• 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]

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...

We do decide, via the US Constitution. We the people have decided that the states and other people, even a majority, cannot take treat groups unfairly under the law without showing that this treatment furthers some legitimate state interest (the 14th Amendment, EPC). That takes precedent over any vote the people make, whether direct (via ballot) or indirect (via representatives).
 
roguenuke said:
We do decide, via the US Constitution. We the people have decided that the states and other people, even a majority, cannot take treat groups unfairly under the law without showing that this treatment furthers some legitimate state interest (the 14th Amendment, EPC). That takes precedent over any vote the people make, whether direct (via ballot) or indirect (via representatives).
Click to expand...

The courts decide these matters. The people many times get abused by the state when they make a ruling. This time just happens to be an exception to the rule in the case of the later.
 
clownboy said:
America's ayatollahs strike again.
Click to expand...
 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.
Click to expand...




Anyone who doesn't like the way that we do things in the USA needs to re-write the constitution or move to Saudi Arabia.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone who doesn't like the way that we do things in the USA needs to re-write the constitution or move to Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is fine the way it is written. The problem is the court has assumed powers they were never given.
 
Henrin said:
Gay marriage is just about the only issue people desire more freedom, and even there it's mostly bull****.
Click to expand...

Look down, your slip (ignorance) is showing.

"People" desire freedom in more ways than I could possibly present.

I understand you do not like "The Gays".....but your opinion is a bit irrelevant in society.
 
tecoyah said:
Look down, your slip (ignorance) is showing.

"People" desire freedom in more ways than I could possibly present.

I understand you do not like "The Gays".....but your opinion is a bit irrelevant in society.
Click to expand...

When have I even hinted at caring about gays, let alone not liking them? There is very little about this issue that involves freedom, and no, the people actually don't desire freedom. Most people desire safety, which calls for the restriction of freedom.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes...and so...what?? Marriage, is not/should not be under the purview of the Federal government, for one thing. Those powers of conferment of such statuses are reserved to the states.

So the federal government through the federal courts are attempting a raw power grab of powers they don't, and should not, have.

The majority of the people may not be truly opposed to SSM, but on the other hand they may not truly be for it either, nationally. And so we should let the people in those communities in those states choose their own culture. Vote with your feet if you do not like it... but to impose the minority will on the majority, well, that smacks of tyranny...but...

Who cares about tyranny as long as you get what you want, right?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Works for me.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone who doesn't like the way that we do things in the USA needs to re-write the constitution or move to Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

No need, it's come to us. The black-robed ayatollahs have full control over our country.
 
Deuce said:
This is America. In America we believe in this thing called individual liberty.
I find Justin Bieber concerts "unacceptable" for teenage girls. Should they be illegal?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




No, but attendance needs to remain optional.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why does the constitution mean what you say it means?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes...and so...what?? Marriage, is not/should not be under the purview of the Federal government, for one thing. Those powers of conferment of such statuses are reserved to the states.

So the federal government through the federal courts are attempting a raw power grab of powers they don't, and should not, have.

The majority of the people may not be truly opposed to SSM, but on the other hand they may not truly be for it either, nationally. And so we should let the people in those communities in those states choose their own culture. Vote with your feet if you do not like it... but to impose the minority will on the majority, well, that smacks of tyranny...but...

Who cares about tyranny as long as you get what you want, right?
Click to expand...

It's a power reserved for the states in accordance with the constitution. For some reason you left out the second part.

It doesn't matter how many people vote for it, an equal protection violation is an equal protection violation.

You are on the side of tyrants. Not me. You are the one demanding that the minority rights be suppressed based on your personal disapproval.
 
Deuce said:
On this subject, liberals are absolutely on the side of individual liberty.
If you call yourself a libertarian and are against legalizing same-sex marriage, you should ponder the apparent discrepancy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




He should, but will he?
 
clownboy said:
No need, it's come to us. The black-robed ayatollahs have full control over our country.
Click to expand...

Aww, poor guy is mad about losing his right to vote away someone else's rights. :(
 
Deuce said:
Why does the constitution mean what you say it means?
Click to expand...

the funny thing is the consitution was upheld in this ruling not infringed on

its all crap and more DESPERATION to deny equal rights to people, practice bigotry or discriminated against them

slippery slope (moronic)
religion (meaningless and not impacted by legal marriage)
tradition (meaningless and not impacted by legal marriage)
sanctity (meaningless and not impacted by legal marriage)
states rights (100% not infringed on by protecting individual rights)
government shouldn't be involved in any marriage(only after equal rights started winning and government will ALWAYS need to be involved)
votes of the people (people dont get to vote away others rights)

all completely failed arguments that nobody educated, honest and objective takes seriously because they are all based on intellectually dishonest hyperbole that people simply dont buy.
 
shrubnose said:
I am not under the impression that I can be forced to marry anyone.

In any case, I'm already married.
Click to expand...

I was confused because that would be the counterpart to the forced Bieber attendance. (which is not only unconstitutional, but easily qualifies as a war crime)
 
Deuce said:
Why does the constitution mean what you say it means?
Click to expand...

Words have established meaning. At least they did when the document was authored. In fact the framers even wrote down their thoughts, explaining what they meant when they wrote those words. Of course that's apparently no longer the case and it's a "living constitution", which means words mean whatever the ayatollahs of the current generation say they mean.
 
Henrin said:
The courts decide these matters. The people many times get abused by the state when they make a ruling. This time just happens to be an exception to the rule in the case of the later.
Click to expand...

In many cases, the people don't. You know how you can tell? If the people felt the Court was ruling something against their wishes, they could push for an Amendment to counteract that ruling. That is how the people are allowed to overcome Court rulings. If enough people really want it, they are free to make that Amendment. Any blatant contradictions to the Constitutions would take other methods, but you can't show how ruling that people have more freedom in their marriage choices blatantly violates the Constitution.
 
clownboy said:
Words have established meaning. At least they did when the document was authored. In fact the framers even wrote down their thoughts, explaining what they meant when they wrote those words. Of course that's apparently no longer the case and it's a "living constitution", which means words mean whatever the ayatollahs of the current generation say they mean.
Click to expand...

Words change meaning all the time.
 
Deuce said:
Aww, poor guy is mad about losing his right to vote away someone else's rights. :(
Click to expand...

Not mad, disappointed. My hope was people would wake up to the nonsense about a living constitution and learn to change it to suit the proper way as the framers intended. But instead the lazy ones persist, willing to allow ayatollahs to decide for us. I'm not at all comforted by the federal uber alles, nor am I at all attracted to the nanny state.
 
roguenuke said:
Words change meaning all the time.
Click to expand...

Indeed they do. However, founding documents authored under one meaning do not change their content just because you've decided you don't know the meaning of "is".
 
Deuce said:
Aww, poor guy is mad about losing his right to vote away someone else's rights. :(
Click to expand...

some people get very upset when they are no longer allowed to discriminate and deny others equality. SOme people get really mad when others rights are protected too because they only care about thier own rights.

These examples are common in gay rights thread, there are still many that dont want gays to have thier rights protection. They view them as lessers.
 
clownboy said:
Indeed they do. However, founding documents authored under one meaning do not change their content just because you've decided you don't know the meaning of "is".
Click to expand...

And the founders left plenty of leeway in what rights were being protected by the Constitution. The main purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government, not the people, when it comes to the rights of the people. This extended to states via the 14th Amendment. Still limiting the government, not the people, when it comes to rights. So the more rights the people have and the less unjustifiable restrictions in government, the closer we are in reaching what the founders set forth to do, make a country as free as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom