• 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]

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
100,424
Reaction score
53,133
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
DETROIT — In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, a federal judge Friday struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony just like their heterosexual counterparts.

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.
 
This seems so silly to me. It's obvious that SSM is here to stay . . . that it's going to be ruled unconstitutional to ban it. Why are states wasting taxpayer money trying to fight it?? Taxpayers should be furious.

Because there are taxpayers that want these bans no matter the monetary cost. They can't see past their own selves enough to realize that trying to ban it is a lost cause.
 
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.
 
This seems so silly to me. It's obvious that SSM is here to stay . . . that it's going to be ruled unconstitutional to ban it. Why are states wasting taxpayer money trying to fight it?? Taxpayers should be furious.
To endorse the people to act like Nero seems ill fated to me. Taxpayers should be furious about their will being countermanded by a tyranny of the few.

We had a revolution about that.
 
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.
Yes, that is what they said about getting rid of slavery at one point as well. Your proclamations to the contrary, all such injustice will be eventually rooted out. No doubt replaced by another one that we will have to manage then eventually iron out... its always a moving target and always trying to get it right, or at least better.

ACA [boo-bamacare], SSM and abortion are not the saviors, they amongst the ragged holes needing a good patching back up.
 
To endorse the people to act like Nero seems ill fated to me. Taxpayers should be furious about their will being countermanded by a tyranny of the few.

We had a revolution about that.

IMO, the majority of people in the United States couldn't care any less that SSM is allowed. So, yes, taxpayers should be furious that the tyranny of a few is wasting their money. You've just picked the wrong side.
 
Scary.

So We, you know, the People, do not get to decide what is acceptable and not in our own culture anymore?

Correct.

The People, through the govt, get to decide what is legal (not acceptable) but only within the limits set by our constitution.

As an individual, you can accept (or not) whatever you choose. However, you must obey the law or suffer the consequences.
 
Yes, that is what they said about getting rid of slavery at one point as well. Your proclamations to the contrary, all such injustice will be eventually rooted out. No doubt replaced by another one that we will have to manage then eventually iron out... its always a moving target and always trying to get it right, or at least better.

ACA [boo-bamacare], SSM and abortion are not the saviors, they amongst the ragged holes needing a good patching back up.

I don't remember "them" saying that about slavery....probably because I wasn't there to listen, and no one bothered to write is down for me.

By the way....thanks for showing the validity of my point.
 
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.

Sure you can. As long as you don't try to suppress other peoples Rights. Just like its always been.
 
Because there are taxpayers that want these bans no matter the monetary cost. They can't see past their own selves enough to realize that trying to ban it is a lost cause.
That is one way of looking at it. There are others. We have accepted majority rules with the provision for minority rights... this manner of accomplishing one's cultural aims seems a slight circumvention of those noble concepts.

It is when we ignore these truths that trouble starts brewing.
 
This is simply a stupid and easily settled issue:

Don't like SSM....don't marry someone of the same sex.
Don't like Abortion....don't have one.
Don't like Broccoli...don't eat it.
 
IMO, the majority of people in the United States couldn't care any less that SSM is allowed. So, yes, taxpayers should be furious that the tyranny of a few is wasting their money. You've just picked the wrong side.
Yes, we understand the above is your opinion. Many of these bans, or in many cases only a statement of what is considered in the culture to be rightful marriage, has been through the arduous paces of becoming an amendment. That is an indication of the common will...a willingness to jump through all the hoops necessary, deliberately and persistently enough to become a solid declaration of the citizen's will.

You see, We the People are still sovereign... we only give our consent to be governed... the will of the people to decide their own culture should not denied...sorry we need to disagree on that.
 
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.
False, you can decide for yourself what is acceptable, but you don't have the right to decide what rights people have, that is left for the Congress and the courts to decide. The tyranny of the majority...
 
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.

There is no provison in the Constitution that provides 'culture' equal protection...
 
Correct.

The People, through the govt, get to decide what is legal (not acceptable) but only within the limits set by our constitution.

As an individual, you can accept (or not) whatever you choose. However, you must obey the law or suffer the consequences.
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?
 
I don't remember "them" saying that about slavery....probably because I wasn't there to listen, and no one bothered to write is down for me.

By the way....thanks for showing the validity of my point.
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
 
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.

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.
 
False, you can decide for yourself what is acceptable, but you don't have the right to decide what rights people have, that is left for the Congress and the courts to decide. The tyranny of the majority...
Speaking of False, the "Congress and the courts to decide" only in their proper areas of jurisdiction... and only then if We the People, who are the sovereigns still here, yano, say they may.

Check out the 9th and 10 amendments in our Bill of Rights... while seldom used they are still applicable. If you don't think so, amend them as prescribed by our Constitution. ;)
 
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.

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?
 
There is no provison in the Constitution that provides 'culture' equal protection...
Yes, yet we still do have the right to assemble with those we choose, to have the right to speak our minds, freedom to publish what we believe to be the right way to proceed, the right to petition our government for redress. And, of course, we have the freedom to practice the tenets of our various religions and philosophies... we also have provisions for changing how we are governed through amendment to our framework of governing. There are also reserved, enumerated and implied powers...

So when the Federal government wanders over, on purpose or through ignorance, and oversteps its boundaries, well it is sometimes that We the People that have to tell them in no uncertain terms who is still the boss here.

I think we are getting to that point here, and on boo-bamacare as well as other areas that are becoming overly concerning to which We the People can no longer just simply ignore.
 
Speaking of False, the "Congress and the courts to decide" only in their proper areas of jurisdiction... and only then if We the People,who are the sovereigns still here,yano, say they may. Check out the 9th and 10 amendments in our Bill of Rights... while seldom used they are still applicable. If you don't think so, amend them as prescribed by our Constitution.

Well yanno, you can't cherry pick the Constitution, claiming a vague right to set the 'culture' while ignoring the 14th which is very clear about equal protection.

Perhaps you can argue about the right to make everyone drink Coca-cola, but not exclude a group from full participation in that 'culture'.
 
Back
Top Bottom