• 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

Being denied access to Civil Marriage, that translates into being denied benefits and tax relief on an equal footing with other equally situated couples, ya that's a penalty.


>>>>

"Equally-situated couples" would be other unmarried couples who would also lack the benefits of married couples. They are not penalized for being gay. No penalty is imposed on them by government.
 
"Equally-situated couples" would be other unmarried couples who would also lack the benefits of married couples. They are not penalized for being gay. No penalty is imposed on them by government.

They are denied equal access to protections under the law, that is being penalized. Other unmarried different sex couples can choose to get married, in many states same-sex couples cannot - they are barred by law.

They are penalized by not having access to Civil Marriage when compared to "Equally-situated couples". In this case that would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in different-sex couples as compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in same-sex couples.

One set of the above is permitted to Civilly Marry in every State in the Union, the other denied this in most states. They are penalized by not having equal treatment under the law to access the same legal status - which then impact life, liberty and property.



>>>>
 
To you lefties the vote that the people of the state means nothing and that is the scary part

Well, that's just not true. We support the right of all people to vote for laws that aren't unconstitutional.
 
The people of Indiana voted overwhelmingly to not change the definition of marriage.

doesn't matter if that current definition is illegal it has to be changed theirs no rational reason to discriminate against same sex couples so that discrimination must end and it is ending
 
To you lefties the vote that the people of the state means nothing and that is the scary part

and religious nuts who condemn and seek to control the lives of others based on faith alone is not scary or dangerous?
 
The people of Indiana voted overwhelmingly to not change the definition of marriage.

Too bad. The people of Alabama, South Carolina, and Virginia wanted ("overwhelming") in the 1960s to not allow interracial couples to marry. The people in some states like Mississippi wanted overwhelming to maintain racial segregation laws.

We do not live in a direct democracy, even when it comes to individual states. We live in a constitutional republic, where the main governing document is the US Constitution.
 
"Equally-situated couples" would be other unmarried couples who would also lack the benefits of married couples. They are not penalized for being gay. No penalty is imposed on them by government.

No. That is not how this works legally. They are unmarried because they are legally unable to marry, not because they are choosing not to get married.
 
If they vote Dem, then they are in fact supporting the denial of some "rights" to others.

You mean like Republicans denying equal pay to women? Republicans trying to deny women's rights further by continually trying to restrict abortion? You mean like Republicans trying to deny gays the same privileges and legal protections as straight couples in marriage?

Yeah, that street runs both ways.
 
The people of Indiana voted overwhelmingly to not change the definition of marriage.

How about if a state votes overwhelmingly to ban and confiscate all guns? That ok then?

And 'equal protection' is just as much a part of the Const. as the 2A.
 
They are denied equal access to protections under the law, that is being penalized. Other unmarried different sex couples can choose to get married, in many states same-sex couples cannot - they are barred by law.

They are penalized by not having access to Civil Marriage when compared to "Equally-situated couples". In this case that would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in different-sex couples as compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in same-sex couples.

One set of the above is permitted to Civilly Marry in every State in the Union, the other denied this in most states. They are penalized by not having equal treatment under the law to access the same legal status - which then impact life, liberty and property.



>>>>

No. There is no penalty involved. Only a lack of recognition. No one is being punished by not having a relationship recognized by the government. Many relationships of a romantic or co-dependent nature get no recognition or beneficial status from the government. Government does not confer any special status or recognition on a married man's relationship with his mistress either even if they live together and do all the things a married couple would do normally. They are not being penalized by that lack of recognition.
 
You mean like Republicans denying equal pay to women? Republicans trying to deny women's rights further by continually trying to restrict abortion? You mean like Republicans trying to deny gays the same privileges and legal protections as straight couples in marriage?

Yeah, that street runs both ways.

The right to kill children, abortion, is not really a right.

For your other fantasies, I think you are grossly exaggerating what they are really trying to do. In some case, yes, they would appear to supporting taking away someones "rights", primarily because it involves infringing on other peoples rights. Also, they do not support, for the most part, using government to force or enforce social agendas upon people against their rights.

I do not support government enforcement of homosexual marriage because 1) it infringes on others right to practice their religion 2) the government should not be mandating any benefits and tax breaks based upon marital status, whether normal or homosexual.
 
No. There is no penalty involved. Only a lack of recognition. No one is being punished by not having a relationship recognized by the government. Many relationships of a romantic or co-dependent nature get no recognition or beneficial status from the government. Government does not confer any special status or recognition on a married man's relationship with his mistress either even if they live together and do all the things a married couple would do normally. They are not being penalized by that lack of recognition.

Most relationships can get that recognition though if they wish by simply applying to be married.

Now, some can't due to other restrictions, restrictions based on age, close relation, or number of partners/contracts. The restriction we are discussing is the one based on sex/gender. That is the one being challenged currently. In order for this restriction to overcome this challenge, the state must show that the restriction furthers a legitimate state interest in some way. Those other characteristics used to restrict marriage can be challenged as well, and the same principle applies to them as well. In order for them to be maintained, the state must show that the challenged restriction furthers a legitimate state interest.
 
The right to kill children, abortion, is not really a right.

For your other fantasies, I think you are grossly exaggerating what they are really trying to do. In some case, yes, they would appear to supporting taking away someones "rights", primarily because it involves infringing on other peoples rights. Also, they do not support, for the most part, using government to force or enforce social agendas upon people against their rights.

I do not support government enforcement of homosexual marriage because 1) it infringes on others right to practice their religion 2) the government should not be mandating any benefits and tax breaks based upon marital status, whether normal or homosexual.

Recognizing same sex marriages as legal in no way infringes upon anyone's rights to practice their religion. If it did, then recognition of any marriages could/would infringe upon someone's right to practice their religion in some way.

And the government giving benefits or tax breaks for marriage is an entirely different argument and has no place here because whether or not same sex couples get married, opposite sex couples who get married would still have those things. Take that 2) argument to another thread if you wish, but it in no way furthers your argument against same sex marriage.
 
Recognizing same sex marriages as legal in no way infringes upon anyone's rights to practice their religion. If it did, then recognition of any marriages could/would infringe upon someone's right to practice their religion in some way.

And the government giving benefits or tax breaks for marriage is an entirely different argument and has no place here because whether or not same sex couples get married, opposite sex couples who get married would still have those things. Take that 2) argument to another thread if you wish, but it in no way furthers your argument against same sex marriage.

Except they are not just asking for "recognition" of same sex marriage. They are asking for those benefits and tax breaks. They are also using it to try to force churches to perform those marriages when the church doctrine does not support it. They are also using it as a basis to sue individuals who wish not to recognize it and conduct their business according to their desires.

And no, I won't take it to another thread because in the end, GREED for those very things is the driving force behind the whole BS of the subject. If you take away the material gains, then nobody really gives a damn.
 
Except they are not just asking for "recognition" of same sex marriage. They are asking for those benefits and tax breaks. They are also using it to try to force churches to perform those marriages when the church doctrine does not support it. They are also using it as a basis to sue individuals who wish not to recognize it and conduct their business according to their desires.

And no, I won't take it to another thread because in the end, GREED for those very things is the driving force behind the whole BS of the subject. If you take away the material gains, then nobody really gives a damn.

The recognition of marriage comes with those benefits. So if your argument is truly with the benefits, then argue about that. (I highly doubt it will do you any good, given what we know about the financial benefits of marriage, including different tax laws for married couples and single people, but feel free anyway.)

The basis to sue, that you are bringing up, is there too. In fact, it is there whether same sex couples are allowed to marry or not.

Prove that any same sex couple has ever tried to force a church or clergy member to perform a wedding/marriage ceremony for them against church doctrine in the US. I dare you.

And it isn't "greed". It is fairness. It is about so many other things, things that are not "benefits" as you are trying to describe, but rights and privileges that come with legal recognition of a familial bond, legal kinship. That is what marriage does. Grant legal kinship, just as birth certificates and adoption papers do.
 
No. There is no penalty involved. Only a lack of recognition. No one is being punished by not having a relationship recognized by the government. Many relationships of a romantic or co-dependent nature get no recognition or beneficial status from the government. Government does not confer any special status or recognition on a married man's relationship with his mistress either even if they live together and do all the things a married couple would do normally. They are not being penalized by that lack of recognition.


The difference is that if a different-sex couple chooses not to become Civilly Married, that is much different then being barred from Civil Marriage by making capricious and invidious law with the intent to deny same-sex couple equality under the law.

They are penalized because such recognition, as a function of government, has been made illegal (in the vast majority of states).

But that's OK, things are changing. Equality is on the way. The first court case that overturned interracial marriage bans was Perez v. Sharp (CA, 1948). It wasn't until 1967 that the SCOTUS made it national in Loving v. Virginia - almost 20 years. Using that timeline Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was decided in 2004 in Massachusetts, only 10 years ago. Marriage Equality has made great strides in the last decade, it will probably be less then a decade before it's available nationally. Already it's winning consistently in the courts, it's winning the legislatures, and it's winning now at the ballot box.


>>>>
 
The recognition of marriage comes with those benefits. So if your argument is truly with the benefits, then argue about that. (I highly doubt it will do you any good, given what we know about the financial benefits of marriage, including different tax laws for married couples and single people, but feel free anyway.)

The basis to sue, that you are bringing up, is there too. In fact, it is there whether same sex couples are allowed to marry or not.

Prove that any same sex couple has ever tried to force a church or clergy member to perform a wedding/marriage ceremony for them against church doctrine in the US. I dare you.

And it isn't "greed". It is fairness. It is about so many other things, things that are not "benefits" as you are trying to describe, but rights and privileges that come with legal recognition of a familial bond, legal kinship. That is what marriage does. Grant legal kinship, just as birth certificates and adoption papers do.

Actually, I would take away the different tax brackets and all laws forcing non-governmental agencies to provide any kind of benefits. It's not the governments job. Sure I would lose that fight, but that doesn't mean it is not worth fighting.

Unless I was able to put together an army, I doubt I would be able to change the direction things are going. Not to say I have anything against that approach, I just don't see it as being feasible at the moment and especially not over this particular issue.

Show me any document that says life is "Fair". Fair is what you stand up and earn on your own, not begging others to give it to you.
 
The recognition of marriage comes with those benefits. So if your argument is truly with the benefits, then argue about that. (I highly doubt it will do you any good, given what we know about the financial benefits of marriage, including different tax laws for married couples and single people, but feel free anyway.)

The basis to sue, that you are bringing up, is there too. In fact, it is there whether same sex couples are allowed to marry or not.

Prove that any same sex couple has ever tried to force a church or clergy member to perform a wedding/marriage ceremony for them against church doctrine in the US. I dare you.

And it isn't "greed". It is fairness. It is about so many other things, things that are not "benefits" as you are trying to describe, but rights and privileges that come with legal recognition of a familial bond, legal kinship. That is what marriage does. Grant legal kinship, just as birth certificates and adoption papers do.

not to mention STRAIGHT couples get denied marriage at churches and have TRIED to sue but they failed because the church is protected by the constitution LMAO

the quickest way to not be taken seriously on equal rights for gays is to bring up the fear tactic of the churches are going to be forced to marry gays based on gay rights LMAO, theres no more idiotic, failed and retarded unsupportable claim that that.

If one has that "fear" it should have ALWAYS exist and would exist if gays didnt even exist. THe church is legally allowed to discriminate and has discriminated against different races, religions, straight couples and couples deemed not religious enough for centuries. Its the most dumb, mentally inept and dishonest failed strawman argument one can use.

Many people just dont like equal rights thats all and people dont fall for it.
 
The recognition of marriage comes with those benefits. So if your argument is truly with the benefits, then argue about that. (I highly doubt it will do you any good, given what we know about the financial benefits of marriage, including different tax laws for married couples and single people, but feel free anyway.)

The basis to sue, that you are bringing up, is there too. In fact, it is there whether same sex couples are allowed to marry or not.

Prove that any same sex couple has ever tried to force a church or clergy member to perform a wedding/marriage ceremony for them against church doctrine in the US. I dare you.

And it isn't "greed". It is fairness. It is about so many other things, things that are not "benefits" as you are trying to describe, but rights and privileges that come with legal recognition of a familial bond, legal kinship. That is what marriage does. Grant legal kinship, just as birth certificates and adoption papers do.

Couple suing to force church to perform gay marriage - Illinois Review
 
The right to kill children, abortion, is not really a right.

For your other fantasies, I think you are grossly exaggerating what they are really trying to do. In some case, yes, they would appear to supporting taking away someones "rights", primarily because it involves infringing on other peoples rights. Also, they do not support, for the most part, using government to force or enforce social agendas upon people against their rights.

I do not support government enforcement of homosexual marriage because 1) it infringes on others right to practice their religion 2) the government should not be mandating any benefits and tax breaks based upon marital status, whether normal or homosexual.

I agree with 2) and you only reinforce my point in your comments on abortion.
 
I do not support government enforcement of homosexual marriage because 1) it infringes on others right to practice their religion ...


Gay's are married every day in Churches, Synagogues, and Temples. You don't feel that infringes on their rights when those religious ceremonies aren't recognized equally?


>>>>
 

Did you miss this part on purpose?

"However, legal experts cautioned that the British bill left the Church of England open to legal challenge. In June 2012 a Justice Minister admitted that the government’s plans could lead to legal issues. He said the government is “seeking to protect, indeed, proscribe religious organisations from offering gay marriage”, but he continued: “That may be problematic legally”."

Gay dads set for court challenge over church | Essex Chronicle Chelmsford

That couple that is suing is in England. There is a big difference between our laws on marriage and the church and how the church is connected to the state (or rather isn't) and their laws in England. Which is precisely why I specified "in the US". England is not the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom