• 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!

Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

DVSentinel said:
You mention them constantly, do you think that I'm the only one on the board that doesn't translate "fact" when you use it as meaning your opinion.

Fact, majority of Homosexuals are Liberal (dems).
Fact, Dems do not support true equality.
Fact, AA is based upon race, among other things, making it factually racist.
Fact Homosexuals supporting Liberals are not in fact promoting equality. Especially not equality based upon merit.
Fact Homosexual marriage is NOT supporting true equality.
Click to expand...

I like Gipper's arguments 10x better than this, which belongs in partisan sandbox
 
roguenuke said:
Your major problem is that you are trying to attach beliefs/positions to a general label of "Democrat". Just because a person identifies with a political party, does not mean that they have to support every single thing that party supports.

Same sex marriage is absolutely supporting equality. No one is treated more unequally after same sex couples are allowed to marry than before they are.
Click to expand...

100% correct, nailed it perfectly. Its a farce and dishonest to paint with such a broad brush not to mention it just simply isnt true.
 
AGENT J said:
nope just an OPINION LMAO
hell if one was to make such a stupid, unsupportable and mentally inept "statement" like that they could apply that severely uneducated and dishonest logic to any voting.
Click to expand...

In your OPINION. Except of course, mine was supported by examples, Such As AA and progressive taxation.

If some was "stupid, unsupportable and mentally inept", they might have over looked that.
 
DVSentinel said:
1.)In your OPINION.
2.)Except of course, mine was supported by examples, Such As AA and progressive taxation.
3.)If some was "stupid, unsupportable and mentally inept", they might have over looked that.
Click to expand...

1.) false it was by facts supported by laws, rights and the definitions of words. I havent presented my opinion on this matter. Repeating that lie only makes your posts fail even more.
2.) yes that were factually wrong and based on opinion like your factually wrong opinion of AA/EEO which is about equality.
3.) correct this is why me and other posters here did NOT fall for those examples based on your opinion and see that your post factually failed and was proven wrong lol Now you are getting it!

so again i ask, please let us know when you have somethign factual that supports your failed and false statement . . . . . . .one factual thing :)
 
can anybody support this failed and proven wrong statement with anything factual, as multiple posters noted and proved it has yet to be done.

"the homosexual community that wants equal "rights" to receive the benefits of "marriage" but would deny equal rights to others?"
 
DVSentinel said:
But they either support the majority of the agenda or they are "one issue voters" that screw everyone for what they want.
Click to expand...

another opinion based on ZERO facts.

if you disagree simply provide this FACTUAL agenda you speak of and then prove they support it or are one issue voters. We'd love to read it.


or you could just simply admit the hilarious truth we already all know. Its your made up opinion and nothing more.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) false it was by facts supported by laws, rights and the definitions of words. I havent presented my opinion on this matter. Repeating that lie only makes your posts fail even more.
2.) yes that were factually wrong and based on opinion like your factually wrong opinion of AA/EEO which is about equality.
3.) correct this is why me and other posters here did NOT fall for those examples based on your opinion and see that your post factually failed and was proven wrong lol Now you are getting it!

so again i ask, please let us know when you have somethign factual that supports your failed and false statement . . . . . . .one factual thing :)
Click to expand...

I provided it, except it would appear, at least some people are not mentally capable or flexible enough to understand.
Those other posters, are like you, mostly emotionally biased towards the left.
You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "right" and what politicians, especially those of a socialist bend, call rights. There are very few things that are truly rights. As far as laws go, they are totally dependent upon who holds political offices at a given time and can only represent those politicians views of what is a "right" and are not necessarily factual about what really is.
 
DVSentinel said:
1.)I provided it, except it would appear, at least some people are not mentally capable or flexible enough to understand.
2.)Those other posters, are like you, mostly emotionally biased towards the left.
3.) You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "right" and what politicians, especially those of a socialist bend, call rights.
4.) There are very few things that are truly rights. As far as laws go, they are totally dependent upon who holds political offices at a given time and can only represent those politicians views of what is a "right" and are not necessarily factual about what really is.
Click to expand...

1.) yes you reposted your OPINION that already failed and was proven false lol
2.) another factually wrong opinion lol
3.) see #2
4.) thanks for this meanignless statement

again i ask since you keep dodging it, which tells us all we need to know, please let us know when you have somethign factual that supports your failed and false statement . . . . . . .one factual thing . . we are waiting. Focus on the word FACT then prove it, that will help stop your posts from failing and facts destroying them so much.
 
DVSentinel said:
But they either support the majority of the agenda or they are "one issue voters" that screw everyone for what they want.
Click to expand...

Or they support part of it which just happens to be what's most important to them. In fact, many people are going to go with the candidate/party that most closely matches their views on what is most important to them. Chances are very good that no candidate or party is going to match a person's positions on every single position, 100%. Not unless the person is adapting their positions to fit their party.
 
roguenuke said:
Or they support part of it which just happens to be what's most important to them. In fact, many people are going to go with the candidate/party that most closely matches their views on what is most important to them. Chances are very good that no candidate or party is going to match a person's positions on every single position, 100%. Not unless the person is adapting their positions to fit their party.
Click to expand...

Regardless of any other issues, if someone is supporting a party that suppresses or oppresses individuals rights and promotes inequality cannot claim to be supporting "equality". If there were indeed, true equality, then this issue would not even be an issue. Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc.

That is the problem with a basically two party system. You cannot choose just the issues you want, you have to view the overall party platform and either support it or vote against it in the whole.
 
DVSentinel said:
Regardless of any other issues, if someone is supporting a party that suppresses or oppresses individuals rights and promotes inequality cannot claim to be supporting "equality". If there were indeed, true equality, then this issue would not even be an issue. Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc.

That is the problem with a basically two party system. You cannot choose just the issues you want, you have to view the overall party platform and either support it or vote against it in the whole.
Click to expand...

Then no one would ever support any party, because they pretty much all could be said to be oppressing someone's "rights" in one way or another.

And "equality" is subjective. There is no "true equality", not in a society.

Without narrowing down to the best choice given the candidates is much better than getting dozens, hundreds, or even possibly thousands of different candidates who each have a small percent of the vote. This is why we have primaries. I'm all for opening up all primaries, in all states, to absolutely everyone, no matter which party they are or aren't registered with. But it still won't solve the problem. Still too many possible views with too little rational choices. It's an inherent flaw in the system that is credited to human nature.
 
DVSentinel said:
Regardless of any other issues, if someone is supporting a party that suppresses or oppresses individuals rights and promotes inequality cannot claim to be supporting "equality". If there were indeed, true equality, then this issue would not even be an issue. Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc.

That is the problem with a basically two party system. You cannot choose just the issues you want, you have to view the overall party platform and either support it or vote against it in the whole.
Click to expand...

so tell us what part FACTUALLY supports or doesnt support equality or in this two party system and provide the PROVE please lol
I cant wait to read this!
 
AGENT J said:
What in participial are you looking for, there are some updates, some pending dates etc but i dont have it all saved. Ive been ill for a little while and im way behind.

As far as the ones clinging to this is not a national issue thats a crock and always has been. Its pure dishonesty and they know it. Its never been a defensible position but yeah your right. It sorta has been going state by state. But the other failed complaint is that its "rogue judges" you know 30+ of them in multiple states all ruling very similar, its a conspiracy lol
Click to expand...

I guess the pending cases wouldn't have any details yet.

Of course it's a national issue. The ultimate issue is over equal protection. It's an issue that stems from the national constitution. The whole "states should decide" bit is complete nonsense. But even with that tactic, to attempt to keep equality out of red states, equality is still winning.

Gipper said:
When antifeds talk about the "state", they mean "the people", not overzealous judges. If the state votes to ban and the court overturns, that's not even close to letting the "people" decide.
Click to expand...

If the state votes to violate the constitution, the judges are supposed to overturn it. You can't vote on civil rights. When "antifeds", as you put it, talk about the "state", they mean the specific parts of government that do exactly what they want, and condemn the parts that do what other people want. Too bad, government is for all of us. It represents every single person in this country, even people who aren't like you. And it means you do not always get your way. It means the principles of the constitution stand up no matter what people want to do against it.

Cardinal said:
Court rulings don't count, because apparently those aren't a legitimate part of the system for reasons that have never been clearly explained to me.
Click to expand...

It's not like they're in the constitution, or anything. Oh wait...

No, apparently nothing besides a straight popular vote is alright (except for electing presidents, then we need some kind of small state benefiting rigging for it), because that's the only way you know the "will of the people". Who they elect is apparently irrelevant, and national polls overwhelmingly fall in favor of SSM. It's just trying to cherry pick whatever method will get them the result they want.
 
Last edited:
Gipper said:
...and if I thought marriage was a right, I'd agree with you.
Click to expand...

Then make a substantiated legal argument that would overturn Loving v. Virginia. Go ahead. We'd all like to hear it. And if it's "the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage" we already have that defeated. Go read the ninth amendment.

Gipper said:
If you can show me the word "marriage" anywhere at all in the Constitution, I'll concede every last point you just made.
Click to expand...

Oh look, there it is. Go read the ninth amendment. You also have the right to wear baseball caps, despite the constitution not mentioning them. You have the right to build a sand castle, despite the constitution not mentioning them. You have the right to eat cheese, despite the constitution not mentioning it. If the government tries to stop you from doing those things, you have a right to do them unless it has a damn good reason.

DVSentinel said:
They generally, a large majority of them anyways, support liberal agendas. Affirmative Action, Progressive Taxes, maintaining current tax structures and benefits programs that promote inequality and don't treat all people equally.
Click to expand...

Pay attention, the following is for you, too.

AGENT J said:
can anybody support this failed and proven wrong statement with anything factual, as multiple posters noted and proved it has yet to be done.

"the homosexual community that wants equal "rights" to receive the benefits of "marriage" but would deny equal rights to others?"
Click to expand...

It's pretty hard to get a coherent argument out of someone who thinks that progressive taxation is violating someone's rights. Probably paid maternal leave is, too, because men don't get time off to birth and nurse children. Or a public works project in a poor neighborhood, because it's not benefiting rich people the same way.

Unequal treatment is perfectly permissible with a compelling reason. That's why we have a court and constitutional scrutiny, so we can determine if the reasons are compelling. "I think gays are icky" is not a compelling reason. Biological differences (like contraceptives for women) is. Redressing the very lingering effects of slavery is. Raising revenue from people who have more money as opposed to people who don't is.

If someone wants to make a constitutionally and factually supported argument to the contrary, by all means, take it to the court. The idea that equality means treating people in different situations as if they were all in the best possible situation is moronic at best and probably a lie to justify leaving less fortunate or historically oppressed people behind. Unequal treatment is necessary when people are in unequal positions. That's how you push people closer to actual equality. When unequal treatment is no longer necessary, that's when we have the real thing.
 
Cardinal said:
The actual order of the states being "targeted" by the courts vs. your claims.
Click to expand...

Prior to the Utah ruling only California saw a federal court case at the state-level rule on the constitutionally of non-recognition for gay marriage. Some state courts ruled it a violation of their state constitutions, but that is different. The California case was a fluke and basically was just a quicker way to achieve what was inevitable for California despite the surprise victory for Prop 8. Presumably, they would have wanted it at the Supreme Court level, but the simple fact is that California political leadership were not interested in taking it there and it is likely those pushing for it realized it was a long shot that California would contest recognition being required by the court given that most leaders supported it. What we are seeing here are direct challenges to non-recognition for gay marriage as a violation of the U.S. constitution and the states targeted are typically the most conservative states in the country that could easily be a decade or more away from approving gay marriage through the proper channels. It is clearly a shrewd maneuver aimed at insuring an appearance at the Supreme Court. Utah was certainly not going to pull a California and not contest the ruling and even if by some bizarre turn of events they accepted it, there is no way all these different conservative states would have accepted it as well. Only state in this recent flurry of cases where gay marriage could have reasonably been approved through elections or a referendum is Michigan, but its legislative and executive branches are dominated by Republicans.
 
Demon of Light said:
Prior to the Utah ruling only California saw a federal court case at the state-level rule on the constitutionally of non-recognition for gay marriage. Some state courts ruled it a violation of their state constitutions, but that is different. The California case was a fluke and basically was just a quicker way to achieve what was inevitable for California despite the surprise victory for Prop 8. Presumably, they would have wanted it at the Supreme Court level, but the simple fact is that California political leadership were not interested in taking it there and it is likely those pushing for it realized it was a long shot that California would contest recognition being required by the court given that most leaders supported it. What we are seeing here are direct challenges to non-recognition for gay marriage as a violation of the U.S. constitution and the states targeted are typically the most conservative states in the country that could easily be a decade or more away from approving gay marriage through the proper channels. It is clearly a shrewd maneuver aimed at insuring an appearance at the Supreme Court. Utah was certainly not going to pull a California and not contest the ruling and even if by some bizarre turn of events they accepted it, there is no way all these different conservative states would have accepted it as well. Only state in this recent flurry of cases where gay marriage could have reasonably been approved through elections or a referendum is Michigan, but its legislative and executive branches are dominated by Republicans.
Click to expand...

Challenges to laws based on the U.S. Constitution are proper channels.
 
AGENT J said:
so tell us what part FACTUALLY supports or doesnt support equality or in this two party system and provide the PROVE please lol
I cant wait to read this!
Click to expand...

How about instead I provide just as much FACTUAL proof as you have. Oh, wait, that would mean I would have to present none at all.
 
Paschendale said:
Then make a substantiated legal argument that would overturn Loving v. Virginia. Go ahead. We'd all like to hear it. And if it's "the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage" we already have that defeated. Go read the ninth amendment.



Oh look, there it is. Go read the ninth amendment. You also have the right to wear baseball caps, despite the constitution not mentioning them. You have the right to build a sand castle, despite the constitution not mentioning them. You have the right to eat cheese, despite the constitution not mentioning it. If the government tries to stop you from doing those things, you have a right to do them unless it has a damn good reason.



Pay attention, the following is for you, too.



It's pretty hard to get a coherent argument out of someone who thinks that progressive taxation is violating someone's rights. Probably paid maternal leave is, too, because men don't get time off to birth and nurse children. Or a public works project in a poor neighborhood, because it's not benefiting rich people the same way.

Unequal treatment is perfectly permissible with a compelling reason. That's why we have a court and constitutional scrutiny, so we can determine if the reasons are compelling. "I think gays are icky" is not a compelling reason. Biological differences (like contraceptives for women) is. Redressing the very lingering effects of slavery is. Raising revenue from people who have more money as opposed to people who don't is.

If someone wants to make a constitutionally and factually supported argument to the contrary, by all means, take it to the court. The idea that equality means treating people in different situations as if they were all in the best possible situation is moronic at best and probably a lie to justify leaving less fortunate or historically oppressed people behind. Unequal treatment is necessary when people are in unequal positions. That's how you push people closer to actual equality. When unequal treatment is no longer necessary, that's when we have the real thing.
Click to expand...

Almost as hard as understanding the arguments of someone who believes everyone who is productive and creative has a "civic duty" to provide luxuries and a living to the non-productive, lazy and stupid.
 
DVSentinel said:
Almost as hard as understanding the arguments of someone who believes everyone who is productive and creative has a "civic duty" to provide luxuries and a living to the non-productive, lazy and stupid.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually provide any rebuttal to his point about constitutional scrutiny. Perhaps reading this little blurb on constitutional scrutiny can make the argument more clear:

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

You'll see gender listed under middle-tier scrutiny. (also sometimes referred to as "heightened" or "intermediate" scrutiny) Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a classification of gender, obviously, and therefore has the test of being "substantially related" to an "important state interest."

Failing to provide this interest means a state defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

The closest that the social conservatives have managed on this is declaring procreation to be an important state interest. Leaving aside the implications for elderly or otherwise infertile couples, I'd then ask the question of how exactly banning same-sex marriage leads to more babies. Even dropping down to the lowest tier of review, one has to wonder what rational basis someone could have for believing same-sex marriage bans lead to more babies.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Challenges to laws based on the U.S. Constitution are proper channels.
Click to expand...

Only when they are actually covered by the Constitution. I know. I know. "But, but, equal protection! Prior Supreme Court rulings! Authoriteh!" I, however, am talking about what the Constitution actually says and actually covers as opposed to what a bunch of unelected life-term appointees have decreed it says and covers. Just because you are getting your way with this ruling does not magically mean those same unelected life-term appointees won't decree it says and covers something you do not wish it did. How many people cheering these rulings were outraged by Citizens United? You can't have it both ways. Either the decrees of the judges are all that matters or the Constitution itself is what matters and the judges should adhere to it rather than serving as de-facto legislative body.
 
Demon of Light said:
Only when they are actually covered by the Constitution. I know. I know. "But, but, equal protection! Prior Supreme Court rulings! Authoriteh!" I, however, am talking about what the Constitution actually says and actually covers as opposed to what a bunch of unelected life-term appointees have decreed it says and covers. Just because you are getting your way with this ruling does not magically mean those same unelected life-term appointees won't decree it says and covers something you do not wish it did. How many people cheering these rulings were outraged by Citizens United? You can't have it both ways. Either the decrees of the judges are all that matters or the Constitution itself is what matters and the judges should adhere to it rather than serving as de-facto legislative body.
Click to expand...

You've got this strange idea that there's a singular set of rules the wording of the Constitution provides. So Equal Protection doesn't mention marriage... well, it doesn't mention anything specific. Does that mean it doesn't cover anything, or that it covers everything? How about the second amendment? The right to bear arms. You have two, I presume, attached to your shoulders. Are you telling me you interpret that to protect gun ownership? I suppose you want activist judges to protect that "right," eh?

If you say homosexuals already have equal protection under the law, and I say they don't, why does your opinion count and not mine?

And you know what? Yeah, I do want an unelected set of people to rule on these things. That way, we can pick good people who will rule on real legal reasoning instead of pandering to the tyrannical whims of the majority or our partisan, two-party system. I don't think 51% of the population should get to vote on **** regarding my personal freedom. Do you?
 
Deuce said:
I can't help but notice that you didn't actually provide any rebuttal to his point about constitutional scrutiny. Perhaps reading this little blurb on constitutional scrutiny can make the argument more clear:

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

You'll see gender listed under middle-tier scrutiny. (also sometimes referred to as "heightened" or "intermediate" scrutiny) Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a classification of gender, obviously, and therefore has the test of being "substantially related" to an "important state interest."

Failing to provide this interest means a state defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

The closest that the social conservatives have managed on this is declaring procreation to be an important state interest. Leaving aside the implications for elderly or otherwise infertile couples, I'd then ask the question of how exactly banning same-sex marriage leads to more babies. Even dropping down to the lowest tier of review, one has to wonder what rational basis someone could have for believing same-sex marriage bans lead to more babies.
Click to expand...

As I've already said, if you'd bother to read it.

"You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "right" and what politicians, especially those of a socialist bend, call rights. There are very few things that are truly rights. As far as laws go, they are totally dependent upon who holds political offices at a given time and can only represent those politicians views of what is a "right" and are not necessarily factual about what really is."

"Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom