• 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]

The fact that pedophiles do not equate to Homosexuals makes it invalid. I don't have to cry because your side is dying out and yeah, whether or not the majority likes it or not, it is coming because homosexuals are still protected under the Constitution of the United States. This is why your side is throwing its temper tantrum.
Who equated pedos with homosexuals? Might want to pay closer attention to what you are reading. Gets rather hard to debate with someone who cannot follow the argument any better than expressed there.

When you figure it out, maybe then we can discuss.
 
I really could not expect too too much more, based on experience. Its silly to be considered a basic civil right. If it is, indeed, a civil right, we are all obligatorily entitled, correct? Absurd.

And yet that is how it has been since 1967.

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

But I guess if you find American history to be absurd...
 
Screw your legalese crap... this is society we are talking about here, not your day at the courthouse chatting it up with attorneys and paralegals.

screw your crap period yes if the people rise up they can change or overturn the constitution but you have yet to give any reason for why we your fellow human being and often fellow citizens should join you in discriminating against people who want a same sex marriage or the right to one. nether have you given any reasons for us to ignore are own laws and principles in order to do so

and no one else can do any better then you can that's why same sex marriage is gaining ground in the courts and in popular opinion no conspiracy no brain washing no hidden agenda or any other excuse as to why people don't just agree with you just common sense
 
We as a country do not have to stand for "what is reasonable in a court of law". If its wrong, we don't allow it. If we are forced to comply against the majority will, that is unreasonable.

and that's why we will demand same sex marriage across the nation maybe even across the globe its the right thing to do if you believe in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you its the right thing to do if you believe that people should be treated fairly under the law
 
I know, lets celebrate liberal activist judges overruling the will of the people. :roll:

when the will of the people violates are rights lets celebrate any one overruling it
 
I refuse to celebrate liberal activist judges running rough shod over the will of the people.

I refuse to celebrate or accept the will of the people clearly running rough shod over the rights of the people
 
Nice incoherent rant... not much to pick from the muddled mess to discuss.

Perhaps these two.

You are free to love and to marry whomever you care to [ as long as they want as well ], nobody is stopping you. Just do not expect the marriage to be sanctioned by the state... or by the rest of us. Oh, and if your penchant is love and marriage to children, I would wait on the whole consummation of marriage thing. Prison may or may not be your bag.

And we are at least somewhat in agreement on the whole taxes thing... I agree, lets pay less taxes to this overbearing government, limit its size...yeah man...kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...

Oh, you're right! You didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia. You simply tried to insinuate that I might like little kids. Nice. Glad we got that cleared up.
 
You are correct, the right to marry for gays is clearly spelled out in the constitution.:roll:

equal protection for people in an equivalent situation probably is
 
I am against judges making law from the bench no matter if they are right or wrong, that is where we differ.

in this case they just have to strike unconstutinal laws that ban gay marriage down
 
The Nazi's were efficient too.

yes Hitler ate sugar

and its still Hitler ate sugar if I point out their attitudes about homosexuality

so I guess I cant fault you for it
 
Judges are not supposed to make law from the bench and that is exactly what they are doing here.

that's not true

In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman Friday struck down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage
 
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.

you can if your reasoning is bad but to be fair its not clear to you in that case
 
Everybody within US jurisdiction is Constitutionally protected under the 14th... so I would suppose same sex couples are protected under the 14th just about as much as two 12 year olds wanting to marry, especially if groups of 12 year olds and their advocates had been pushing this silliness as long as homosexuals have been pushing theirs.

more like just as much as 2 people 1 black and 1 white wanting to marry

cause your not letting 2 adults who can get married marry one another based on a trait that's not essential to a marriage in this case gender

the hole their being treated as equals because their free to marry some one that the people discmrinaitng against them approve of, rather then the consenting adult of their choice is the exact same lie
 
So that would mean anybody that is not married could sue who, the Federal government, if they are not married? Would that not be an undeniable denial of one's civil rights?

maybe if they found some one else who could get married and then the state decides to not let them marry without any rational cause then they could sue either the feds or the local government depending on who was ****ing with them and their rights
 
Hey, if we are gonna be so preposterously idiotically silly as to who can be married from your ideological viewpoint, why not just bring on the kids... try to keep up, your side is the one that is taking things to the point of ludicrously absurd, don't blame me.

You see, it is we who are the ones arguing for sanity in such cases.

because being for same sex marge is not shown to be idiotic or silly and your just using a fallacy as a scare tactic and making yourself look like an asshole when you need popular support because you lack reason that's why not
 
So that would mean anybody that is not married could sue who, the Federal government, if they are not married? Would that not be an undeniable denial of one's civil rights?

Only if they had been denied marriage. Who have you got lined up as an example?

Is anyone attempting to marry, besides gays, and being denied? And if so, on what basis?

Gays are being denied on gender discrimination, something clearly ruled on as unConstitutional. Let's examine your examples on that basis....you know, 'equal protection under the law.' Let's start there.
 
Everybody within US jurisdiction is Constitutionally protected under the 14th... so I would suppose same sex couples are protected under the 14th just about as much as two 12 year olds wanting to marry, especially if groups of 12 year olds and their advocates had been pushing this silliness as long as homosexuals have been pushing theirs.

Have you seen 12 yr olds (& their 'advocates') with that agenda? Or would you like to keep pulling false and unrelated examples out of the sky? Because it only shows how weak your position is.

Do you want to deny that the ability to consent is not part of and should not be part of contractual law in the US?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
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.

Gaugingcatenate said:
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.

Lursa said:
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......

Seems it's still easier to punish kids than face the reality of society today...and what is best for kids.

(No one has yet shown ANY harm to society at all, so one wonders how there is justification to make kids suffer.)
 
Oh its been said plenty of times from our side...If the majority of the people don't want it as a part of our culture, we have no need to allow it. That is more than legal, it is the will of the people, we being the ultimate sovereigns here.

Just when are you referencing that I brought up pedophiles... not that it isn't a "valid" argument? Just because its useful, applicable and effective... and you don't like it does not make an argument against it. But you can cry about it and tears might get you sympathy from some quarters.

Gaugingcatenate said:
We the people don't have to have that standard... we can just pass an amendment should we so choose.

Yes you do. You cant just create a law for NO REASON.

If you have a reason, what is it? I'd love to see a law based on 'we just dont like it, it makes us feel icky because we cant keep our minds out of their bedrooms.'


I mean...they're not having sex on the sidewalks, are they?

I love it! Please give us a reason! Otherwise you claim a majority of your other Americans are just preparing for a big temper tantrum, "I dont have to have a reason, I just dont like it!" :lamo
..............
 
And continuing with the theme of what "the majority" of Americans want....how about a little clarification here, you seem to have missed it:

Gaugingcatenate said:
No, not when it comes to fundamental changes in our culture we don't. You can, you do, because its been structured to go the wrong way here, the way you would like it to go. We do not have to stand for that as a culture. If its wrong and we do not want it, no court tricks are gonna make it happen

Please explain how it is 'wrong' and how their culture is any different. (It's not different....their lifestyles are exactly the same: PTA, dinner as a family, vacations, going to work, taking kids to soccer, piano lessons, dance class, gardening, taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn, community service, going to church, paying their bills, paying taxes, etc.)

Any chance you could tell us how they will change our culture when their lives are exactly the same?

Surely "the majority of Americans" have solid grounds for taking that stand! I'm sure you can justify it on their behalf, since you have so freely been speaking for "them" here.
 
Well, we have to get your attention somehow, since logic doesn't really attract liberals and those so rabid for what they want they can see little else, yano?

Nobody here, despite the alleged invalidity of our side's arguments, has been able to prove your side's point... kinda makes a thinking person wonder. How about you?


Well nobody here has been able to prove to your satisfaction. It seems pretty obvious that no anonymous discussion on an internet message board is going to change your mind since you have shown that even when logic and facts have been presented you just deny.

However those who support Marriage Equality have proven the validity of their arguments time and tijme again, the validity of the oppositions arguments have been rejected, time and time again.

They've been rejected in State courts in:

California**
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Iowa
Connecticut
Vermont
New Mexico​

They've been rejected in Federal courts in:

California**
Utah
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Virginia
Texas
Ohio
Michigan​



The arguments against SSCM are also shown to be beginning to be rejected by "We the people" as the last 4 votes in the issue during General Elections has shown (with Marriage Equality supporters winning all 4 votes) which validates the trend data shown by such organizations as Gallup and Pew. Out, as a society, attitude of today is not the same as it was just a decade ago when States were getting Civil Marriage and Civil Unions banned.



** Yes California is listed twice as the arguments were rejected by State courts and the California Supreme Court and by Federal District court and the Federal 9th Circuit Court.


>>>>
 
Last edited:
Oh, you're right! You didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia. You simply tried to insinuate that I might like little kids. Nice. Glad we got that cleared up.
Yup, always glad to make a public service announcement so that those who might feel this, or a similar penchant, are fully warned...that being for any and all sexual preferences, so do not get that hang dog look and make like it was just aimed just at you or your particular preference [ which I don't know and don't care about].

If we open this whole marriage thing up, YOU KNOW [even if you don't know, many of us do ] there will be these type folks out there trying, maybe someday succeeding with the way your side is quickly taking down proper standards and lowering the bar ... that was the message, and since it seems you could not put this specific two and two together properly, it was good that you asked. So, yes, glad we got that all cleared up. ;)
 
Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. We are all denied things every day. That is NOT tyranny. How simplistic.

I know the Constitution, and its concepts, far better than others, it seems apparent. Why don't you inform me of where in the Constitution that the minority rules. Why don't you explain to us, if this is so, why there are all sorts of examples of majority rules within the Constitution itself... say for example, the majorities needed for amendments, and...oh, but you are right because the President is elected by a minority of electoral college votes...oh wait, no, that would be the majority, too... dang, maybe you can help me find a place in the Constitution where the minority wins... but I think you merely will find they, we, have rights in place so they, we, cannot be silenced and may, through those rights, potentially rise to the point of being the majority... which rules. ;)

Your turn.

Again, you have to have a reason and not just because you're the majority.

And no, I don't think you do understand the Constitution. We're talking about laws and not elections. You seem confused.
 
Well nobody here has been able to prove to your satisfaction. It seems pretty obvious that no anonymous discussion on an internet message board is going to change your mind since you have shown that even when logic and facts have been presented you just deny.

However those who support Marriage Equality have proven the validity of their arguments time and tijme again, the validity of the oppositions arguments have been rejected, time and time again.

They've been rejected in State courts in:

California**
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Iowa
Connecticut
Vermont
New Mexico​

They've been rejected in Federal courts in:

California**
Utah
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Virginia
Texas
Ohio
Michigan​



The arguments against SSCM are also shown to be beginning to be rejected by "We the people" as the last 4 votes in the issue during General Elections has shown (with Marriage Equality supporters winning all 4 votes) which validates the trend data shown by such organizations as Gallup and Pew. Out, as a society, attitude of today is not the same as it was just a decade ago when States were getting Civil Marriage and Civil Unions banned.



** Yes California is listed twice as the arguments were rejected by State courts and the California Supreme Court and by Federal District court and the Federal 9th Circuit Court.


>>>>
Hmmm... don't know for sure, but I bet if you started listing the states that haven't done any of that, the list would look a heck of a lot longer, eh? Yes, you folks here, and in real life, have not yet been able to sufficiently convince the rest of us of your side's "logic and facts"... btw, was that supposed to be a joke? I think you flatter yourself if you think you and your side are in possession of those two.

You think nine justices have the right to just turn an entire culture topsy-turvy without the consent of the people? Based on some methodology that perhaps worked in previous cases... but is not a one size fits all, all must be locked into this silly gambit styled deal. Just program it in and the court, like a computer spits out the ruling without any understanding of the culture, the people's will or any understanding of what havoc it may well wreak?

If you do, I would consider that the ideology of anarchy.
 
Last edited:
And yet that is how it has been since 1967.

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

But I guess if you find American history to be absurd...
Oh, I think many of us can find absurdities in American History, sure. You believe all our history is just clean, pristine, without fault do you? How do you account for Plessy being overturned by Brown then, eh? You think the court is always right [ how can you even think to reconcile that with PvB just mentioned], that SC justices are infallible, everything they say and do cannot be questioned on its logic and pragmatism?

That is simply mindless, might as well be ants in a colony doing the bidding of some divine right queen, or in this case the court, right?

But, as I indicated previously, to take this incongruity to its logical conclusion, if one is not married under these proclaimed civil rights, one is being discriminated against, correct? Being denied their basic civil rights... and when that is the provable case, such injury requires some sort of compensation, does it not?
 
Back
Top Bottom