• 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]

Ahhhh - so now Civil Unions are OK. See a decade ago as these were debated even Civil Unions were a No-No and that door was slamed closed. Quite a few states banned Civil Unions as well as marriage equality.

Like the state I live in, Virginia:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​


Funny how Civil Unions in the early 2000's were not a compromise to be considered when opponents of SSCM were in the majority. Now though that they have lost in the courts, lost in the legislatures, lost in the polls, and bagain losing in ballot during General Elections - suddenly - "Oh, Civil Unions should work."

And many who now claim to support the concept of "separate but equal" are mostly the very people that voted against it a decade ago.




>>>>

In NC in 2012 all same sex unions were banned, not just marriages, so it is just plain wrong for anyone to try to argue that most would be for something other than marriage. They aren't.
 
I'm talking about a fed civil union law not one single state.

And there has never been even a proposed federal act/law/bill to recognize any unions other than marriage, for same sex couples or any couples. Why push for something less, even if just in the fact that they are using different words to try to "exclude" same sex couples from marriage when the laws discriminate and can be overturned? It has already been proven that the laws violate the Constitution, particularly federal laws that do not recognize same sex couples as married, hence why most of DOMA was struck down last summer by the SCOTUS.
 
If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.

I would be because it would be like someone saying that they cannot share a word with others for no real reason except personal bias, personal beliefs against those other couples. It would be a waste of time and money to do such a thing.
 
I just explained it up there...

"No discrimination shall be made by any state, nor by the United States, as to the civil rights of persons because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

You see, we had just had this Civil War thing, it was kind of a big deal, and we had all these multitudes, about 4 million or about 10+% of the total population, of these former people wandering around in legal limbo, who had not been recognized as citizens, you see... and so this was something done to rectify that situation, give them official recognition and guarantee them all the rights then accorded to fellow citizens of the US of A.

That is not the Equal Protection Clause. The EPC does not mention anything about race or color at all.

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That is the EPC. The thing you quoted is not the Amendment itself so it has no real bearing on the relevant portion of the Amendment being used to strike down the laws. You don't get to claim that if something isn't written in the Constitution, then it shouldn't apply then try to apply something that is not written in that particular part of the Amendment being used.
 
I would love to know why ANY marriage is recognized by the state??? oh yeah because our government wants tax money.

Because the people want them to be recognized because the government recognizes other legal relationships.
 
Because the people want them to be recognized because the government recognizes other legal relationships.

Apparently you just didn't get it...

Why does the government recognize ANY marriage?

Oh yeah they want their tax money.
 
Apparently you just didn't get it...

Why does the government recognize ANY marriage?

Oh yeah they want their tax money.

... You really have no idea what it is you're discussing do you? The reason many people are against the recognition of "gay marriage" is the fact that it would be seen as an attractive way to reduce tax burden. In some cases, the government actually loses money if you get married as there are many ways to reduce your tax burden once you're married. So using "tax money" as an excuse for recognizing gay marriage is absolutely ridiculous.
 
... You really have no idea what it is you're discussing do you? The reason many people are against the recognition of "gay marriage" is the fact that it would be seen as an attractive way to reduce tax burden. In some cases, the government actually loses money if you get married as there are many ways to reduce your tax burden once you're married. So using "tax money" as an excuse for recognizing gay marriage is absolutely ridiculous.

No, I just really believe that government should stay out of citizens lives..

But you - you want a nice blue ribbon for gay marriage - well congratulations you got one...... Yay!

Remember prop 8 in the most liberal state? oh yea the people told you to go **** off...

How did democracy make you feel?
 
No, I just really believe that government should stay out of citizens lives..

Lol, yeah - by arguing the government wants gays to get married so it can get its hands on... fewer taxes? Hey, I'm sorry you actually got caught making up nonsensical ****. As it stands by not getting married, the average unmarried couple (gay or straight) pays MORE in taxes than their married counterparts. Again, this is a fact - unlike half of your ridiculous opinions. So if the government ever becomes supportive of gays getting married - it won't be due to taxing more.

Again, this is something only people who are actually married or even in a basic **** friend relationship would know and something which the perpetually single wouldn't.
 
Lol, yeah - by arguing the government wants gays to get married so it can get its hands on... fewer taxes? Hey, I'm sorry you actually got caught making up nonsensical ****. As it stands by not getting married, the average unmarried couple (gay or straight) pays MORE in taxes than their married counterparts. Again, this is a fact - unlike half of your ridiculous opinions. So if the government ever becomes supportive of gays getting married - it won't be due to taxing more.

Again, this is something only people who are actually married or even in a basic **** friend relationship would know and something which the perpetually single wouldn't.

Really? Your combined tax exemptions are really sweet. "Got Kids?"
 
Really? Your combined tax exemptions are really sweet. "Got Kids?"

Duck and dodge Nick, my man. Tell us all about how a couple pays more taxes because of dependents - just so I can tell you you've obviously not old enough to even file your own taxes.
 
Duck and dodge Nick, my man. Tell us all about how a couple pays more taxes because of dependents - just so I can tell you you've obviously not old enough to even file your own taxes.

Couples don't - the children are exemptions (and a credit) depending on your income, however it's more complicated than that.
 
Couples don't - the children are exemptions (and a credit) depending on your income, however it's more complicated than that.

This is contrary to what you previously stated that the government wanted gays to marry because it would get more taxes! Are you serious?
 
Apparently you just didn't get it...

Why does the government recognize ANY marriage?

Oh yeah they want their tax money.

No, apparently you don't get it. The people want them to. Just as the people want the government to recognize other legal kinships, such as mother, father, daughter, son, sister, brother, etc. Why do you think we have birth certificates and adoption records? This all goes into legal kinship and protections and rights, and having people to give certain responsibility in decision making and paying when it comes to death/incapacitation and debts so that society/the government doesn't have to do it. The government tracking such relationships makes it much more convenient than trying to make those connections after the fact.
 
No, I just really believe that government should stay out of citizens lives..

But you - you want a nice blue ribbon for gay marriage - well congratulations you got one...... Yay!

Remember prop 8 in the most liberal state? oh yea the people told you to go **** off...

How did democracy make you feel?

Citizens want the government in their lives though, otherwise they wouldn't voluntarily go, pay the fees, and sign the marriage license. You don't actually need the marriage license to get married. The marriage license simply gives the couple that legal recognition of kinship.
 
That is not the Equal Protection Clause. The EPC does not mention anything about race or color at all.

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That is the EPC. The thing you quoted is not the Amendment itself so it has no real bearing on the relevant portion of the Amendment being used to strike down the laws. You don't get to claim that if something isn't written in the Constitution, then it shouldn't apply then try to apply something that is not written in that particular part of the Amendment being used.
Since we have recorded what the framers of the 14th were actually intending, what was included and what was meant to be included by means of study of said discussion and debates, in other words why the amendment was created which is not at all what you were saying it was created for... just like we are familiar and take into consideration the debates/discussions of the founders of our original Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

I rather doubt that the framers would have EVER allowed such language to be considered allowing this free-for- all you intend to saddle us with regards to just the areas of gender and marriage. Loving they would have no doubt allowed, Loving was reasonable interpretation of the 14th perhaps... we could certainly debate that... but there is no basis, except on the limited conveyance of specific citizenship and rights to African Americans across the broad spectrum of community in the US of those that had been previously "legally" enslaved but were now free yet in citizenship limbo.

The framers of the 14th were unwise to leave their language so loose, but then they could have had no idea to what extent the misuse, abuse and exploitation of their meaning would so falsely be undertaken. The license that the courts have taken with this and other areas of the Constitution, in which the federal government has absolutely no business, should be repossessed, returned to its proper place. We have all grown up assimilating these power grabs as something considered normal course, but where in fact, this is just federal and judicial overreach into areas best left, and intended to be left, to the states and to the people [ which was, by the 9th and 10th amendments being selectively incorporated under the 14th] by this very amendment confirmed.

This is actually, in my opinion, where the the courts SHOULD BE utilized, to protect the 9th and the 10th, amendments which have been long long since been neglected and therefore molested... especially that 10th, which accepts, appreciates and indulges the rights and powers of the true masters here.

WE, the People.
 
Since we have recorded what the framers of the 14th were actually intending, what was included and what was meant to be included by means of study of said discussion and debates, in other words why the amendment was created which is not at all what you were saying it was created for... just like we are familiar and take into consideration the debates/discussions of the founders of our original Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

I rather doubt that the framers would have EVER allowed such language to be considered allowing this free-for- all you intend to saddle us with regards to just the areas of gender and marriage. Loving they would have no doubt allowed, Loving was reasonable interpretation of the 14th perhaps... we could certainly debate that... but there is no basis, except on the limited conveyance of specific citizenship and rights to African Americans across the broad spectrum of community in the US of those that had been previously "legally" enslaved but were now free yet in citizenship limbo.

The framers of the 14th were unwise to leave their language so loose, but then they could have had no idea to what extent the misuse, abuse and exploitation of their meaning would so falsely be undertaken. The license that the courts have taken with this and other areas of the Constitution, in which the federal government has absolutely no business, should be repossessed, returned to its proper place. We have all grown up assimilating these power grabs as something considered normal course, but where in fact, this is just federal and judicial overreach into areas best left, and intended to be left, to the states and to the people [ which was, by the 9th and 10th amendments being selectively incorporated under the 14th] by this very amendment confirmed.

This is actually, in my opinion, where the the courts SHOULD BE utilized, to protect the 9th and the 10th, amendments which have been long long since been neglected and therefore molested... especially that 10th, which accepts, appreciates and indulges the rights and powers of the true masters here.

WE, the People.

If the framers wanted an Amendment to not be used to protect other rights, then they could have written it very selectively in order to ensure that it only covered that specific area or rights for specific people in specific situations. They didn't. They wrote the EPC of the 14th so that it covered everyone's rights, not just those that they knew needed the protection most at that time. They had no way to truly know if their intentions would actually be known to us here in the future when it comes to writing any Amendment.
 
If the framers wanted an Amendment to not be used to protect other rights, then they could have written it very selectively in order to ensure that it only covered that specific area or rights for specific people in specific situations. They didn't. They wrote the EPC of the 14th so that it covered everyone's rights, not just those that they knew needed the protection most at that time. They had no way to truly know if their intentions would actually be known to us here in the future when it comes to writing any Amendment.
Go ahead and prove your "thesis", please. Regale us with where you find your interpretation.
 
Go ahead and prove your "thesis", please. Regale us with where you find your interpretation.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This type of post is exactly why often one doesn't bother responding to some posts/posters.
 
Lol, yeah - by arguing the government wants gays to get married so it can get its hands on... fewer taxes? Hey, I'm sorry you actually got caught making up nonsensical ****. As it stands by not getting married, the average unmarried couple (gay or straight) pays MORE in taxes than their married counterparts. Again, this is a fact - unlike half of your ridiculous opinions. So if the government ever becomes supportive of gays getting married - it won't be due to taxing more.

Again, this is something only people who are actually married or even in a basic **** friend relationship would know and something which the perpetually single wouldn't.
So perpetually single people, in the eyes of the law, would be inherently more uninformed than perpetually single, in the eyes of the law, gay people? Based on what evidence? Perhaps its the fact that perpetually single heteros are not incessantly making donkey butts out of themselves clamoring for "equal rights"protections?

And there are a lot more of this particular minority than there are gay folk. Gay folk, at least the politically active ones, seem never satisfied with all that they truly deserve, tolerance. Won't be satisfied with marriage either, that won't make "it" all better.
 
... Marriage has been declared a right by the SCOTUS on several occasions.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this notion, that because a body of 9 people appointed for life, and more so, usually paired down to one swing Justice sits on high, and just "deems" things....Anyone else see anything wrong with this?
 
There is something fundamentally wrong with this notion, that because a body of 9 people appointed for life, and more so, usually paired down to one swing Justice sits on high, and just "deems" things....Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Aren't you one of thsoe Rah Rah Constitution guys?

Why would the founders set up such a flawed system.... maybe it's in need for a... change :mrgreen:
 
Those with positions regarding homosexuals were the ones that BANNED Civil Unions in many State Constitutions. You are now trying to use "Civil Unions" as a fallback not that you are no longer a majority position. Anti-marriage equality is losing in the courts, losing in the polls, losing in the legislatures, and now losing in the ballot box in general elections - and "now" suddenly Civil Unions are acceptable.

Sounds like "when I'm in the majority it's my way or the highway, now that we aren't - it's time to come to a compromise". I don't blame homosexuals going for full equality instead of separate but equal considering how the compromise door was slammed shut in many states a decade ago.



>>>>

Correct, times are changing and people are for more accepting of gays so at this juncture a civil union act would sail right through.
 
Surely you remember that 'separate but equal' was determined to be unConstitutional?

Not to mention that 'marriage' means exactly the same thing to gays as it does to many straight couples. So why shouldnt they be able to 'marry?'

Separate but equal was about things like schools and restrooms not marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom