• 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]

You are perfectly free to try to make this an argument about the 10th amendment, but in so doing, you need to argue for why states are justified in enforcing interracial marriage bans. The entire idea that states have unlimited power in regulating marriage was dismissed in Loving v. Virginia in which the Supreme Court found that a state cannot pass marriage regulations that infringe on the constitutional rights of its residents without advancing a legitimate state interest. That ruling has been in effect since 1967 and so the Federalism angle you are pushing is kind of a dead end here.

There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.

Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....

That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.

Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."

Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.

To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....

I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.
 
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.

The Federalist #10

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
...
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

In other words, the very nature of our government and how it is structured is best suited to a large Republic, and in that large Republic the institutions of government will act as a check protecting the rights of the few against the demands of the many. So even if "we, the people" opposed same-sex marriage (which we dont), the institutions of government would protect the rights of the few against the needs of the many.
 
1.)There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.
2.)Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....
3.)That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.
4.)Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."
5.)Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.
6.)To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....
7.)I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.

1.) and yet gay rights is still a civil and eqlau rights issue so the analogy is SPOT ON
2.) wow, thank you for you for proving you dont know this topic at all
3.) now you are leaping from interracial bans to slavery????? you know they were factually different right? tell us again who doesnt know about history
4.) yes it is VERY STUPID to thing of gays as lessers this is why the courts are stopping it, see you are learning
5.) yep and thats that same stupid arguments bigots make now against gays
6.) you do know loving vs virginia was 1967 right? good grief all your analogies are complete failures
7.) again, do you have any logical arguments that have merit and dont instantly fail?
 
There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.

Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....

That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.

Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."

Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.

To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....

I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.

715d1348219178-2012-what-my-chances-interview-not-sure-if-serious.png


Slavery was abolished in 1865, over 100 years before Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage bans were put in place to prevent Miscegenation, which is the mixing of racial groups through sexual relations and procreation. They were passed not only against blacks, but also Asians and Native Americans, in order to keep members of those racial groups from mixing with whites. Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
 
There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.

Jim Crow was a caricature (basically), and there were interracial marriage bans prior to Loving v. Virginia

Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....

No, interracial marriage bans had nothing to do with property rights (wtf?). The arguments used in opposition to interracial marriage are almost word for word the same as the ones used in opposition to same sex marriage. Here's a few good ones.

That's what most people ignorant to history don't know -

I'll come back to this in a moment.

slavery was about property rights not race.

I'll grant you that in the mid 17th century, slaves were more often white than they were in the mid-19th century. But by the early 18th century, slavery for whites had pretty much been phased out and replaced with African-American slavery. And why was that? Because African-American slaves were perceived as being "inferior" creatures, with subpar intellect and reasoning skills when compared to the White Man (a view which, we know now, was patently false). Kinda sounds like racism to me.

Slaves could have been of any race.

Until about 1720.

Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."

No, we had a civil war because paranoid southerners thought just because Lincoln was elected, that meant he was going to free all the slaves. That wasn't his intention. After the Confederate states seceded, Lincoln used his CIC power to try and hold the Union together. Lincoln did eventually free the slaves, but not until 1863, and only then for two reasons: #1 - there had been a massive influx of former slaves fleeing to the Union during the Civil War and the Union didn't know what to do with them and #2 with all the freed slaves coming to the Union, Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a way to weaken the South, by attracting slaves away from the Confederacy and using them in militarized units to bolster union manpower and defeat the rebellion.

Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960

Actually, depending on the state, 20-30% of likely Republican voters in the South still think interracial marriage should be illegal.

or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.

No, they pretty much opposed it because a) they thought God would want them to... b) they thought society would collapse if we could marry whoever we want ... c) they thought interracial couples were incapable of having children (seriously)...et cetera ad nauseum.

To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....

So....150 years later, people are still mad that you took their great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather's toys away? How pathetic.

I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.

And I wouldn't expect you to know history if a history book walked up and smacked you in the face. Seriously, you attack others for not understanding (or being ignorant of) history, and then go about embarrassing yourself by making wild accusations unsupported by historical facts. But please, do continue. It gives me a hearty chuckle to watch you flounder and then act all butthurt when someone tries to edumacate you.
 
715d1348219178-2012-what-my-chances-interview-not-sure-if-serious.png


Slavery was abolished in 1865, over 100 years before Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage bans were put in place to prevent Miscegenation, which is the mixing of racial groups through sexual relations and procreation. They were passed not only against blacks, but also Asians and Native Americans, in order to keep members of those racial groups from mixing with whites. Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

+1 karma.... and I got ninja'd LOL.

I would like it if I could, but can't find the like button (weird.)
 
Believe whatever the **** you like... IMO, I don't care.

However let's put this into perspective.

Say you own a car lot and Obama comes in and seizes all of your cars claiming they're "not environmentally friendly" how the **** would you feel????

Well that is how the slave owners felt - and before you even judge them go back in history and look at who owned slaves in that era..... Just about every ****ing culture.

So who the **** are any of you to make any judgments now?

Maybe I walk up to your house and steal your car and say "well your car is bad for the environment because Obama and Pelosi says so."
 
715d1348219178-2012-what-my-chances-interview-not-sure-if-serious.png


Slavery was abolished in 1865, over 100 years before Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage bans were put in place to prevent Miscegenation, which is the mixing of racial groups through sexual relations and procreation. They were passed not only against blacks, but also Asians and Native Americans, in order to keep members of those racial groups from mixing with whites. Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.
 
Believe whatever the **** you like... IMO, I don't care.

However let's put this into perspective.

Say you own a car lot and Obama comes in and seizes all of your cars claiming they're "not environmentally friendly" how the **** would you feel????

Well that is how the slave owners felt - and before you even judge them go back in history and look at who owned slaves in that era..... Just about every ****ing culture.

So who the **** are any of you to make any judgments now?

Maybe I walk up to your house and steal your car and say "well your car is bad for the environment because Obama and Pelosi says so."

Well, considering the government must compensate me for anything they take away from me, they can have my trashy car and ill go buy another. :D

As to your point, you must realize that there were tens of thousands (if not more) slaves who were having their rights trampled on - in a country founded because the rights of the founders were being trampled on! I mean... really?

And unless those cars have actual people under the hood instead of the Hemi I am hoping for, it is not the same, and you bloody well know it... Or you should. Unless you are advocating for a return to the slave days? If so, may I suggest that you be the first one to be shackled?

Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.

He didn't need to, he just did it because it was funny.
 
Believe whatever the **** you like... IMO, I don't care.

However let's put this into perspective.

Say you own a car lot and Obama comes in and seizes all of your cars claiming they're "not environmentally friendly" how the **** would you feel????

Well that is how the slave owners felt - and before you even judge them go back in history and look at who owned slaves in that era..... Just about every ****ing culture.

So who the **** are any of you to make any judgments now?

Maybe I walk up to your house and steal your car and say "well your car is bad for the environment because Obama and Pelosi says so."

more failed and mentally retarded "analogies" that have NOTHING to do with the topic lol
 
Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.

still no rational, honest and factual arguments huh?
let us know when you have one
 
Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.

Please learn syntax.

And stop getting your history insight from this dude.
 

Attachments

  • 9189283.jpg
    9189283.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 43
Well, considering the government must compensate me for anything they take away from me, they can have my trashy car and ill go buy another. :D

As to your point, you must realize that there were tens of thousands (if not more) slaves who were having their rights trampled on - in a country founded because the rights of the founders were being trampled on! I mean... really?

And unless those cars have actual people under the hood instead of the Hemi I am hoping for, it is not the same, and you bloody well know it... Or you should. Unless you are advocating for a return to the slave days? If so, may I suggest that you be the first one to be shackled?



He didn't need to, he just did it because it was funny.

You have to realize people paid money for those slaves (regardless acceptable or not)... The government sole money from those people....

A lot of people only see the "slave" aspect and not the "pissed off owners who lost a **** ton of money aspect."

Was slavery wrong? yes, but can you blame a guy who lost upwards of a million or two in currant monetary value pissed not justified being pissed? especially when slavery was usual? EVERYWHERE.
 
Please learn syntax.

And stop getting your history insight from this dude.

You need to stop posting memes to people you don't agree with as a counter-argument or digression.
 
You need to stop posting memes to people you don't agree with as a counter-argument or digression.

you have to provide an argument first for it to be countered, your posts have yet to do this.
 
Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.

Yet every other word you post is a swear word that gets censored. You have been schooled on interracial marriage having nothing to do with slavery and it is clear that now you liken it to taking environmentally cars away from you? It is always funny watching so-called libertarians wanting the government to restrict freedom.
 
You have to realize people paid money for those slaves (regardless acceptable or not)... The government sole money from those people....

A lot of people only see the "slave" aspect and not the "pissed off owners who lost a **** ton of money aspect."

Was slavery wrong? yes, but can you blame a guy who lost upwards of a million or two in currant monetary value pissed not justified being pissed? especially when slavery was usual? EVERYWHERE.

Actually slavery had been all but abolished in Western Europe by 1860. One argument is that slavery would have gone away on its own so your argument is silly. Especially as the south lost a war which always causes cultural changes. They may have been pissed but it is their own fault. Or do you think the NAZIs were justified after WW1 hurt Germany?
 
The constitution overrules the will of the people. It is set this way so that the majority cannot impose their tyranny on the minority. Or, shall I say, your tyranny on the minority.

Something interesting happened while you weren't looking:

You stopped being the majority.

But you're right. You will still have the ability to sit in the privacy of your own home and proclaim just how much you despise same-sex marriage. Nobody will take that from you.

edit: majority/minority, lol.
Wow, just how badly can one misapprehend our Constitution?

You have once again proven a basic lack of understanding of our history, our government and, above all, our Constitution. We the People, predominantly the majority, will always be the kings, the sovereigns, and everyone else is just the hired help, our servants, our "public servants". We only give our consent to be governed in a representative democracy.

If we withdraw that consent, place it elsewhere, its a done deal. Proven by the Revolutionary War when we dissolved the bands that held us to the mother country. Our founders/drafters of the Constitution gave us methods by which we should, perhaps, not have to go to such lengths... but they understood that we might at times just have to do the work required of liberty.

When our government goes off on its own, away from the will of the people, it is our duty to bring it back in line or establish a new government. We have "minority" and inalienable rights, with our minority rights being expressed basically through the bill of rights, particularly the first amendment with its allowance of free speech etc so that the minority cannot ever be silenced from speaking and is given full right to express opinions on their way to potentially convincing sufficient numbers of the rest of us to become the majority... and then it is that sentiment of that majority that rules.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

Should have learned those concepts back in Civics.

You may or may not be right about not being the majority, but we are not the minority either. First of all, there are still the majority of states that have either a constitutional amendment banning SSM or defining marriage as one man one woman. The states have the right to do this under our Constitution, the reserved powers of the states. There is nowhere contained, enumerated, in the document the power of the Federal government to control how or who the states sanction in matrimony. Then you have the Pew poll

opposition to gay marriage   pew  2014.jpg As you can see, there is much divergence even in the Democrat party as to whether there should be SSM. We are still the plurality, and with time who knows which way it will go... but it will perhaps never be just a done deal, one way or the other.

To all those who would just willy-nilly wreck our culture for momentary self interest, you can be sure that there are plenty of us out here to counter that sort of subversion so as to maintain ourselves for the longer term.
 
You obviously have never read the Constitution nor have any idea what it stands for. You might want to take a look at it some time.
I speak of the Constitution in explicit terms, you just wave your hand at it and say you know it. The minimal you have expressed thus far shows a basic ignorance of the document and its history.

Game over, please place your quarter in the slot and try again [ if you simply must do so, please also do some reading on our history, how governments and our Constitution work, first...thanks ].
 
Journalist Emma Fidel wrote for The Associated Press 23 March 2014:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAY MARRIAGES IN MICHIGAN HALTED BY APPEALS COURT — ...Saturday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals froze until at least Wednesday a decision by a lower court judge to overturn Michigan's ban. ...The appeals court said the time-out will "allow a more reasoned consideration" of the state's request to stop same-sex marriages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article
 
The Federalist #10



In other words, the very nature of our government and how it is structured is best suited to a large Republic, and in that large Republic the institutions of government will act as a check protecting the rights of the few against the demands of the many. So even if "we, the people" opposed same-sex marriage (which we dont), the institutions of government would protect the rights of the few against the needs of the many.
Thanks for Fed #10, have read it many times now. The same sentiment goes for preventing a tyranny of the minority... tyranny in any form, I am supposing you would agree, is not what is a desired outcome.

The 14th only gives equal protection... and with that an equality of rights, it is not an expansion of those rights... the equality has occurred with one man one woman matrimony. Its the same for each and every individual and gender...equal for all. So the hard sought perfect equality already exists. There is no way around, over or underneath the logic.

In any event, the power grab into a State's authority to determine for itself what its state desires in this regard is a travesty and, one would hope, the Supreme Court affirms the State's supremacy in matters of marriage. If the Federal Government does not stop this inexorable push for more and more power then, inevitably, we will have to have another fight about the proper way for a government to govern.

A society, its people themselves, can make its rules for how it wants its society to be. And then that can change, back and forth... this is not the USSR.

Polls are just a snapshot in time and are subject to speculation due to many factors, such as which questions are asked, how they are asked, which questions are not asked, who they are asking, blah blah blah... and here is an article that shows that opposition to SSM is understated in the polls Study: Opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls | Pew Research Center
 
The state has the right to regulate domestic relations as they wish, but that power is not unlimited. Laws defining and regulating marriage must respect the constitutional rights of persons within the state. In this case the marriage ban is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment as it deprives same sex couples of the family stabilizing benefits of marriage and advances no legitimate state interest.
The 14th protects each equally... as stated in another post, the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable. I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally.

Putting something there that isn't there, what you may want, does not have anything to do with an equal application of the law.
 
I speak of the Constitution in explicit terms, you just wave your hand at it and say you know it. The minimal you have expressed thus far shows a basic ignorance of the document and its history.

Game over, please place your quarter in the slot and try again [ if you simply must do so, please also do some reading on our history, how governments and our Constitution work, first...thanks ].

LOL...if you truly had any understanding of the Constitution and our history you would understand that the foundation of the Constitution is to ensure that there are certain rights that are so intrinsic that they are not subject to the whim of the majority. Take a course in Con Law and then get back to me. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you because you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
LOL...if you truly had any understanding of the Constitution and our history you would understand that the foundation of the Constitution is to ensure that there are certain rights that are so intrinsic that they are not subject to the whim of the majority. Take a course in Con Law and then get back to me. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you because you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Asserting something so obvious that elementary students are generally aware, then an underlying implication that SSM is one of those rights...then telling me to take a Con Law class...hilarious.

Usually I pick and choose more appropriately, do not comment on certain posts precisely due to these types of frivolous and meaningless responses. My bad, sorry.
 
I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally.

"a black cannot marry a white and a white cannot marry a black, no preference given to the individual, all is equal, the rules all apply to everyone equally".
 
Back
Top Bottom