• 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 throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

clownboy said:
That's not true. A majority of the people may amend the constitution. Constitutions exist to grant and restrict governmental power.
Click to expand...

Not the majority of a single state or even the majority of a dozen or so (up to about half or so would probably be about where we would get into iffy area) states because the majority of the rest of the states may very well be against that Amendment, and that would mean it wouldn't pass.
 
clownboy said:
If they have a horse in the race, yes.
Click to expand...

Anyone technically "has a horse in the race" on this issue since there is really no way to know whether or not in the future any judge might want to marry someone of the same sex. Every judge that makes a ruling on this issue is gaining a right if the law is struck down, no matter what their sexual orientation is. There may be some judges who are more likely to enter into a same sex marriage as of right now, but every single one gains new rights, just like every single person in the US does. That goes for most laws that have been struck down.
 
clownboy said:
Actually, no on that last. It took less than four years. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the constitution and federal law was silent on the issue of interracial marriage. The Loving decision came in 1967.
Click to expand...

Go look up your facts. An interracial marriage ruling was made in the 1800s, Pace v Alabama that upheld bans on interracial marriage. And California had a court decision made to strike down its interracial marriage bans just a few years before the Loving case.

The Constitution has always been silent on the issue of interracial marriage, however, there were several proposals throughout the years for interracial marriage to be prohibited via the US Constitution.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm pro-gay marriage but I am curious when the freedoms of polygamists are going to be taken up as a cause, and the cause for people who want to marry their siblings?

Marriage should be open to everyone who is of legal age.
Click to expand...

This should be fought on their own merits and the legal arguments against those individual issues, not on the sole fact that other marriage restrictions have been struck down.
 
Fenton said:
No, the issue is NOT just about legalities.

If that were the case then these people would have been satisfied with Civil Unions.

No, this is activism, a coordinated attack of a age old definition that transcends Religion and cultures and races.
Click to expand...

No civil unions in the US ever completely equaled marriage because there has never been any push within the federal government to recognize legal civil unions of anyone in any way. The only union that the federal government recognizes as granting the status of "spouse" to people is marriage.
 
pbrauer said:
Really? As a conservative Santorum would not have endorsed him if he knew this is the way he would rule.
Click to expand...

So it's funny as in "haha"? Hmmm.....okay.

Lots of politicians have endorsed judges through the years who end up ruling on certain things that the endorser himself disagrees with. It's happened with SCOTUS judges and ruling in a way the POTUS who nominated that judge would probably NOT have ruled.

No clue what Santorum's reasons for endorsing him in the first place were, and what rulings they were based on. But he obviously wanted him to be a judge, and he's probably not losing sleep over the endorsement even with this ruling, which I think was a good one.
 
CriticalThought said:
No marriage has ever been annulled in the United States because a couple could not bear children, no divorce has ever been granted in the history of the United States because a couple did not bear children, and the fertility of a couple has never in the history of the United States been a prerequisite to obtain a marriage license. There is not and has never been a requirement in US law that procreation is required for marriage. Furthermore, same sex couples have children through surrogacy and in vitro fertilization. Your argument is without precedent or rationality.

Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...

In fact, there are 5 states with laws that state explicitly that in order for certain opposite sex couples to marry (first cousins), those couples must either be over a certain age (or rather the woman must be, and it is recognized as a high enough age that a woman is highly unlikely to be able to conceive children) or must in fact prove infertility in one or both people in order to legally marry. The positive procreative ability between the couples wishing to marry fails hard when facts actually come out.
 
Grand Mal said:
Read it, not impressed.
Those aren't definitions, they're someone's opinions, someone with a drum to beat. Anyone who says liberalism is about big government and state power either doesn't know what liberalism means or is trying to hijack an ideology he can't admit to admiring. Liberal = bad, so anything good in liberalism is really conservative and anything bad in conservative is really liberal. Poof! Like magic, some dishonest schmuck feels good about himself.
Click to expand...

Well Liberal do have many monikers...Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Marxists etc.

Did you say you were from Canada?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Having a partner does not = wanting to get married. I know a few people who have partners but refuse to get married.
Click to expand...

It does screw you on tax day.

My point is by his decision, his and other Gay couples will benefit if they choose to do so. He even admits in his ruling the he's going against the wishes of the majority in 'his' state and makes out like it's a hard decision.

I say he's biased.
 
WCH said:
It does screw you on tax day.

My point is by his decision, his and other Gay couples will benefit if they choose to do so. He even admits in his ruling the he's going against the wishes of the majority in 'his' state and makes out like it's a hard decision.

I say he's biased.
Click to expand...

Actually, marriage can actually hurt some on tax day, depending on their situation. This is why married folks have the option of filing separately (eventhough that can even still be worse than simply filing as two single people). And many married couples don't actually know which way they should file that would be best for their situation.

Of course you would. But technically, every single person could be considered biased on this issue in some way. The simple fact that he is gay does not make him any more biased than if he were Christian or Muslim or black or in an incestuous relationship. In fact, as I pointed out, that every single person receives more rights with same sex marriage bans struck down since every single person then has the ability/right to marry someone of the same sex, even if they may not ever exercise that right. Just as when race restrictions were struck down, that granted every single person the right to marry someone of a different race, even if most never exercise that right.
 
Lursa said:
Er, in case you havent been following along, the 'states' have no legal standing to say 'no more.'

Are you ready to explain what the 'gay lifestyle' is yet?
Click to expand...


IIRC It's against forum rules to stalk another poster from thread to thread.
 
CriticalThought said:
No marriage has ever been annulled in the United States because a couple could not bear children, no divorce has ever been granted in the history of the United States because a couple did not bear children, and the fertility of a couple has never in the history of the United States been a prerequisite to obtain a marriage license. There is not and has never been a requirement in US law that procreation is required for marriage. Furthermore, same sex couples have children through surrogacy and in vitro fertilization. Your argument is without precedent or rationality.

Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...

I wasn't refering to marriage in the context of being legal or illegal dependening on a couples ability to have children.

I was really refering to the original and fundamental definition of marriage, that AGAIN, predates our Laws and Constitution.

What I was refering to was the definition that transends cultures, religions and race.

The natural definition of marriage.

I realize what this small group of activist is trying to do which is to corrupt that natural definition and defy thousands of years of societal evolution.

Good luck with that.
 
roguenuke said:
No civil unions in the US ever completely equaled marriage because there has never been any push within the federal government to recognize legal civil unions of anyone in any way. The only union that the federal government recognizes as granting the status of "spouse" to people is marriage.
Click to expand...

Lol...

Then push to force the Federal Government to recognize legal civil unions instead of attacking a sacred istitution.
 
Fenton said:
I wasn't refering to marriage in the context of being legal or illegal dependening on a couples ability to have children.

I was really refering to the original and fundamental definition of marriage, that AGAIN, predates our Laws and Constitution.

What I was refering to was the definition that transends cultures, religions and race.

The natural definition of marriage.

I realize what this small group of activist is trying to do which is to corrupt that natural definition and defy thousands of years of societal evolution.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

except your definition of marriage was already shown to be false.
 
Fenton said:
Lol...

Then push to force the Federal Government to recognize legal civil unions instead of attacking a sacred istitution.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what is sacred about meeting a woman at Centrifuge in the MGM and 4 hours later marrying her in a drivetru chapel by and Elvis impersonator. Until you start looking to make that illegal you are not exactly going to win the sacred institution argument.
 
Fenton said:
Lol...

Then push to force the Federal Government to recognize legal civil unions instead of attacking a sacred istitution.
Click to expand...

No. We are winning the push to allow same sex couples to marry. Why would I want more government institutions when there is no legitimate reason the one available now, marriage, won't work for same sex couples the same way it does for me and other opposite sex couples?

And I personally do not consider marriage to be a "sacred institution". I was married in the front yard of a relative who raised horses, by a Navy wife ordained on the internet, who had herself just performed a wedding a month or so prior in a hottub. Everything was legal. And my marriage is what I want it to be, not what you want it to be.

You don't get to decide what marriage is for everyone else, not on a personal level. And the "sacred" part of marriage is personal, not legal.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
1.) your OPINION on this is meaningless BUT lets look at your failed theroy
gays can bear children
straights dont always have children
some couples do not practice monogamy
well that theory completely fails and is meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage
2.) false has 30 federal judges alon disagree with you. DO you have anythign to back your false claim up?
3.) correct and individuals are begin denied, thanks for proving your own post wrong.
4.) good thing nobody wants that nor are they calling that equal rights
5.) your subjective meanignless definition of marriage doesnt matter to law, rights or legal marriage.

your posts fails again.

WHy are you against equal rights?
Click to expand...

No, the traditional and fundamental definition of a marriage is centered around a Family unit that includes a Mother and Father and Children.

Two Gay men deprive a child of a Mother,two Gay women deprive a child of a Father.

Sorry, but there is a Good reason Gay Marriage hasn't been Socially acceptable for much of Recorded human history and then some.

Your Opinions are meaningless.

Oh and 30 activist Judges disagree with me. So what ?

You're rights aren't being denied if its currently ILLEGAL to marry someone of the same Sex.

You dont like the Law ? Tough cookies.
 
WCH said:
It does screw you on tax day.

My point is by his decision, his and other Gay couples will benefit if they choose to do so. He even admits in his ruling the he's going against the wishes of the majority in 'his' state and makes out like it's a hard decision.

I say he's biased.
Click to expand...

If you think that marriage is just about tax day then you don't really know what an actual marriage is. :shrug:

And of course he's going against the wishes of the majority of people in his state. The majority of people tried to deny the fundamental right to marriage to a group of people while allowing it for another. That doesn't mean he's biased. It means he's not letting the majority down trod the minorities Rights. As is proper for any judge to do.
 
Fenton said:
Lol...

Then push to force the Federal Government to recognize legal civil unions instead of attacking a sacred istitution.
Click to expand...

Sacred? It wasn't even until 1563 that the Council of Trent ruled that marriages must be performed in front of a pastor with witnesses. Must not have been all that sacred if the church took over 1500 years after Christ died to start getting involved in marriages. Before that marriage was nothing more than a contract between two people, usually in exchange for prestige and property and power.
 
Fenton said:
No, the traditional and fundamental definition of a marriage is centered around a Family unit that includes a Mother and Father and Children.

Two Gay men deprive a child of a Mother,two Gay women deprive a child of a Father.

Sorry, but there is a Good reason Gay Marriage hasn't been Socially acceptable for much of Recorded human history and then some.

Your Opinions are meaningless.

Oh and 30 activist Judges disagree with me. So what ?

You're rights aren't being denied if its currently ILLEGAL to marry someone of the same Sex.

You dont like the Law ? Tough cookies.
Click to expand...

There are many different kinds of family and the mother-father-biological children model is not the only one that provides healthy, well-balanced children. It isn't better in any way than many other family models.

No, there isn't a good reason that same sex couples have not been accepted as valid.

A father or mother dying deprives a child of either father or a mother. Plenty of children are raised just fine without either of these in their lives. Some are raised better without either or both of their biological parents in their lives.

Just because a law exists, does not mean rights are not being denied. That is why we have a Constitution and a SC to enforce that Constitution.
 
roguenuke said:
No. We are winning the push to allow same sex couples to marry.

And I personally do not consider marriage to be a "sacred institution". I was married in the front yard of a relative who raised horses, by a Navy wife ordained on the internet, who had herself just performed a wedding a month or so prior in a hottub. Everything was legal. And my marriage is what I want it to be, not what you want it to be.

You don't get to decide what marriage is for everyone else, not on a personal level. And the "sacred" part of marriage is personal, not legal.
Click to expand...


Your personal experiences are irrelevant.

Marriage is and has always been a Sacred institution.

Its pretty much my whole point that attacking it and marginalizing it is bad for society as a whole.

Not only is it being attacked as a institution its being redefined by a small group of activist that also oppose the Religious aspect of traditional marriage.

And your " winning " based on what ?
 
Fenton said:
Your personal experiences are irrelevant.

Marriage is and has always been a Sacred institution.

Its pretty much my whole point that attacking it and marginalizing it is bad for society as a whole.

Not only is it being attacked as a institution its being redefined by a small group of activist that also oppose the Religious aspect of traditional marriage.

And your " winning " based on what ?
Click to expand...

No, it has not always been a sacred institution. It existed long before pretty much all religions that currently are practiced today. And in most cultures, it outdated the main religions in those cultures. Marriage has mainly been an arrangement or agreement between either two people or their families. In some cases/cultures, the main purpose of that agreement/arrangement was to join families. In China they would perform weddings for deceased children (including both marrying two deceased children and marrying a living child with a deceased child). And the Christian church did not involve themselves in marriages until at the earliest the 11th Century. Prior to that, it was left up to individual families and the communities. Nothing sacred about it.

My side is winning based on many court decisions and public opinion, not to mention the US Constitution. I have no doubt that once this reaches the SCOTUS, they will decide (although it may not be 9-0) that restrictions on marriage based on sex violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, just as about 30 other judges have already. And public opinion, particularly young adults, has a very firm majority supporting same sex marriage. It is just a matter of time before same sex couples can legally marry in every state in the US. A short time.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
If you think that marriage is just about tax day then you don't really know what an actual marriage is. :shrug:

And of course he's going against the wishes of the majority of people in his state. The majority of people tried to deny the fundamental right to marriage to a group of people while allowing it for another. That doesn't mean he's biased. It means he's not letting the majority down trod the minorities Rights. As is proper for any judge to do.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is marriage is a solemn promise before God between one man and one woman so, nothing was denied. And nothing was 'allowed'. It's not for the state to have a say in the matter

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Two men or two women can not be "one flesh" no matter how politically correct you or anyone else thinks it can be.
 
roguenuke said:
There are many different kinds of family and the mother-father-biological children model is not the only one that provides healthy, well-balanced children. It isn't better in any way than many other family models.

No, there isn't a good reason that same sex couples have not been accepted as valid.

A father or mother dying deprives a child of either father or a mother. Plenty of children are raised just fine without either of these in their lives. Some are raised better without either or both of their biological parents in their lives.

Just because a law exists, does not mean rights are not being denied. That is why we have a Constitution and a SC to enforce that Constitution.
Click to expand...

Sure there are many different types of Families which include single parents, but whats best for Children are a Father and a Mother.

That ideal definition of a Family unit has been targeted not only by Gay activist but by Feminist also.

It should be celebrated and revered, just like it has for millenia all over the world.

Isolated and distinct cultures all coming to the same conclusion and now a small activist minority is demanding that the age old example of a Family unit and a Marriage be changed.

And that anyone who believes in that age old definition should be targeted and ostracized.

Its absurd !

You can see the kind of damage that the destruction of the Family unit can cause.

Look at any inner city area in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom