• 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

I didn't think marriage was mentioned in the Constitution? I personally have pro-gay marrage views having nothing to do with the Constitution.

My point was that 5% over half isn't as large a support level as I thought it would be. That's on the hairy edge of being less than half of Americans supporting it.

I do have to personally disagree with your dismissal of the ballot box impact. I believe the peoples' voice to be the most compelling argument of all, personally. JMO.
The constitution disagrees, and its opinion is more important. To give the absurd example, it doesn't matter how many people vote to ban Catholics from serving in office.

Marriage isn't mentioned in hath constitution, but neither is wearing a blue shirt.

Side note:
Indeed, it is unsurprising that Defendants muster no argument engaging the strictures of heightened scrutiny, as we, too, are unable to fathom an ingenuous defense saving the Marriage Laws from being invalidated under this more-searching standard.

Judicial BURN.
 
The constitution disagrees, and it's opinion is more important.

Marriage isn't mentioned in hath constitution, but neither is wearing a blue shirt.

Side note:


Judicial BURN.

Is wearing a blue shirt being debated in courts?
 
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.

Judge Walker characterized the right at issue as "the right to marry", which, he wrote, "has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household", citing Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. He went on to say that "[r]ace and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage".

Marriage is a civil, not religious, matter.[94]:FOF 19 p.60
 
You might want to poll the people supporting SSM in this thread on how old they are. I'm 53 and no, not a lesbian. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that!" lol)

I'm tempted to start a forum poll on just that...however I dont know the demographics for age in general on this forum.

I'm 51, but I don't think we count as "older" Americans....at least I hope not.
 
America is already ruined morally, there is no sanctity in marriage as it is now. Allowing SSM doesn't degrade it much more than it already has been :shrug:

People need to be self driven to live moral lives, not have the government dictate that. If that's what it takes then as a society we are failing.

I think there is still a remnant left who practice the sanctity of marriage. And yes I agree that people need to personally desire to live moral lives. And my concern is that the government allow them to do just that by protecting their right to moral conscience. Many states have fought hard to ban same sex marriage only to have some politically appointed judge (s) overturn their wishes. This culture war is definitely infringing on religious liberties and the right to moral conscience and at this point something has to be done to protect those rights.
 
The same harm as selling beer on Sunday or allowing a beer commercial to actually show someone drinking a beer will cause (none at all). Many laws are passed to prevent freedom of choice for those that have no "proper morals" according to a majority of voters. I agree 100% that SSM will not ruin America, but at the same time cannot see how a few folks having "a strong personal desire" to change existing laws makes a law suddenly invalid. The basis for this judicial decision is the 14th amendment passed in 1868 - what, exactly, triggered this "we must allow SSM" other than activist judges?

The desire and ability of gays to finally be able to have a voice? Momentum had to grow? Why did the civil rights movement hit it's tipping point in the 60's, 100 yrs after Civil War and freedom for blacks?

The societal costs were too high before....to speak out jeopardized jobs, *families* (look how many gays married to be socially acceptable in the past), risked beatings and even death, being shunned by one's family, etc.
 
The same harm as selling beer on Sunday or allowing a beer commercial to actually show someone drinking a beer will cause (none at all). Many laws are passed to prevent freedom of choice for those that have no "proper morals" according to a majority of voters. I agree 100% that SSM will not ruin America, but at the same time cannot see how a few folks having "a strong personal desire" to change existing laws makes a law suddenly invalid. The basis for this judicial decision is the 14th amendment passed in 1868 - what, exactly, triggered this "we must allow SSM" other than activist judges?

How very libertarian of you. Apparently the burden is on the people to provide some compelling argument against a restriction on their freedom instead of the other way around.

And, by the way, massive straw man. This **** isn't about a "strong personal desire." The social cons are the ones solely basing their argument on personal opinion. my argument is based on the constitution, the supreme law of the land. As well as some of the fundamental principles of individual freedom upon which this country is based.

And, yes, blue laws are bull****.

Edit: oh, and the standard slippery slope nonsense. Hey, if we allow blacks to marry whites, soon people will want to marry children!
 
It DID pass and how could anyone mischaracterized the core issue of Prop 8 ?

What misinformation could have possibly forced people to either change their mind or not understand what the primary issue was ?

Thats ridiculous.

People knew exactly what they were voting for.

And your not going to convince me that a vast majority of Americans have changed their opinions on Gay marriage in just 5 years.

Especially after they've learned what type of people are pushing for the legalization of Gay marriage.

Bullies, that hypocritically claim their rights are being violated while they seek out and attack those who disagree with their agenda.

If anything the activist have turned people who were on the fence on the issue against their agenda.

" If you disagree with us we'll do our best to publicly humiliate you, force you out of your proffesion and we wont stop until we're satisfied. "

So spare me this hyperbolic rehtoric that someone's rights are being violated.

Who cares how many and who cares how long?

It is a civil rights issue and unConstitutional. That is how it is being overturned, on 'equal protection under the law.'

The people should NOT be able to vote on it...if they were voting on civil rights for blacks in the South, they might STILL not have equal rights down there. Certainly I bet 55% of people in a few of those states would be against it.

And how long should they wait? If it's the right thing to do, they shouldnt have to wait AT ALL. Look how long it took us to overturn Jim Crow laws....and how blacks were treated as 2nd class citizens in some regions for decades. That wasnt right.
 
I think there is still a remnant left who practice the sanctity of marriage. And yes I agree that people need to personally desire to live moral lives. And my concern is that the government allow them to do just that by protecting their right to moral conscience. Many states have fought hard to ban same sex marriage only to have some politically appointed judge (s) overturn their wishes. This culture war is definitely infringing on religious liberties and the right to moral conscience and at this point something has to be done to protect those rights.

And in the past, many states "fought hard" to ban interracial marriages only to have those laws struck down by a SCOTUS decision in 1967, Loving v VA. Do you think that the people then wanted the bans on interracial marriage overturned any less than those people who are currently against same sex marriage? The judge that ruled on the case to begin with in Loving v VA placed religious reasoning in his ruling against the Lovings. So that shows that there was a lot of religious-based "moral conscience" against interracial marriages as well.
 
what, exactly, triggered this "we must allow SSM" other than activist judges?
Um, the realization by individuals that the state nor the population has the power to discriminate against a basic right to form a legally protected union of those 2 individuals.
 
The same harm as selling beer on Sunday or allowing a beer commercial to actually show someone drinking a beer will cause (none at all). Many laws are passed to prevent freedom of choice for those that have no "proper morals" according to a majority of voters. I agree 100% that SSM will not ruin America, but at the same time cannot see how a few folks having "a strong personal desire" to change existing laws makes a law suddenly invalid. The basis for this judicial decision is the 14th amendment passed in 1868 - what, exactly, triggered this "we must allow SSM" other than activist judges?

The difference between blue laws and same sex marriage laws is the ability of those affected by them to show an actual hardship or harm done by the laws. You can easily show a hardship that same sex couples face (compared to opposite sex couples) when it comes to marriage.

Blue laws are crap and need to go away. (Heck, it was completely retarded just this past Sunday that we had to wait until exactly noon (which was just 3 minutes away from when we stopped at the wine booth) while at the Got To Be NC fair to do wine tasting when we were all at the fair in the first place. It wasn't like we were going to go run to church or have a few people coming from church right after.) The problem with blue laws is in challenging them because they involve such a petty issue that it is hard to show any actual hardship is being done to people from just not being allowed to sell or provide alcohol on certain days or at certain times.
 
The desire and ability of gays to finally be able to have a voice? Momentum had to grow? Why did the civil rights movement hit it's tipping point in the 60's, 100 yrs after Civil War and freedom for blacks?

The societal costs were too high before....to speak out jeopardized jobs, *families* (look how many gays married to be socially acceptable in the past), risked beatings and even death, being shunned by one's family, etc.

With all due respect (don't you hate when someone says that before a thought?), it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement.
 
And in the past, many states "fought hard" to ban interracial marriages only to have those laws struck down by a SCOTUS decision in 1967, Loving v VA. Do you think that the people then wanted the bans on interracial marriage overturned any less than those people who are currently against same sex marriage? The judge that ruled on the case to begin with in Loving v VA placed religious reasoning in his ruling against the Lovings. So that shows that there was a lot of religious-based "moral conscience" against interracial marriages as well.
Those involved in interracial marriages did not redefine marriage. Same sex marriage does. Big difference. Like I mentioned in another thread, what states will likely end up doing is do away with marriage altogether making them civil unions for legal purposes only. That way no one can redefine marriage for everyone.
 
Those involved in interracial marriages did not redefine marriage. Same sex marriage does. Big difference. Like I mentioned in another thread, what states will likely end up doing is do away with marriage altogether making them civil unions for legal purposes only. That way no one can redefine marriage for everyone.

As much as those for same sex marriage are "redefining" marriage.

And I'm willing to bet you are wrong that states will "do away with marriage" in favor of civil unions. People are not going to go for it because it would have to start with a change in federal law recognizing civil unions on the same level of marriage is now, which isn't likely to happen any time soon. Most of the rights and privileges and benefits of marriage are federal, not state.
 
With all due respect (don't you hate when someone says that before a thought?), it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement.

Yes, because being gay isn't as visibly obvious. Makes persecution tougher. But when a gay man hits on someone in a bar and is literally murdered​ for it, it does invite some comparisons to other types of persecution.
 
With all due respect (don't you hate when someone says that before a thought?), it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement.

No. It's just a different part of the same movement. A different group being treated unfairly, unequally, due to something that in no way harms others and that no one else should even care about.
 
Yes, because being gay isn't as visibly obvious. Makes persecution tougher. But when a gay man hits on someone in a bar and is literally murdered​ for it, it does invite some comparisons to other types of persecution.

That has nothing to do with what I said to Lursa.
 
With all due respect (don't you hate when someone says that before a thought?), it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement.

Then what are some of the differences?
 
As much as those for same sex marriage are "redefining" marriage.

And I'm willing to bet you are wrong that states will "do away with marriage" in favor of civil unions. People are not going to go for it because it would have to start with a change in federal law recognizing civil unions on the same level of marriage is now, which isn't likely to happen any time soon. Most of the rights and privileges and benefits of marriage are federal, not state.

All it would take is a little piece of legislation to change the term marriage to civil union throughout the law and it's done! No benefits have to change. The only thing changing is how the government states it. If you want Holy Matrimony, give your vows according to your faith. If your idea of marriage is something else call it whatever you want. But no one in government will any longer be able to redefine marriage for another.
 
All it would take is a little piece of legislation to change the term marriage to civil union throughout the law and it's done! No benefits have to change. The only thing changing is how the government states it. If you want Holy Matrimony, give your vows according to your faith. If your idea of marriage is something else call it whatever you want. But no one in government will any longer be able to redefine marriage for another.

But why bother? It is still the same thing. It would be completely pointless to change the name of marriage to civil unions just because some are "uncomfortable" with same sex couples calling themselves "married", when they would be doing that even if it were called "civil unions" legally. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in changing marriage to be named something else.
 
But why bother? It is still the same thing. It would be completely pointless to change the name of marriage to civil unions just because some are "uncomfortable" with same sex couples calling themselves "married", when they would be doing that even if it were called "civil unions" legally. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in changing marriage to be named something else.

Why bother? because you and others have decided that marriage needed to be redefined even though a good portion of the people do not agree with your new definition. By the government only dealing in civil unions, the individual can define marriage as he she sees fit. The only purpose the government needs is some status of your union for legal purposes and a civil union would be quite sufficient.
 
All it would take is a little piece of legislation to change the term marriage to civil union throughout the law and it's done! No benefits have to change. The only thing changing is how the government states it. If you want Holy Matrimony, give your vows according to your faith. If your idea of marriage is something else call it whatever you want. But no one in government will any longer be able to redefine marriage for another.

This would be the best option but people want government in marriage for some reason.
 
Why bother? because you and others have decided that marriage needed to be redefined even though a good portion of the people do not agree with your new definition. By the government only dealing in civil unions, the individual can define marriage as he she sees fit. The only purpose the government needs is some status of your union for legal purposes and a civil union would be quite sufficient.

No. I know that same sex couples easily fit into my personal definition of marriage. And legally, they fit into the civil definition of marriage as well. It is only yours and others' definitions of marriage that they do not fit into, and that is nothing but a personal definition that should not in anyway dictate our laws or changes to names of licenses/unions we have. You do not own the sole definition to marriage. Nor do religions.
 
No. I know that same sex couples easily fit into my personal definition of marriage. And legally, they fit into the civil definition of marriage as well. It is only yours and others' definitions of marriage that they do not fit into, and that is nothing but a personal definition that should not in anyway dictate our laws or changes to names of licenses/unions we have. You do not own the sole definition to marriage. Nor do religions.

And according to half the population in this country you don't own the definition to marriage for sure. The traditional one has been around for thousands of years. How old is your definition?
 
Back
Top Bottom