• 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:
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...

What power do the courts or the federal government gain by affording all the right to marry?
 
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...

Liberals really shouldn't talk of individual liberty. Well, unless they are of the classical type.
 
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...

Populism is always a force to be reckoned with and usually can be counted on to make as silly decisions as here. On the other hand, gay marriage gives us a good chance to rethink the methods we use to subsidize families. If we eliminate subsidies wasted on marriage, we would have made good progress.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
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.
Click to expand...

What trouble do you forsee resulting from two men or two women marrying each other?
 
Gipper said:
Agent J's gonna be pissed that Deuce stole his thunder.
Click to expand...

Ya snooze, ya looze!

He'll need to post an update for The List Of Doom, though.
 
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...
Oh, that's right...so you can marry your three year old niece now, can you? And then add on a couple of nephews later, no problem, correct? That is, or would be equal protection would it not? I mean, you let them other folks do what they wanted, so...

The sane get to draw the lines, we don't just leave them open to all the crazy folk. We know some would prefer it that way, but many of us want to live in a semi-ordered society, yano? :peace
 
Henrin said:
Liberals really shouldn't talk of individual liberty. Well, unless they are of the classical type.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is not culture. Those rights belong to all. All cultures.

You need to redefine your undersanding of "culture".

Your "culture" is no more deserving of constiutionally protected rights that any other...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Oh, that's right...so you can marry your three year old niece now, can you? And then add on a couple of nephews later, no problem, correct? That is, or would be equal protection would it not? I mean, you let them other folks do what they wanted, so...

The sane get to draw the lines, we don't just leave them open to all the crazy folk. We know some would prefer it that way, but many of us want to live in a semi-ordered society, yano? :peace
Click to expand...

Ahh the old slippery slope card. Always amusing.

Well, equal protection is not a universal magic bullet for everything. It can be circumvented when a sufficiently powerful state interest exists. Children cannot sign legal contracts, and a state interest exists in keeping it that way. Number of persons in a contract is not a protected classification.

Gender is. Defining marriage as between a male and a female is a gender-based classification. Under equal protection, an "important state interest" must be served and the measure must be "substantially related" to that interest.

Provide that interest.
 
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...

The only thing liberals support on any subject is growing government power. Tell me a time when liberals wanted to legalize something and not have the government involved. Name me one instance of that if you can.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Oh, that's right...so you can marry your three year old niece now, can you? And then add on a couple of nephews later, no problem, correct? That is, or would be equal protection would it not? I mean, you let them other folks do what they wanted, so...

The sane get to draw the lines, we don't just leave them open to all the crazy folk. We know some would prefer it that way, but many of us want to live in a semi-ordered society, yano? :peace
Click to expand...

So you do not know how EPC works or levels of review. Not surprising.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Oh, that's right...so you can marry your three year old niece now, can you? And then add on a couple of nephews later, no problem, correct? That is, or would be equal protection would it not? I mean, you let them other folks do what they wanted, so...

The sane get to draw the lines, we don't just leave them open to all the crazy folk. We know some would prefer it that way, but many of us want to live in a semi-ordered society, yano? :peace
Click to expand...

I would be embarrased to call myself a "conservative"...a conservator of American Ideals and rights and make this statement.

so you can marry your three year old niece now, can you...
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
The only thing liberals support on any subject is growing government power. Tell me a time when liberals wanted to legalize something and not have the government involved. Name me one instance of that if you can.
Click to expand...
Same sex marriage is the topic of this thread, and I am in favor of reducing the government's ability to define who we can or cannot enter a private legal contract with. There's no way around that, Henrin. But keep trying to deflect the conversation.
 
Deuce said:
Same sex marriage is the topic of this thread, and I am in favor of reducing the government's ability to define who we can or cannot enter a private legal contract with.
Click to expand...

No, you're not. You are in favor of growing government in the domain of marriage. All liberals ever care about is government power and if they can give off the illusion they care for liberty while doing it all the better.

There's no way around that, Henrin. But keep trying to deflect the conversation.
Click to expand...

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I don't even care about SSM. I just don't buy into the liberal bull**** they spew about this topic.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...
The majority of people in MI voted to amend their constitution to disallow the ridiculous oxymoronic "gay marriage", 59 - 41 percent.

Clearly the marjority there didn't care less -- they cared more.

The same in every state that enacted a voter approved ban on "gay marriage": the majority of the people cared more.

Where the states blew it, somewhat so to speak, was in not realizing that political ideology in power would one day, as sadly usual, trump majority rule, and these states would have done well to also enact at that time a civil union domestic partnership law similar to the civil union domestic partnership law called "marriage", only calling it "homarriage" or the like specifically for same-sex couples, same-sex couples who are, obviously, unqualified for the "marriage" statute civil union domestic partnership as they are not "a man and a woman as husband and wife" that marriage is.

Money isn't everything.

Humanity has historically spent much money righting wrongs.

Fighting against the tyranny of the minority, the minority of those who would want "gay marriage" for themselves and their temporarily-in-power ideological power abusers supporting the disaffected coalition, is simply one of the ways humanity spends money to fight wrong doers and right wrongs.
 
Henrin said:
The only thing liberals support on any subject is growing government power. Tell me a time when liberals wanted to legalize something and not have the government involved. Name me one instance of that if you can.
Click to expand...

How would one "legalize something" without use of governance?
 
1750Texan said:
How would one "legalize something" without use of governance?
Click to expand...

Did you seriously miss the point that badly or are you just playing stupid?
 
Ontologuy said:
The majority of people in MI voted to amend their constitution to disallow the ridiculous oxymoronic "gay marriage", 59 - 41 percent.

Clearly the marjority there didn't care less -- they cared more.

The same in every state that enacted a voter approved ban on "gay marriage": the majority of the people cared more.

Where the states blew it, somewhat so to speak, was in not realizing that political ideology in power would one day, as sadly usual, trump majority rule, and these states would have done well to also enact at that time a civil union domestic partnership law similar to the civil union domestic partnership law called "marriage", only calling it "homarriage" or the like specifically for same-sex couples, same-sex couples who are, obviously, unqualified for the "marriage" statute civil union domestic partnership as they are not "a man and a woman as husband and wife" that marriage is.

Money isn't everything.

Humanity has historically spent much money righting wrongs.

Fighting against the tyranny of the minority, the minority of those who would want "gay marriage" for themselves and their temporarily-in-power ideological power abusers supporting the disaffected coalition, is simply one of the ways humanity spends money to fight wrong doers and right wrongs.
Click to expand...

I am sorry you do not like the US Constitution and the 14th amendment.
 
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...

You, "the people," are not qualified to dictate how people like me live, no. I'd take an educated "judicial tyrant" making that decision every time.
 
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...
Say JB [ since we are making up ridiculous scenarios], at age 16, was having sex with "consenting" 16-17, perhaps even 15, year old girls on the stage with the prearranged consent of all the concerned 'adult" parents, both those of participants and the audience...should that be illegal?

I don't even want to know... you see, there should be some semblance of national lucidity in knowing that we should not even have to approach certain limits... and the cast iron confidence that if the people do decide certain limits, these limits should be able to be openly declared... and have our government dignify them with the upholding of these limits.
 
chromium said:
You, "the people," are not qualified to dictate how people like me live, no. I'd take an educated "judicial tyrant" making that decision every time.
Click to expand...

A tyrant lacks the perspective provided by millions and thus will always make an inferior decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom