• 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

Why would anyone want to get married in the eyes of the government anyways?

Family, friends, church sure - but government?

Makes no sense to me.

What does a piece of paper mean?

PROBLEMS! ha..

I certainly don't need government to define marriage for me.
 
Nope, that is absolutely wrong.

The government doesn't grant me "legal relationship" when I want to date a woman. I don't have to ask the government first then sign a bunch of papers if I want to ask a lady out.

My bad. I was referring to legal kinship. I apologize for mistyping that. It was meant as "legal kinship". Just as you need to prove legal kinship to others, you also need some way to prove it for your spouse. And enter marriage license/certificate, legal marriage.
 
Sorry, I never said I didn't support it. I said the opposite. Read my posts in this thread again.
I did not say you did not, I said I cannot find argument from you supporting the decision.

You think a marriage certificate is the be all, end all of a happy union. I don't. We disagree. Isn't America grand?
More straw from the horse, I never said anything of the sort.....and this is just a cheap way of avoiding the debate.

you claim to "support gay marriage"....but disagree with the basic arguments supporting it.

How does that work? To me, it is a contradiction.
 
How we define our relationships has nothing to do with this.
Exactly. Which pretty much invalidates your next statement.

It is how the government has redefined marriage that has ended an institution as it was originally defined.
Your relationship hasn't changed. How the government treats your relationship hasn't changed. Women getting the right to vote did not end voting for men. It didn't take anything away from men. How the government defines someone else's relationship really doesn't affect you. So why do you get to decide that for someone else?

Half of this country does not agree with the new definition.
Half the country disagreed with a lot of things. Things like women voting, or interracial marriage. They got over it.

By states getting out of the marriage license business and switching everything to civil unions, it no longer defines any relationship only to the point for legal purposes.
While I have no constitutional objection to this, I believe it is an inaccurate concession to a minority who believe they have sole ownership over that word. They do not. You do not own that word. You do not get to dictate that other people can't have that word associated with their relationship in the eyes of the government. Furthermore, this notion is completely disingenuous because nobody expressed this desire until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen. It's just trying to take your ball and go home.
 
Again, I'll ask: do you believe the state should be involved in civil contract, ie should the state protect the rights of individuals who create contract involving laws of the state?

Civil contract has NOTHING to do with civil liberties unless civil liberties were violated in which the contract would be void unless otherwise noted (in laymans terms).
 
I certainly don't need government to define marriage for me.

Great. So don't sign the government's piece of paper. Nobody cares. So why do you think you should be able to prevent other people from signing that piece of paper because it uses a word you don't want them to use?
 
Civil contract has NOTHING to do with civil liberties unless civil liberties were violated in which the contract would be void unless otherwise noted.

The right to contract is a civil liberty, Mr. Libertarian.
 
good thing they arent being forced, they have to play by the same rules has ALL OF US, you want them to get special treatment, no thanks
When your choices are to compromise your moral conscience or go hungry, I'd say that is being forced. But while you justify these accomdation laws that force people to compromise their moral conscience, how long will it be before you folks will be demanding your right to make a Catholic priest, a minister or clergy of any church affiliation or Rabbi or Cleric to marry same sex couples demanding it a right and claiming discrimination? I don't think it will be long. Probably in my lifetime. Maybe then people will wake up and decide it's time for the states to get out of the marriage license business.
 
You would think that at some point, the bigots would get a clue and just give up. The writing in on the wall....just as the bigots lost the segration battles before.....
 
Civil contract has NOTHING to do with civil liberties ....
I did not mention "liberties". This is about whether the state can protect the contract rights of individuals.

You are going off on a tangent to avoid the question.
 
Tights for all!


and on a funny note this exactly brings up a perfect point


"I" most certainly dont want to see everybody in tights :2sick1:

but i wouldnt want to deny them either :)


just relating this to the morons that say "i dont want to see two guys holding hands or giving eachother a kiss" lol

well as a straight man there plenty of straight couples i dont want to see kiss either or people at the beach, so what i dont want them denied rights lol
wow people are so pompous and hypocritical sometimes.
 
My bad. I was referring to legal kinship. I apologize for mistyping that. It was meant as "legal kinship". Just as you need to prove legal kinship to others, you also need some way to prove it for your spouse. And enter marriage license/certificate, legal marriage.

I don't understand what you mean..
 
When your choices are to compromise your moral conscience or go hungry, I'd say that is being forced. But while you justify these accomdation laws that force people to compromise their moral conscience, how long will it be before you folks will be demanding your right to make a Catholic priest, a minister or clergy of any church affiliation or Rabbi or Cleric to marry same sex couples demanding it a right and claiming discrimination? I don't think it will be long. Probably in my lifetime. Maybe then people will wake up and decide it's time for the states to get out of the marriage license business.

Accommodation laws are not tied to marriage. A couple can have a wedding ceremony without actually getting married legally. Last I checked, no wedding service provider (with the exception of perhaps the officiant) will ask to see a copy of a couple's marriage license.

Let's wait to actually see a case where a couple, any couple, wins a suit against a clergy member for not performing their wedding, then we can talk about this. Until then, this is nothing but paranoia or fearmongering.
 
I did not mention "liberties". This is about whether the state can protect the contract rights of individuals.

You are going off on a tangent to avoid the question.

It depends on the contract/agreement...

I'm not going off on anything - you're making brash assumptions...

Why are you even talking civil law/litigation here? especially when you're attempting to argue for gay marriage. When that would be the worst route you could go legally?
 
Exactly. Which pretty much invalidates your next statement.


Your relationship hasn't changed. How the government treats your relationship hasn't changed. Women getting the right to vote did not end voting for men. It didn't take anything away from men. How the government defines someone else's relationship really doesn't affect you. So why do you get to decide that for someone else?


Half the country disagreed with a lot of things. Things like women voting, or interracial marriage. They got over it.


While I have no constitutional objection to this, I believe it is an inaccurate concession to a minority who believe they have sole ownership over that word. They do not. You do not own that word. You do not get to dictate that other people can't have that word associated with their relationship in the eyes of the government. Furthermore, this notion is completely disingenuous because nobody expressed this desire until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen. It's just trying to take your ball and go home.

Good since you have no constitutional objection to this, let's get the ball rolling! Civil unions for all!
 
Maybe, but dammit I'm sick and tired of people being forced to compromise their moral conscience just to make a living. It's friggin wrong on so many counts. One can only hope that more and more states will pass protection laws for them.


So even more laws, now to provide "special rights" to the religious or anyone that claims "moral conscience" and doesn't ant to service customers.

Don't want to serve blacks - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve Jews - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve gays - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve the elderly - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve women - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve veterans - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (Yes some states include veterans status in the Public Accommodation laws.)

Don't want to serve divorcees - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (Yes some states include marital status in the Public Accommodation laws.)

Don't want to perform the duties your employer pays you for - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (I do believe you have supported these special rights be incorporated into employment situations also so that employers can require their employees to do their jobs and not be fired for it.)​



Adding MORE laws to control how MORE people can or cannot act is a very liberal idea. Not one I agree with. Here is a thought, instead of ADDING laws to give special rights to a group you agree with, how about instead we argue for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private business.

Instead of bigger more intrusive government, now about we repeal some laws. Allow individual freedom for both sides of the coin. Businesses get to refuse services to anyone for any reason, and customers get to share their experiences with their friends and the public. Let the marketplace decide if a business succeeds or fails. Let the business owner decide if an employee that refuses to perform their assigned tasks get to continue to receive a paycheck.

****************************************

See looking at it from a legal and logical perspective. The intent of the law, as we saw in the recent debacle in Arizona (SB 1062) was that businesses would be exempt from having to serve gays. However if the law was written specifically to only apply to gays, then it's unconstitutional (See Romer v. Evans when Colorado tried to target gays - it was struck as unconstitutional). On other other hand if you make the law very general - then anyone can claim that their personal religion or their personal moral objection applies. As SB 1062 said ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." There can't be a requirement that the individuals religious beliefs or "moral conscience" as you call it be part of an established religious dogma. Why you ask? The answer is that it would require the government then to approve or disapprove or religoius doctrine as valid or invalid. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is the government defining religious doctrine as valid or invalid.



>>>>
 
I don't understand what you mean..

The government recognizes legal kin, such as father, mother, sister, brother, daughter, son, adopted children/siblings, and spouses (along with some other kin). Most of those kin are blood relations, and those relations are established with birth certificates or DNA tests. Some kin are recognized via legal paperwork. Spouses and inlaws are recognized via marriage licenses/certificates. Adopted children are recognized via adoption records.
 
1.)When your choices are to compromise your moral conscience or go hungry, I'd say that is being forced.
2.) But while you justify these accomdation laws that force people to compromise their moral conscience
3.) how long will it be before you folks will be demanding your right to make a Catholic priest, a minister or clergy of any church affiliation or Rabbi or Cleric to marry same sex couples demanding it a right and claiming discrimination? I don't think it will be long. Probably in my lifetime. Maybe then people will wake up and decide it's time for the states to get out of the marriage license business.

1.) good thing thats not happening
2.) there is no force they made the CHOICE to play in the public realm that has the same rules and laws for us all, they are MORONS for thinking they get special treatment and cant break the law and infringe on others rights. They CHOOSE to do that nobody forced them. They choose to break the law and that has a penalty.
3.) LMAO this mentally retarded simply slope "argument" never gets taken serious because its stupid.

if you HONESTLY fear this, this should be a fear if gays never existed. WHy? because the FACTS remain that STRAIGHT couples are turned away from churches all the time based on not being religious enough or a different religion and even on race and age and prior marriage history. So please stop with this inane strawman because its laughable crap that nobody educated and honest worries about based off of equal rights. People, STRAIGHT PEOPLE, have already tried this and failed because the constitution makes churches are protected. Thinking youll see this in your life time is one of the most illoigcal things i have read this year on here, there zero logical support for it especially basing it just off of . . . "da gays" lol
 
Good since you have no constitutional objection to this, let's get the ball rolling! Civil unions for all!

You don't have support for this. When you do, come back and we'll debate it. Til then, it is a pipe dream to try to avoid having the government fully recognize same sex marriages. Nothing more.
 
Accommodation laws are not tied to marriage. A couple can have a wedding ceremony without actually getting married legally. Last I checked, no wedding service provider (with the exception of perhaps the officiant) will ask to see a copy of a couple's marriage license.

Let's wait to actually see a case where a couple, any couple, wins a suit against a clergy member for not performing their wedding, then we can talk about this. Until then, this is nothing but paranoia or fearmongering.

The hell they aren't! You are making people of faith ignore their moral conscience forcing them to perform services for same sex marriages which is something they find to be an abomination. Because if they don't they can go to jail, face financial ruin and lose their business. And yes if you can get away with that it isn't that far off with activist judges and a hatred on the left for people of faith whom you are already suppressing that you will soon be suppressing their places of worship forcing your discrimination BS on them too.
 
So even more laws, now to provide "special rights" to the religious or anyone that claims "moral conscience" and doesn't ant to service customers.

Don't want to serve blacks - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve Jews - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve gays - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve the elderly - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve women - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.

Don't want to serve veterans - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (Yes some states include veterans status in the Public Accommodation laws.)

Don't want to serve divorcees - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (Yes some states include marital status in the Public Accommodation laws.)

Don't want to perform the duties your employer pays you for - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (I do believe you have supported these special rights be incorporated into employment situations also so that employers can require their employees to do their jobs and not be fired for it.)​



Adding MORE laws to control how MORE people can or cannot act is a very liberal idea. Not one I agree with. Here is a thought, instead of ADDING laws to give special rights to a group you agree with, how about instead we argue for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private business.

Instead of bigger more intrusive government, now about we repeal some laws. Allow individual freedom for both sides of the coin. Businesses get to refuse services to anyone for any reason, and customers get to share their experiences with their friends and the public. Let the marketplace decide if a business succeeds or fails. Let the business owner decide if an employee that refuses to perform their assigned tasks get to continue to receive a paycheck.

****************************************

See looking at it from a legal and logical perspective. The intent of the law, as we saw in the recent debacle in Arizona (SB 1062) was that businesses would be exempt from having to serve gays. However if the law was written specifically to only apply to gays, then it's unconstitutional (See Romer v. Evans when Colorado tried to target gays - it was struck as unconstitutional). On other other hand if you make the law very general - then anyone can claim that their personal religion or their personal moral objection applies. As SB 1062 said ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." There can't be a requirement that the individuals religious beliefs or "moral conscience" as you call it be part of an established religious dogma. Why you ask? The answer is that it would require the government then to approve or disapprove or religoius doctrine as valid or invalid. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is the government defining religious doctrine as valid or invalid.



>>>>

It's either add more laws or do away with accommodation laws altogether.
 
The hell they aren't! You are making people of faith ignore their moral conscience forcing them to perform services for same sex marriages which is something they find to be an abomination. Because if they don't they can go to jail, face financial ruin and lose their business. And yes if you can get away with that it isn't that far off with activist judges and a hatred on the left for people of faith whom you are already suppressing that you will soon be suppressing their places of worship forcing your discrimination BS on them too.

Too bad. If you don't want to have your business do business with the entire public, then don't open your business to the entire public.

There are plenty of people out there who still consider interracial marriages/relationships to be an abomination. There are in fact people out there who do not feel it is right to have races eating in the same places or shopping in the same places or living in the same places. Why is your moral conscience or the moral consciences of those opposed to same sex marriage/homosexuality more valid than the moral consciences of those who are racists or against people of a certain religion or all religions or a person who doesn't respect or want to do business with people of a certain sex?
 
It depends on the contract/agreement...

I'm not going off on anything - you're making brash assumptions...

Why are you even talking civil law/litigation here? especially when you're attempting to argue for gay marriage. When that would be the worst route you could go legally?

OMG!!!!


The ignorance......it hurts!
 
You don't have support for this. When you do, come back and we'll debate it. Til then, it is a pipe dream to try to avoid having the government fully recognize same sex marriages. Nothing more.

I hate to disappoint you but there is support for such a thing. It is being discussed and may be coming to a town near you soon. Stay tuned
 
Back
Top Bottom