• 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!

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

TheNextEra said:
So you were born after the first SSM?
Click to expand...

Considering that happened centuries ago, yeah, I was born after that took place. Oh, you mean in the US. Well no, I was born before that took place. I'm not sure how that pushes forward your argument though. Tell me, why can't I be against government marriage again? Is there some sort of reason I have to follow the thoughts of those that came before me?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Scary.

So We, you know, the People, do not get to decide what is acceptable and not in our own culture anymore? Judicial tyrants decide that for us now, do they?

Scary.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's just scrap the Constitution!
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, perhaps a study of history might be helpful then, eh?

There was the majority of the planet's history where slavery's efficacy was not even questioned...much less before it started even appearing as a blip on history's radar screen as something that needed eradication.

Oh, and there is much written, guess you need to become more of a seeker. As for proving the shallowness as well as the invalidity of the point you were making, sure...you are much welcome. :peace
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the long and universal history of slavery, as well as its acceptance for most of world history. I do not however see how your comment in any way can be seen as a rebuttal to this:

Trying to outlaw SSM makes as much sense as banning abortion or shutting down Gov't by holding your breath to stop the ACA.

You may be against these things...but they aren't going anywhere, like screaming in your bedroom when you were three and being punished for hitting your sister.
Click to expand...

You claim these things were said of slavery...and I pointed out they were not, so unless you can show that they were, you have failed and my point stands.
 
Redress said:
See, we got this thing in the US, you might have heard of it, called the constitution. Based on the constitution, specifically the 14th amendment, every one has a right to equal protection under the law. Enforcing the constitution is not judicial tyranny.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause do not say anything like what these courts are saying. Basically, this is saying that the constitution means whatever the hell the judges want it to mean. At that point the constitution ceases to matter and that means our rights cease to matter. It becomes all about what the state decides we should and should not be allowed to do with our lives.

Deuce said:
Number of persons in a contract is not a protected classification.
Click to expand...

Religion and ethnicity are protected classifications. Some religions and ethnic cultures encourage polygamy. One can easily argue by this new reasoning that polygamist religions and cultures are being discriminated against by government and thus not given the equal protection of the laws. It would be no more true than it is true in this case.

Defining marriage as between a male and a female is a gender-based classification.
Click to expand...

It is sad to see such ridiculous legal reasoning seeping its way into case law. The equal protection clause is about insuring people are not stripped of rights or have their rights infringed upon on the basis of some selective classification. At the time, it was a reaction to the Black Codes that basically allowed Southern states to re-enslave freedmen by creating a crime that was expressly targeting freedmen where the penalty included unpaid labor. You have to argue that same-sex marriage is a right before you can argue an equal protection issue.

This ruling, and others like it, are no longer about what the constitution and its amendments actually say, but rather about previous interpretations of the constitution by the courts that are themselves building on a series of earlier interpretations. Case law is great for establishing how the law is to be enforced until past court rulings essentially become new laws with no clear connection to the laws they are actually interpreting other than lip-service.
 
tecoyah said:
I am well aware of the long and universal history of slavery, as well as its acceptance for most of world history. I do not however see how your comment in any way can be seen as a rebuttal to this:



You claim these things were said of slavery...and I pointed out they were not, so unless you can show that they were, you have failed and my point stands.
Click to expand...
ummmmm... it was the claim that these thing are not going anywhere ... that is what I was commenting on... we got rid of slavery just like we will the enslavement of this new forced, against our, the majority's, will "health care" plan you say is here for the long run.

We square on that now, are we?
 
Deuce said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/21/michigan-gay-marriage-ban/671022

Another one bites the dust. It is noteworthy that not a single judge at any level has upheld a same-sex marriage ban since Windsor.
Click to expand...

AWESOME!!!
I got the alert yesterday when it happened but i was busy until now.

Heres some more links, your original isnt working.
Judge Strikes Down Michigan’s Ban on Gay Marriage - TIME
Federal judge strikes down Michigan's gay marriage ban - CNN.com
Federal judge strikes down Michigan's gay marriage ban | Fox News
Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage - CBS News
Michigan’s 1st gay marriage license issued - The Washington Post
Michigan clerks marry gay couples after judge strikes down ban - chicagotribune.com
Judge Rules Michigan's Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional - NBC News
Federal judge strikes down Michigan's gay-marriage ban | MSNBC


and yes it is a pretty important not that since the fall of DOMA there hasnt been any other rulings made in high court but in favor of equal rights for gays.

A stay is being requested and a appeal will be made which is AWESOME because pushing this higher and higher is GREAT.

I think thats my favorite thing about equality winning right now. SOme of its biggest victories have been made because or bigots and people who want to discriminate again them. WIthout bannings in place it would be harder to challenge, without people appealing all the way to state supreme courts those rulings would exist, then federal courts, then federal appeals courts, now soon SCOTUS.

Its sweet poetic justice that the bannings HELPED paved the way for equality.

all that is left now is just the last minute desperation of bigots and or those that want to discriminate and dont give two ****s about the rights of others. They see the future and they know they lost.

herse the update to the "list of doom" that you called it :)

Changes/Updates in RED
3/21/14 Version 8.0

23 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
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 Currently Stayed and will be ruled on with OK)
Oklahoma - Currently Stayed and will be ruled on with UT)
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Kentucky - February 2/14/14 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages) which will lead to their ban being defeated
Virginia - February 2/14/14 (Stayed)
Texas - February 2/26/2014 (pending 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Michigan - March - 21, 2014 (Stay being requested)

21 States Working Towards Equal Rights

13 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights[/B]
Alabama
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


5 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decision Pending and 2016 ballot)
Florida
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
Alaska
Colorado
Oregon

thats 42 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - april/may court case
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- pending
8th- two cases that the plaintiffs PLAN to take all the way up if needed but nothing pending
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")

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

6 States that still have unequal rights and nothing pending to change it yet, that’s it 6
Indiana
Montana
Nebraska
Georgia
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wyoming


#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!



also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks
 
Deuce said:
What trouble do you forsee resulting from two men or two women marrying each other?
Click to expand...
Under what law, concept or rule will society end up stopping anybody, or multiples of of anybodies, from marrying anything, or multiples of things, if we erase the traditional lines?
 
Deuce said:
What trouble do you forsee resulting from two men or two women marrying each other?
Click to expand...

there is none, one has never been presented that doesn't immediately fail and or makes no logical sense.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Under what law, concept or rule will society end up stopping anybody, or multiples of of anybodies, from marrying anything, or multiples of things, if we erase the traditional lines?
Click to expand...


since you dodged the question and just presented another we can play that game too

what "traditional lines" have been erased?
 
1750Texan said:
That is incorrect...because governmental authority over marriage already exists.

The degree of that authority would propotional over all married couples. Not one degree of authority over one lawful group versus separate and different degree of authority over another lawful group.

Authority over married couples is an irrelevant arguement.
Click to expand...

Yes, the authority already exists, and that is why I said people support expanding that authority to another group of individuals. As I said, if people actually supported liberty they would not support government authority in any marriage.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
I'm not the one getting upset about a federal judge's ruling. ;)
Click to expand...

sometimes people get very upset when other peoples rights are protected, its simply because they are the wrong "other people"
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
ummmmm... it was the claim that these thing are not going anywhere ... that is what I was commenting on... we got rid of slavery just like we will the enslavement of this new forced, against our, the majority's, will "health care" plan you say is here for the long run.

We square on that now, are we?
Click to expand...

I see...so we can extrapolate the short term current effects from the long term historical culture of slavery.

I will easily agree current law will change over time, as it always does. I will also point out however, that dramatic cultural change is an entirely different animal in both timeframe and scope. The only correlation I can see here would be the shift in our culture to increased personal freedom, which points also to my point being correct.
 
Henrin said:
Considering that happened centuries ago, yeah, I was born after that took place. Oh, you mean in the US. Well no, I was born before that took place. I'm not sure how that pushes forward your argument though. Tell me, why can't I be against government marriage again? Is there some sort of reason I have to follow the thoughts of those that came before me?
Click to expand...

Oh you can be against government marriage just be honest about it. People like yourself didn't care about government being involved in marriage UNTIL gays started to get married.
 
TheNextEra said:
Oh you can be against government marriage just be honest about it. People like yourself didn't care about government being involved in marriage UNTIL gays started to get married.
Click to expand...

When the gay marriage issue started I was pretty young and wasn't even thinking about the marriage issue. Hell, I didn't even know anything about it back then.
 
tecoyah said:
I see...so we can extrapolate the short term current effects from the long term historical culture of slavery.

I will easily agree current law will change over time, as it always does. I will also point out however, that dramatic cultural change is an entirely different animal in both timeframe and scope. The only correlation I can see here would be the shift in our culture to increased personal freedom, which points also to my point being correct.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is just about the only issue people desire more freedom, and even there it's mostly bull****.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your projected ignorance of the matter is simply that.

Calling something a "gender-based" issue does not in any way make the issue subject to the equal protection clause.

The issue itself must be truly gender-based. This issue is not gender based.

Both the male and female genders have every right to be married, thus there is no gender discrimination in the matter.

That marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife is constitutionally acceptable, allowing both genders to participate, without bias.

Your erroneous application of gender-based would allow a woman to enter the men's locker room, strip, and take a show with the men, against gym rules .. or vice versa. For the sake of social propriety, there is nothing in the constitution that forbids the gym from creating these rules, banning any member who violates them.

If a woman/man who enters the opposite gender shower finds another of the opposite sex there who doesn't mind, or in fact encourages it, in no way constitutes a valid constitutional appeal to the gym's rule; just because a relative few are okay with the violation does in no way validate the violation, much less make the matter a "gender-based" issue.
Click to expand...

This logic was rejected along with interracial marriage bans. Your argument, stated simply, is "everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender." Previously it was "everyone has the same right to marry someone of the same race."

And for the 900th time, no, equal protection is not universal. Your gym example is wrong. Protecting the privacy of an individual is a state interest and separate wash facilities further that interest.
That you lament my accurate dog/cat analogy is because again, it is an accurate commonly understood presentation that illustrates the oxymoronic "gay-marriage" violation of both definitive and social propriety, which, of course, flies in the face of your erroneous take on the matter.
Click to expand...
Your dog/cat analogy is erroneous, clearly, because dogs aren't humans.

Your concern of understanding "equal protection" is not at issue here.

What's at issue here is grasping when application of "equal protection" is not appropriate .. or, in your case, contrived for the sake of ideological gain at the expense of both definitive and social propriety.

Your attempt to apply the equal protection clause via appeal to "gender based" is rightly rejected.
Click to expand...

It is appropriate. Your attempt to dismiss it is clearly erroneous. A gender-based distinction is being made that furthers no state interest whatsoever.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Under what law, concept or rule will society end up stopping anybody, or multiples of of anybodies, from marrying anything, or multiples of things, if we erase the traditional lines?
Click to expand...

Slippery slope fallacy. Pathetic.
 
Deuce said:
Slippery slope fallacy. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

It's not even a legitimate slippery slope, as the other things do not really connect to the issue at hand even a little.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Scary.

So We, you know, the People, do not get to decide what is acceptable and not in our own culture anymore? Judicial tyrants decide that for us now, do they?

Scary.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Some people do find tolerance scary.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
America's ayatollahs strike again. So much for constitution, it means what they say it means. So much for the will of the people in their own state, it just doesn't matter. Don't fret, they're benevolent tyrants, they only want what they think is the very best for you.
 
shrubnose said:
Some people do find tolerance scary.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Click to expand...

so true

its sad theres so many people that believe in rights and freedom and equality but ONLY for themselves and not others
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom