• 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]

Ontologuy said:
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...

In what way does allowing same-sex marriage constitute "tyranny?"
 
CriticalThought said:
The will of the people is not a majority vote in Michigan. The will of the people is the US Constitution. It is literally spelled out "We the people..."
Click to expand...
Yes, and not to be confused with We, the Federal judge.

For one thing, its not even grammatically correct. :mrgreen::peace
 
Ontologuy said:
Neither the 14th amendment or anything else in the U.S. constitution supports the oxymoronic "gay marriage" any more than it supports forcing dog owners to let cat-owners enter their cats in a dog show.

What the constitution supports is preventing dog-owners from banning cat-owners from having cat shows, and, analogously likewise, preventing states from not allowing same-sex domestic partnership civil unions called "homarriage" or the like for same-sex couples as states have allowed opposite-sex domestic partnership civil unions called "marriage".

You misunderstand the entire issue.
Click to expand...

A gender-based classification is subject to equal protection challenges. This isn't an issue of semantics, no matter how much you insist it is. "Dog" and "cat" aren't protected classifications under the equal protection clause. Certain characteristics of humans are protected from unequal treatment, and gender is one such classification. Defining marriage at the government level as between one man and one woman is a gender-based distinction. How you, Ontologuy, personally want to perceive the word is irrelevant to the discussion. The legal distinctions are the subject.

Your ignorance of the mechanics of equal protection is something you should really address before making the sort of statements you make.
 
CriticalThought said:
Read the ruling or continue to sound like you do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I was commenting on your "benevolent tyrant" crap. If your comment cannot stand on its own, it's not legitimate.
 
ecofarm said:
No, that's the moronic extreme of my words.



Your words come off sounding downright stupid; you run someone's point to an extreme in order to defeat the strawman you create. You're not really debating anyone, you're just spewing crap.
Click to expand...

Oh forgive me for wanting to debate the actual ruling this thread is about. How unreasonable of me to expect people to actually read it and be able to debate it's reasoning rather than complain that a Reagen appointed judge did not ignore the Constitution in favor of a state's popular vote.
 
Henrin said:
Liberals really shouldn't talk of individual liberty. Well, unless they are of the classical type.
Click to expand...

This is why Libertarians are not taken too seriously, they think they own 'individual'. They have a niche view of liberty and don't understand why the world doesn't simply nod and fall into line.

We didn't get here as a result of every man for himself.
 
Henrin said:
Obviously I meant having the government involved in whatever was legalized. Liberals aren't interested in people being free, but only the most effective way to control people.
Click to expand...

You be the judge-

Your freedom to keep others from marrying

or

Others being free to marry whom they wish?

Which is the example more consistent with spirt of the US Consitution? Which example imparts more freedom?
 
1750Texan said:
You be the judge-

Your freedom to keep others from marrying

or

Others being free to marry whom they wish?

Which is the example more consistent with spirt of the US Consitution? Which example imparts more freedom?
Click to expand...

He'll just cop out because he "doesn't care" about same-sex marriage. And then he'll post in a thread about same-sex marriage another hundred times. And then do the same in the next thread.
 
ecofarm said:
I was commenting on your "benevolent tyrant" crap. If your comment cannot stand on its own, it's not legitimate.
Click to expand...

Meh. You do not like the ruling, you cannot be bothered to read it and debate the actual reasoning of it, so you attack the concept of judicial authority in general. Nothing new.
 
1750Texan said:
You be the judge-

Your freedom to keep others from marrying

or

Others being free to marry whom they wish?

Which is the example more constitant with spirt of the US Consitution? Which example imparts more freedom?
Click to expand...

If that was the goal then people would be arguing that all private contracts pertaining to marriage between consenting parties must be respected by all fifty states. What is actually happening is people are arguing for extending government authority in marriage by expanding its domain to another form of relationship between two individuals. People are not arguing for freedom, but simply for government authority.
 
CriticalThought said:
Meh. You do not like the ruling, you cannot be bothered to read it and debate the actual reasoning of it, so you attack the concept of judicial authority in general. Nothing new.
Click to expand...

You used BS to support your argument. Try to avoid doing that in the future, and instead develop an actual counter.
 
1750Texan said:
These are your words.



Your own words are contradictory. Which is it?

Are you the "We the people" that are in control of this nation...or are you the "We the people" that no longer have a voice in this nation's decisions?
Click to expand...
You are aware the two were both questions... so why not make your point?

You get to answer them the way you want, I answer them the way I want... pretty simple. We only differ in that you think imposing your belief on how all this should turn out is somehow not discriminating against an entire group of people that are not in synch with what you want to impose as the new norm. How that escapes you I am unable to discern.
 
Henrin said:
If that was the goal then people would be arguing that all private contracts pertaining to marriage between consenting parties must be respected by all fifty states. What is actually happening is people are arguing for extending government authority in marriage by expanding its domain to another form of relationship between two individuals. People are not arguing for freedom, but simply for government authority.
Click to expand...

No, it's limiting government's authority to define that domain. It's a private contract between two people.
 
Deuce said:
He'll just cop out because he "doesn't care" about same-sex marriage. And then he'll post in a thread about same-sex marriage another hundred times. And then do the same in the next thread.
Click to expand...

Maybe showing the counter to their failed arguement could help others see the chinks in their argument's armor.
 
ecofarm said:
You used BS to support your argument. Try to avoid doing that in the future, and instead develop an actual counter.
Click to expand...

What BS? Oh you mean actually wanting to debate the substance of the ruling this thread is about instead of the infantile rejection of all judicial authority in the realm of Constitutional rights? Indy files. I will work on that.
 
CriticalThought said:
What BS? Oh you mean actually wanting to debate the substance of the ruling this thread is about instead of the infantile rejection of all judicial authority in the realm of Constitutional rights? Indy files. I will work on that.
Click to expand...

Claiming that a 'benevolent tyrant' is a superior means of governance is, in fact, BS.

Get some real support for your argument.
 
Deuce said:
No, it's limiting government's authority to define that domain. It's a private contract between two people.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. This whole issue is about a government contract and government benefits.
 
sangha said:
I thought it was at least the equal of your "Yes...and so...what?? "
Click to expand...
See, that seems to be when you get into the most trouble.

I think any objective observer might look at post #17 and deduce a bit more than just a "Yes... and so... what??". Not that that can be said about your noticeably skeletal and facile riposte. The retort is, however, well within character.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You are aware the two were both questions... so why not make your point?

You get to answer them the way you want, I answer them the way I want... pretty simple. We only differ in that you think imposing your belief on how all this should turn out is somehow not discriminating against an entire group of people that are not in synch with what you want to impose as the new norm. How that escapes you I am unable to discern.
Click to expand...

You are aware the two were both questions... so why not make your point?
Click to expand...

One does not usually answer a rhetorical question because it is understood [by most] that the rhetorical question acts as a statement.

Your second error is assuming I wish to impose my beliefs on anyone. I have no power to impose my will on anyone. If I agree with the Constitutional reasoning used to end marriage bans...that has nothing to do with my "incorrectly precieved" imposition of my beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
No, it's not. This whole issue is about a government contract and government benefits.
Click to expand...

Funny people like you never rallied against government being involved with marriage until ssm. Wonder why that is?
 
TheNextEra said:
Funny people like you never rallied against government being involved with marriage until ssm. Wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

Because I'm not that old. :shrug:
 
Deuce said:
A gender-based classification is subject to equal protection challenges. This isn't an issue of semantics, no matter how much you insist it is. "Dog" and "cat" aren't protected classifications under the equal protection clause. Certain characteristics of humans are protected from unequal treatment, and gender is one such classification. Defining marriage at the government level as between one man and one woman is a gender-based distinction. How you, Ontologuy, personally want to perceive the word is irrelevant to the discussion. The legal distinctions are the subject.

Your ignorance of the mechanics of equal protection is something you should really address before making the sort of statements you make.
Click to expand...
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.

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.

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
This judge was truly respectful in commenting on the majority and their intentions...which you would know had you read the ruling.
Click to expand...

Not only that but allowed the state to present several witnesses, dragging the case on. It's just those "expert" witnesses were never credible, hence this outcome.

But rest easy, first marriages have taken place already, in spite of the villain AG's attempt to stay the ruling: First gay couple married in Michigan

"Glenna DeJong, 53, and Marsha Caspar, 52, both of Lansing, were married in the lobby after Byrum opened the clerk's office at 8 a.m. and issued them a license."
 
Henrin said:
If that was the goal then people would be arguing that all private contracts pertaining to marriage between consenting parties must be respected by all fifty states. What is actually happening is people are arguing for extending government authority in marriage by expanding its domain to another form of relationship between two individuals. People are not arguing for freedom, but simply for government authority.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom