "seperate but equal" which is unconstitutional.

So I wonder if you felt the same way about the legal challenge to Obamacare - malcontents who did get their way?
 
Conservative said:
Sounds like an easy solution to me vs. what you are doing
Click to expand...

Changing every law concerning marriage to include civil unions is easier that removing the gender restriction?

Seriously? There are thousands of laws that are related to marriage and the benefits and protections of marriage. There is one gender restriction per state. Are you claiming that changing 27+/- laws is more difficult than changing THOUSANDS of laws and all government forms that pertain to marital status?
 
rocket88 said:
I'd be fine with calling it a civil union if we did that for all marriages. Otherwise it's "seperate but equal" which is unconstitutional.

So I wonder if you felt the same way about the legal challenge to Obamacare - malcontents who did get their way?
Click to expand...

You people are really brainwashed, marriage isn't in the Constitution no matter how many times you say it. As for Obamacare, that is a personal choice issue that shouldn't be handled by the Federal Govt. either and should be a state issue. You big govt. liberals are all alike
 
wolfsgirl said:
Changing every law concerning marriage to include civil unions is easier that removing the gender restriction?

Seriously? There are thousands of laws that are related to marriage and the benefits and protections of marriage. There is one gender restriction per state. Are you claiming that changing 27+/- laws is more difficult than changing THOUSANDS of laws and all government forms that pertain to marital status?
Click to expand...

Marriage is common law, not a civil rights issue. There are a lot of common law issues so tell me what is next on the spoiled child list to overturn?
 
Conservative said:
Gender means man and woman, States have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. You have the same rights as I have, you don't like it, take it up with states and have the states change the law, many have. Stop going to the courts. If the people of TX support SSM then so be it. Texans don't like Courts ruling on something that doesn't exist in the Constitution
Click to expand...

They said that about interracial marriage bans. Everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

Rejected.
 
Conservative said:
You people are really brainwashed, marriage isn't in the Constitution no matter how many times you say it. As for Obamacare, that is a personal choice issue that shouldn't be handled by the Federal Govt. either and should be a state issue. You big govt. liberals are all alike
Click to expand...

Equal protection is, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

It's a gender-based distinction to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Therefore it is subject to challenge under equal protection, thus forcing the state to justify that distinction. You can whine about it all you want, but this is how equal protection works in this country and there's a century of case law backing me up.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You people are really brainwashed, marriage isn't in the Constitution no matter how many times you say it. As for Obamacare, that is a personal choice issue that shouldn't be handled by the Federal Govt. either and should be a state issue. You big govt. liberals are all alike
Click to expand...

Separate but equal is unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court at least. This was a state law, which was challenged. Texas does have to follow the Constitution, I'm sorry if you don't like it.

You're calling me brainwashed? You're the one who likes court challenges when you don't like the law, but if you do it's "malcontents not getting their way." Keep drinking that red Kool Aid.
 
Deuce said:
They said that about interracial marriage bans. Everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

Rejected.
Click to expand...

Well that was different because, you know, it just was.
 
Deuce said:
They said that about interracial marriage bans. Everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

Rejected.
Click to expand...

Last I checked in Loving vs. Va one was a man and the other was a woman. Had nothing to do with gender but everything to do with race. Such passion you people have for this issue. Sure glad to see your priorities are straight. High unemployment, no problem, high debt, no problem, low economic growth, no problem, but focus on those social issues and all will be well. You people are really screwed up
 
rocket88 said:
Separate but equal is unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court at least. This was a state law, which was challenged. Texas does have to follow the Constitution, I'm sorry if you don't like it.

You're calling me brainwashed? You're the one who likes court challenges when you don't like the law, but if you do it's "malcontents not getting their way." Keep drinking that red Kool Aid.
Click to expand...

Except when it comes to common law and state issues. you don't like the law change it in the states, quit looking to the courts to do the work for you.
 
Conservative said:
You people are really brainwashed, marriage isn't in the Constitution no matter how many times you say it. As for Obamacare, that is a personal choice issue that shouldn't be handled by the Federal Govt. either and should be a state issue. You big govt. liberals are all alike
Click to expand...

Marriage is a fundament right that predates the US constitution. Just as the right to self defense does also. Those are right held by the people for eons prior to 1787.

Marriage is a quarenteed rights upheld countless times in American Jurisprudence precent. The Spreme court in Loving v Virginia ruling made marriage a right protected by the US Constitution.

Cheif Justic Earl Warren:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Click to expand...

That is pretty clear marriage is a fundamental right protected by the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
Marriage is a fundament right that predates the US constitution. Just as the right to self defense does also. Those are right held by the people for eons prior to 1787.

Marriage is a quarenteed right upheld countless times in American Jurisprudence precent. The Spreme court in Loving v Virginia ruling made marriage a right protected by the US Constitution.



That is pretty clear marriage is a fundamental right protected by the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

It is indeed a fundamental right to marry under the laws of the state. You are entitled to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have you and to make anything more than that out of the ruling is wishful thinking on an issue that isn't really worth the effort other than malcontents throwing a tantrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom