• 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]

There is good reason here to compare what you said to the Nazi's and I reject your attempt at hiding behind Godwin's law. The US constitution is not based on efficiency, things are supposed to happen very slow.

And they do happen very slowly, relatively speaking. Same sex couples have been around since the beginning of humans and yet they are just now being recognized as deserving of the right to marry. In fact, it has moved so slow that even after desegregation, those identified as homosexual could be put into jail or involuntarily committed even for simply being homosexual. We just got rid of laws banning sodomy that occurred in a person's private home in 2003. I'd say that is extremely slow. And these court cases are even going to take another couple of years (in all likelihood). That's slow enough.
 
Too long. If you have something to say say it, don't cut and paste others words.

The fact that you're so incredibly loose with the Nazi analogy automatically renders your opinion utterly null and void. It speaks to

(A) the fact you're too uneducated to come up with a novel comparison (the Armenian genocide, perhaps?).

(B) a profound ignorance of the difference between individuals being freed to do something they couldn't before, as in gay marriage, and a mass slaughter of millions for the crime of their ethnicity.

(C) a persecution complex - indeed, a desire to be persecuted, as your Good Book tells you you will be in the end-times and as you surely wish to be, as if somehow being persecuted ("just like the Jews!") would prove you correct.
 
No. They are cancelling/rendering useless laws that violate the US Constitution. As they should. How else would they stop a law that said "no person within this state can own a gun, ever" or "no person within this state can talk bad about the US President or they face 20 years in prison"? Those laws can only be ruled violations of the Constitution by the Courts even if every person can see that they clearly violate the US Constitution.

You can't pass a law against a right that is clearly written out in the constitution, gay marriage does not rise to that level.
 
I don't think you've understood my point at all.

Drive down through any town in West Virginia, or rural Kentucky, or even my own native southern Illinois. The cars are on blocks that eerily resemble the native's heads in those locations. There are three teeth for every four people. Do you really want this trash on your side?
Jesus!!

What a bigoted remark that might be... wouldn't you agree? Your point is that you do not really have a point...just some mixed up distorted jumble of jibber jabber resembling your inner lopsided feelings? The caricatures that you have created, assisted no doubt by such noteworthy news journalism espoused by the likes of cable channel's MSLSD, reflect more on you than any reality.
 
You can't pass a law against a right that is clearly written out in the constitution, gay marriage does not rise to that level.

Anyone can pass any law they can get through. They have in fact done so in the past (which is why states before were allowed to have state religions). It is why segregation lasted long after the passage of the 14th Amendment. There are so many examples.

It is merely your opinion that laws banning couples from marriage based on their relative sexes are not at a level that violates the US Constitution. Many courts and law experts disagree with you.
 
Laws are supposed to be passed in congress not by judges.

These are state laws, altho civil rights are to be protected at all levels....federal if necessary.
 
The fact that you're so incredibly loose with the Nazi analogy automatically renders your opinion utterly null and void. It speaks to

(A) the fact you're too uneducated to come up with a novel comparison (the Armenian genocide, perhaps?).

(B) a profound ignorance of the difference between individuals being freed to do something they couldn't before, as in gay marriage, and a mass slaughter of millions for the crime of their ethnicity.

(C) a persecution complex - indeed, a desire to be persecuted, as your Good Book tells you you will be in the end-times and as you surely wish to be, as if somehow being persecuted ("just like the Jews!") would prove you correct.

Roughe talked about efficiency like it was the most important thing. I merely pointed out that efficiency in and of itself means nothing. Same thing when someone says a high IQ makes you a better person and I point out that most serial killers have a high IQ but go ahead and hide behind Vanity Fair if you like.
 
Anyone can pass any law they can get through. They have in fact done so in the past (which is why states before were allowed to have state religions). It is why segregation lasted long after the passage of the 14th Amendment. There are so many examples.

It is merely your opinion that laws banning couples from marriage based on their relative sexes are not at a level that violates the US Constitution. Many courts and law experts disagree with you.

But who cares about experts, roguenuke?

Bah! Bah, says I! Experts are all ayyye-leeetist ayeg-heads anywho. Why, I can build a car engine just as well as a union carmaker! I can operate the LHC just as well as any MIT physicist! I don't need no Gawddamn elites!
 
And to stop state laws that don't violate the constitution you should have an over riding federal law that renders them immediately null and void. It is about separation of powers.

These state laws are being challenged as violating the US Constitution, hence why they would be stopped if the SCOTUS rules that they do in fact violate the Constitution.
 
And to stop state laws that don't violate the constitution you should have an over riding federal law that renders them immediately null and void. It is about separation of powers.

So you agree, then, that we need a Federal Marriage Amendment - legalizing gay marriage in all fifty States?
 
Anyone can pass any law they can get through. They have in fact done so in the past (which is why states before were allowed to have state religions). It is why segregation lasted long after the passage of the 14th Amendment. There are so many examples.

It is merely your opinion that laws banning couples from marriage based on their relative sexes are not at a level that violates the US Constitution. Many courts and law experts disagree with you.
The right to keep and bear arms is clearly written out in the constitution, the right for gays to marry clearly is not.
 
The right to keep and bear arms is clearly written out in the constitution, the right for gays to marry clearly is not.

The right to equal protection of the laws within the states is clearly written out in the Constitution. It simply covers a whole lot more than the right to bear arms does.
 
That would be fine, I just don't want judges over stepping their bounds.

Cool. So if I start up a FMFA campaign - Federal Marriage Freedom Amendment - you'll contribute to it? And propagandize for it? And argue as vociferously (if asininely, cloylingly, and populistically) for it as you do on this subject in every other thread?
 
What part of "constitutional law" and precedence are you not familiar with? Whether you agree that it should be there or not, does not matter. It exists, and is how our constitutional rights are protected to their fullest by the SCOTUS.
So, in other words you don't really have those protected classes listed in the constitution which you said were there. Then you said that you had sent me links to them which I had ignored...now you are telling me these protected classes are not, as I had originally stated they were not, in the Constitution. So they are made up classes that can be unmade, they are not Constitutionally protected classes, they are only court, so far, protected classes.

Please try to remain within the guidelines of truth... have caught, and identified, a couple of prevarications by you so far on this thread... hard to take someone seriously when they play fast and loose with truth.
 
The right to keep and bear arms is clearly written out in the constitution, the right for gays to marry clearly is not.


Neither is the right for a black dude to marry a white woman clearly laid out in the Constitution.


>>>>
 
Huh, and here I thought you were basing your 'opinion' of homosexuality and SSM on yoru Christian beliefs. I guess I'll rethink that, since this obviously does not indicate very Christian thinking.

Finally? I have discussed previously what marriage is for and one of the main reasons is for protecting children that are, yes, created through the act of procreation that can only, besides in-vitro or cloning, be accomplished by opposite sex couplings. Marriage does not specifically require procreation, just the general likelihood of the ability to procreate.

No to your first question, In a free society I do not think it is possible, plausibly optimal but probably not possible...but if a SS couple have them one takes ones chances and gets what one gets in custody battles... one cannot complain and besides, no sympathy, not my/our problem.

I would certainly not allow for SS adoption. Toleration is one thing, condoning, acceptance or promotion is simply out of the question.

And then are the children of gay couples less worthy of protection? They exist, thru natural reproduction, thru surrogacy, thru IV, thru adoption....do they not deserve the protection that marriage affords straight families?

Because gay couples do desire families just as much as straight couples...and have them. Legalizing SSM wont change that...it will only provide more protections for families, kids. Gays arent going to stop having families......

I also missed any explanations of how their families are any different than those of straight couples. You know...the whole 'how is their lifestyle/culture different?' thing that has been unanswered.
 
Three word answer, liberal activist judges.

Completely meaningless. An activist judge is simply one that doesn't rule the way you want them to. And as for being liberal, that is a judgement based on biased of a singular decision made by such judges.
 
So, in other words you don't really have those protected classes listed in the constitution which you said were there. Then you said that you had sent me links to them which I had ignored...now you are telling me these protected classes are not, as I had originally stated they were not, in the Constitution. So they are made up classes that can be unmade, they are not Constitutionally protected classes, they are only court, so far, protected classes.

Please try to remain within the guidelines of truth... have caught, and identified, a couple of prevarications by you so far on this thread... hard to take someone seriously when they play fast and loose with truth.

I never said that they were specifically written in the Constitution itself, but they are covered and they are part of constitutional law and precedence. You don't have to approve of the way our system works, but complaining and making stupid demands on the internet isn't going to change how they currently work.
 
Cool. So if I start up a FMFA campaign - Federal Marriage Freedom Amendment - you'll contribute to it? And propagandize for it? And argue as vociferously (if asininely, cloylingly, and populistically) for it as you do on this subject in every other thread?
Gay marriage is a non issue with me so I would not waste my time or effort fighting for or against it but if it becomes law I want it to do so constitutionally, that is a big issue with me.
 
Obviously we've hit on the solution to this problem: a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans in the United States. Surely our Constitutional conservatives, having already ceded the moral ground and the public space, will have no problem adopting such a campaign as their own.
 
And to stop state laws that don't violate the constitution you should have an over riding federal law that renders them immediately null and void. It is about separation of powers.

They are basing the decisions on gender discrimination...that violates the Constitution.

Some states also specifically designate sexual orientation as a protected class.
 
Back
Top Bottom