• 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]

Doesn't need to be specifically mentioned. Equal protection covers it, and experts on the law agree with me instead of you.
The law was never fashioned nor intentioned to take the human/cultural element out of the equation, to simply be a computer formula that one plugs in and it spits out a decision. If that were so, we would not allow for mitigating factors, for example.

Height of ludicrous to believe it must be such.
 
Wow, forever huh? I do not get the feeling that you are a real prohet, divining the future is probably not your forte... I think you will just have to settle for that being your opinion.

How about we at least wait until they, the SC, make a judgement. Its like I told someone else here, don't count your turkeys until they have hatched.

As my momma used to say..."Once the beak cracks the shell...it's a done deal".
 
Your wording is somewhat ambiguous, so I cannot really tell if you are recognizing that different states DO get to treat 16/17/18 year olds differently by state. For instance, in the area of legal sexual consent, the states are all over the place on the issue with many allowing it at 16, many at 17 with about 2/3s having it at age 18 and above...so what is the difference... and if you move from a state that allows for consent at 16 to as state that only allows 18+, would your mental abilities to judge circumstances just automatically diminish by simply crossing the state line?

Alcohol consumption is generally 21, but South Carolina allows the possession and consumption of alcohol by adults 18 to 20 years of age... so this is not uniform across the nation, nor should it be.

Local and state communities indeed should be able to determine what is allowable and what is not in their state and their communities... that has been one of the geniuses of our system of Federalism, power sharing/division between state and national government.

The Federal government has simply and obviously overstepped its proper boundaries, based on the promises upon which our framework for governing, our Constitution, was sold to the states. Further, upon which these states voluntarily gave up their independence, and only a portion of their sovereignty, based on this Constitutionally established system of power sharing/power division with the Federal government limited to only the enumerated and with minimal necessary additional powers to carry these out these specific powers, curbed with extremely reasonable limitations as to how far they could go [ as there was a lot of prescient doubt that the Federal government would stay within its agreed bounds ]... and so, as predicted, the Feds have gone too far.

The 14th, while necessary, well meaning and attempting to help a nation heal/adjust from a major war within itself, was surely never meant for what it is now being warped to intend. The 14th needs a whole lot of scrutiny, fine-tuning/correction as to meaning... certainly limits in place so it does not get to the outrageously absurd.

The current situation is a prime example.

Different states do get to treat different ages differently, but only from the point of giving a minimum age for something. That is the only way that any state can use age limits. They cannot be used to discriminate after a person has already reached that other age (ever heard of age discrimination?). (And I'm almost certain that one of the next challenges we are going to see to laws is on age limits that are over 18. Whether they hold up or not, we will see, but I see them coming.) Like I said, the state cannot choose a random age and limit people of that certain age and that age only from something.

The drinking thing works the same way as driver's licensing and marriage age limits. It is a minimum age. (And drinking ages are pretty much 21 in every state with there being exceptions in many states that allow for drinking with parents' permission or in certain places or for certain events. Drinking age is federally tied to road funding for the states.)

So, like I asked, what prevents the people in a state from deciding that those aged 36 cannot have a driver's license (while 16-35 year olds and 37 and up can have a driver's license) or those aged 44 cannot get married (while those at the state's minimum marriage age up to 43 and 45 and up can get married)? Why would these specific restrictions be unconstitutional (and believe me there is little doubt that such restrictions would get challenged and ruled as unconstitutional)?
 
Last edited:
Hardly. The 14th Amendement is one example of protections. You step outside of the context and compared an apple with a tree frog. I noted they don't compare.

As for culture, you are not required to change at all. You can be as narrow minded as you want to be. But our society is not stagnant. It us in a constant state of change, though often at a varying paces, from glacier to instant. That us the nature of living. So, fearing change is not by itself reason to deny.
So sufficiently vague as to be incomprehensible as a concrete debating point. Why not say something that has some definable significance with regard to this debate? Afraid to be pinned down?

Regarding what you classify as narrow-mindedness, one can similarly be as open-minded as they personally want, no matter how silly unless it impacts, or potentially impacts, others in a way they do no want.

We, society, can choose to keep what works, dismiss what does not, even simply what we do not want, change as necessary and when desired... all this hope and change merely for change's sake has proven to be a destructive and unsettling hole in which to descend.

Simply, we are not required to follow every silly path liberals choose to explore... some of us happen to like being a prosperous, free, moral, practical/workable and strong nation.
 
Different states do get to treat different ages differently, but only from the point of giving a minimum age for something. That is the only way that any state can use age limits. They cannot be used to discriminate after a person has already reached that other age (ever heard of age discrimination?). (And I'm almost certain that one of the next challenges we are going to see to laws is on age limits that are over 18. Whether they hold up or not, we will see, but I see them coming.) Like I said, the state cannot choose a random age and limit people of that certain age and that age only from something.

The drinking thing works the same way as driver's licensing and marriage age limits. It is a minimum age. (And drinking ages are pretty much 21 in every state with there being exceptions in many states that allow for drinking with parents' permission or in certain places or for certain events. Drinking age is federally tied to road funding for the states.)

So, like I asked, what prevents the people in a state from deciding that those aged 36 cannot have a driver's license (while 16-35 year olds and 37 and up can have a driver's license) or those aged 44 cannot get married (while those at the state's minimum marriage age up to 43 and 45 and up can get married)? Why would these specific restrictions be unconstitutional (and believe me there is little doubt that such restrictions would get challenged and ruled as unconstitutional)?
Facts are that the states should be able to put which age limit THEY decide. Not the federal govt. What could and should prevent states from not allowing a 36 yo to marry would be that the majority would not stand for it. Yet if the majority wanted it, for whatever reason, they very well should and could with the powers reserved to the states in the Constitution, in areas not of appropriate Constitutional concern of the Federal government.

What you indicate would not occur and yet the states should be able to make such laws as they, themselves, deem necessary. The 14th was created for a specific purpose and that purpose has been fulfilled. I would go so far as to say the amendment was a power grab by the Federal government into areas it has no proper or Constitutional business and misapplied to the extent that, having thought about it a lot more due to this thread, it probably does need repeal/modification/limits/interpretation in some of its extent.
 
Facts are that the states should be able to put which age limit THEY decide. Not the federal govt. What could and should prevent states from not allowing a 36 yo to marry would be that the majority would not stand for it. Yet if the majority wanted it, for whatever reason, they very well should and could with the powers reserved to the states in the Constitution, in areas not of appropriate Constitutional concern of the Federal government.

What you indicate would not occur and yet the states should be able to make such laws as they, themselves, deem necessary. The 14th was created for a specific purpose and that purpose has been fulfilled. I would go so far as to say the amendment was a power grab by the Federal government into areas it has no proper or Constitutional business and misapplied to the extent that, having thought about it a lot more due to this thread, it probably does need repeal/modification/limits/interpretation in some of its extent.

The 14th was created to protect everyone's rights from the tyranny of the majority of the states. You can complain all you wish about it, but that is what the majority want. Very few would argue that they should lose their driver's license for one year while they are 36 years old or not be allowed to marry because they are 44 just because the majority in a state want to make such a stupid law.
 
The 14th was created to protect everyone's rights from the tyranny of the majority of the states. You can complain all you wish about it, but that is what the majority want. Very few would argue that they should lose their driver's license for one year while they are 36 years old or not be allowed to marry because they are 44 just because the majority in a state want to make such a stupid law.
Again, you have no authority to declare what the majority wants.

Your very few arguing the driver's license loss point dovetails right into the fact that few, a minority, would not get their way... copiche'? The majority would not allow it.

Thanks for the confirmation of the point.
 
Again, you have no authority to declare what the majority wants.

Your very few arguing the driver's license loss point dovetails right into the fact that few, a minority, would not get their way... copiche'? The majority would not allow it.

Thanks for the confirmation of the point.

We are talking about a hypothetical scenario where the majority would allow it, voted for it. And yes, it could happen. It may not be likely, but it is still possible.

In fact, I can even tell you what would likely lead to such a scenario occurring. Someone finds research on driving statistics that says the vast majority of those who drive drunk and who are in accidents are 36 year old drivers. This could easily lead to a majority of those in a state to decide that 36 year olds should not be allowed to drive. If people can get a supermajority of people asked to ban water by presenting faulty research, I'm sure that there are people who would go for banning 36 year old drivers with a good enough presentation.

Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

snopes.com: Dihydrogen Monoxide

People are gullible. And that is why the rights of the minorities need to be protected, and are, from the whims and gullibility of the majority. And that is why we have the 14th Amendment's EPC.
 
Over 100 pages and GC has been unable to show how SSM has and will harm our 'culture.' (his words) That is what he said the 'majority' is objecting to...and he's speaking for the majority @_@.

So to deny a significant minority civil rights, there would need to be a reason, right? So....how are they harming our culture or anything else?
 
So sufficiently vague as to be incomprehensible as a concrete debating point. Why not say something that has some definable significance with regard to this debate? Afraid to be pinned down?

Regarding what you classify as narrow-mindedness, one can similarly be as open-minded as they personally want, no matter how silly unless it impacts, or potentially impacts, others in a way they do no want.

We, society, can choose to keep what works, dismiss what does not, even simply what we do not want, change as necessary and when desired... all this hope and change merely for change's sake has proven to be a destructive and unsettling hole in which to descend.

Simply, we are not required to follow every silly path liberals choose to explore... some of us happen to like being a prosperous, free, moral, practical/workable and strong nation.

Not sure why you have such trouble understanding. The courts have consistently ruled that denying SSM violates the 14th amendment. This one, but only one, way in which the Constitution protects minorities. I've mentioned it and so have others. You should not be having any trouble finding a specific.

I and others have also mentioned the notion in law if just cause. It's a very specific and recognized concept. Again, very specific and not something you should be confused about.

I've also pointed out that a vote concerning a candidate for office is not comparable to equal rights protection or anything else that deals with a private matter. Who I love is not a votable issue. If there is no just cause to prevent it, it's none of your damn business.

Understand, as I've mention quite specifically before, you're side is the side oppressing others, denying rights, being tyrants.

Now, if you can't find anything specific there, I'll try and draw a picture next time.
 
We are talking about a hypothetical scenario where the majority would allow it, voted for it. And yes, it could happen. It may not be likely, but it is still possible.

In fact, I can even tell you what would likely lead to such a scenario occurring. Someone finds research on driving statistics that says the vast majority of those who drive drunk and who are in accidents are 36 year old drivers. This could easily lead to a majority of those in a state to decide that 36 year olds should not be allowed to drive. If people can get a supermajority of people asked to ban water by presenting faulty research, I'm sure that there are people who would go for banning 36 year old drivers with a good enough presentation.

Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

snopes.com: Dihydrogen Monoxide

People are gullible. And that is why the rights of the minorities need to be protected, and are, from the whims and gullibility of the majority. And that is why we have the 14th Amendment's EPC.
Who then protects the majority from the gullibility and whims of the minority then?
 
Over 100 pages and GC has been unable to show how SSM has and will harm our 'culture.' (his words) That is what he said the 'majority' is objecting to...and he's speaking for the majority @_@.

So to deny a significant minority civil rights, there would need to be a reason, right? So....how are they harming our culture or anything else?
Examples of civil rights are" freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places."
Marriage is not a civil right.
 
Examples of civil rights are" freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places."
Marriage is not a civil right.

Equal protection of the law is a civil right. And marriage has been declared a right by the SCOTUS on several occasions. So long as legal kinships are recognized within our country, then marriage is necessary and likely going to be deemed a "right".
 
Equal protection of the law is a civil right. And marriage has been declared a right by the SCOTUS on several occasions. So long as legal kinships are recognized within our country, then marriage is necessary and likely going to be deemed a "right".

The civil union of gays protects their rights under the law and gives them equality to marriage without actually being "married".
 
The SCOTUS and the Constitution as well. It isn't really that hard to figure out.
Sorry, but you have basically maintained from the very beginning that the SC must, without regard to much of any consequence, protect the minority...they are handcuffed, forced to by prior decisions and a one size fits all wrench being used to take apart the will of the people....so where, again, are the protections of the majority's rights?
 
Wrong. Most certainly it does. From where does this mistaken philosophical underpinning for your erroneous viewpoint originate? Certainly not derived from the Constitution, not in the Federalist Papers, so where?

We not only have the right, we have a solemn duty to do so.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, says so right in the text. It literally defines the United States of America as an entity. We are not a direct democracy. 51% of the vote does not decide anything you want. You've admitted as much: 51% of the vote cannot reinstate slavery because that is in violation of the constitution. Therefore, if same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution, there is no number of votes that can uphold them.

So again, the real issue is whether or not the equal protection clause applies here. You claim it doesn't, but you don't really base that on anything in particular. You've steadfastly ignored how the equal protection clause actually functions, hiding behind this "it doesn't say that in the constitution!" business. Constitutional amendments do not explicitly spell out every aspect of their application, and they don't need to.

SCOTUS is the authority here. They have the power to determine this, and they've put forward a strong legal argument that you choose to ignore.
 
Sorry, but you have basically maintained from the very beginning that the SC must, without regard to much of any consequence, protect the minority...
You have yet to define any such consequence. SCOTUS doesn't suppress rights on the basis of a danger you can't even name. This entire line of reasoning is built upon a danger that doesn't exist.

The people against interracial marriage spewed the same nonsense. Moral fiber, attacking the foundations of our country, etc, etc. If one of them had warned about some unnamed, potential future danger that wasn't seen in any evidence from existing interracial marriages, would you have accepted that argument? Would you have expected the Supreme Court to accept that argument?


they are handcuffed, forced to by prior decisions and a one size fits all wrench being used to take apart the will of the people....so where, again, are the protections of the majority's rights?

What right of yours is being taken away? The right to vote against someone else's marriage? You don't have the right to vote on my marriage, and I don't have the right to vote on yours. Why do you get to vote on anyone's marriage?
 
Last edited:
G-man, I've asked this before but it's a fast moving thread and I didn't see an answer:

We have a decade's worth of data from same-sex marriage that shows the effects to be positive, not negative.

You claim we don't know the real effects, the real dangers. How many years of data would make you accept that there are no negative consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage?
 
Might you give an example representing your view of history, please? Besides being wrong on the definition, also wrong with regard to accounting v summary. It is almost impossible, perhaps it is impossible, to get ALL pertinent aspects. Often times nobody knows ALL, or will ever know, ALL of them...

And, absolutes are usually best not used as they can almost always be proved wrong. See how I used that almost before the absolute of always?

You don't have to thank me.
Please do not delude yourself, it hardly helps. There is nothing to thank you for short of the demonstration of utter disregard of reality, closed mindedness, bigotry, denial and a complete lack of understanding legal principles and the Constitution.
Other than that you made fabulous arguments.
 
The civil union of gays protects their rights under the law and gives them equality to marriage without actually being "married".

No civil unions do not protect same sex couples in the same way or even an equal way to marriage. Civil unions are not even granted recognition by the federal government, let alone doing the most important thing marriage does, granting legal kinship between two people and including their immediate kin in that kinship to each other.
 
Sorry, but you have basically maintained from the very beginning that the SC must, without regard to much of any consequence, protect the minority...they are handcuffed, forced to by prior decisions and a one size fits all wrench being used to take apart the will of the people....so where, again, are the protections of the majority's rights?

The majority is protected as well by the Constitution and the SCOTUS when their rights are more important than that of the minority in accordance with the Constitution.

You are the one trying to apply a "one size fits all" here, not me. I know how the law works. And how the Constitution and constitutional law works. You apparently do not. You only know how you want it to work, how you wish it worked, but that is not reality.
 
No civil unions do not protect same sex couples in the same way or even an equal way to marriage. Civil unions are not even granted recognition by the federal government, let alone doing the most important thing marriage does, granting legal kinship between two people and including their immediate kin in that kinship to each other.

Civil unions give all the legal rights of marriage. Gays just want to "marry" to legitimize or normalize their relationship, it is not about civil or legal rights it is about gay's being militant.
 
The civil union of gays protects their rights under the law and gives them equality to marriage without actually being "married".

Really so when a partner of a gay person dies, the living partner doesn't have to pay taxes on the estate right? Oh wait, they do unlike a married couple. Your civil union protection is a bunch of bull****. Don't worry, people like you will have to deal with SSM being legal very soon. I will toast that day to all the bigots that will be crying.

BTW why doesn't YOU show us where EVERYTHING is EXACTLY equal with heterosexual marriage and civil unions except for the word marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom