• 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 strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
Ahh. So when people say gay people should be happy with civil unions, they're full of ****.
Click to expand...

I think homosexuals should be very happy with civil unions. It's the state that might not be happy with them. Hey, in my lifetime we went from homosexuality being illegal to civil unions. What's not to be happy about that for homosexuals?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
Yes. These things were always unchanging.... until they changed. I'm of two minds on this with one mind agreeing that marriage must keep up with "the people" as an institution of "the people" and another mind confused about the new memes that are utterly at odds with what seemed to be the primary building block of society in a solid and "unchanging" formation. But the state of marriage actually did change. Maybe not so fundamentally as the basic structure of man and woman becoming something else, but the purpose and perspective of it certainly changed over time. So we do face some philosophical contradictions that something so basic and unchanging from our perspective, has and does, in fact, change. I think it is safe to say that no generation has seen such a sudden and drastic change as the one we're seeing, but the shifting of what marriage was, in essence, has been a slow and pretty constant thing over the course of history. Maybe it's that the change was so slow that it seemed like the moon would seem; rooted and locked in place even though it is constantly moving.

My take on marriage is that it is a creation of the state in the form of a sanctioned entity and is, therefore, the domain of the state to establish definition and conditions. I am not against homosexual marriage per se as long as the state decrees that "the people" desire to establish and sanction it. I am against federal decree to all the states regarding it. As long as each state works out it's own needs in establishment of marriage it's all fair and good.
Click to expand...

I, on the other hand, believe any state action is subject to the US Constitution. I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
I, on the other hand, believe any state action is subject to the US Constitution. I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation.
Click to expand...

So do I and I've never seen the constitutional guarantee of state sanctioned homosexual marriage so it's moot point.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
State sanctioned homosexual unions were not part of modern society until after the year 2000 and it's questionable that anything like our modern state-sanctioned marriage ever existed in any routine form among any society until now.
Click to expand...

This is part of the quote I responded to, nothing in this except says state sanctioned.

Demon of Light said:
Legal marriage? No evidence of it ever occurring or being endorsed by any government until very recently. There are a few stories at certain points in history that sort of relate to it, but do not indicate it was seen as a legal marriage equivalent to that of a marriage between a man and a woman. All indications are that legal gay marriage is really a 20th Century invention that only came into practice in the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

I provided evidence that same sex marriage or unions existed throughout history. For all intents and purposes, ancients perform same sex marriages. see link I provided earlier
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AJiveMan said:
This is part of the quote I responded to, nothing in this except says state sanctioned.
Click to expand...

But the current battle is over STATE-SANCTIONED homosexual unions. Homosexual unions have always existed as some small percentage of unions, illicit or otherwise. But state sanctioned is what we're fighting over.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
State sanctioned homosexual unions were not part of modern society until after the year 2000 and it's questionable that anything like our modern state-sanctioned marriage ever existed in any routine form among any society until now.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. As I told DemonofLight the percentage of gay people never really goes above 5%. The odds of ssm being widely recorded, or for that matter for those records to survive throughout the centuries, can only result in sporadic reports of same sex marriage.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
But the current battle is over STATE-SANCTIONED homosexual unions. Homosexual unions have always existed as some small percentage of unions, illicit or otherwise. But state sanctioned is what we're fighting over.
Click to expand...

It looks like proponents of same sex marriage or unions is winning. :thumbs:
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AJiveMan said:
It looks like proponents of same sex marriage or unions is winning. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I think you're right. And I think so far, it's playing out the right way for a democratic republic. People who want change should fight for the change they want and people who are against the change should dig their heels in and present as much resistance as they feel it deserves and that's how society works it out.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
So do I and I've never seen the constitutional guarantee of state sanctioned homosexual marriage so it's moot point.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law. There's quite a few judicial decisions to that effect, feel free to read them.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
Equal protection under the law. There's quite a few judicial decisions to that effect, feel free to read them.
Click to expand...

I've read them and just disagree with them.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
I've read them and just disagree with them.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with the tests of constitutional scrutiny method? Or do you agree with the method but believe same-sex marriage bans meet the test?
 
Last edited:
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
Hey, in my lifetime we went from homosexuality being illegal to civil unions. What's not to be happy about that for homosexuals?
Click to expand...

and this sentences tells me all i need to know about your views.

why would anybody that respects freedom and equal rights be happy about two things that are the same?

when it was illegal that was a equal rights violation
civil unions are still an equal rights violation

so nothing in reality changed, thats not anythign to be "happy" about really. Its nice SOME progress was made but I dont see the happiness thats absurd to think that would do it.


hey slaves listen up, we still arent considered mean and have to work against her will but master is no longer allowed to directly kills us. He can beat us almost to death and if we die from working to hard thats fine but he cant directly kills with a gun or knife or things of that manner. OH HAPPY DAYS LETS ALL BE HAPPY! lol

sorry illegal to civil unions is still the denial of rights and equality.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
But the current battle is over STATE-SANCTIONED homosexual unions. Homosexual unions have always existed as some small percentage of unions, illicit or otherwise. But state sanctioned is what we're fighting over.
Click to expand...

no its over stat denying rights
thats what is ACTUALLY going on.

the state is overstepping its power and violating individual rights and the FED is fixing that since thats its job.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
Do you disagree with the tests of constitutional scrutiny method? Or do you agree with the method but believe same-sex marriage bans meet the test?
Click to expand...

I believe homosexuals already have equal rights and don't agree that equal rights" applies to anything but people. In the case of homosexual marriage, what advocates are actually arguing is that all relationships are equal and must be treated the same by the state.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
In the case of homosexual marriage, what advocates are actually arguing is that all relationships are equal and must be treated the same by the state.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I guess you aren't actually familiar with the test of constitutional scrutiny under the 14th.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Redress said:
Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban

The key part:



Use of the term gender instead of orientation could be important for future rulings. Have not read the ruling itself yet so take the reporting for what it is worth.
Click to expand...

Regardless of my position on gay marriage - judges are not legislators - yet the idiot us public actually believes they are.

The real question is gay marriage legal?

One judge cannot determine that.

Ironically wasn't it Clinton who instituted DOMA either through resolution or legislation?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Mr.Nick said:
Regardless of my position on gay marriage - judges are not legislators - yet the idiot us public actually believes they are.

The real question is gay marriage legal?

One judge cannot determine that.
Click to expand...

A judge absolutely can determine if a law is constitutional or not. In fact they are the arbiters of that.

Ironically wasn't it Clinton who instituted DOMA either through resolution or legislation?
Click to expand...

It was Clinton who signed the law, and it was a mistake.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Mr.Nick said:
1.)Regardless of my position on gay marriage - judges are not legislators - yet the idiot us public actually believes they are.
2.)The real question is gay marriage legal?
3.)One judge cannot determine that.
4.)
Ironically wasn't it Clinton who instituted DOMA either through resolution or legislation?
Click to expand...

1.) good thing nobody claimed there are just legislators used the argument that they are
2.) no thats not a question at all really, the question is does the state have the power to infringing on individual rights and treat certain members as second class citizens based on heter/homo sexual orientation.

thats the real question and the law, rights, judges and constitution says the state cant so the fed is fixing this error.

3.) good thing no judge did
4.) why is this ironic? lol
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Redress said:
A judge absolutely can determine if a law is constitutional or not. In fact they are the arbiters of that.



It was Clinton who signed the law, and it was a mistake.
Click to expand...


Wrong the SCOTUS will have to handle this ruling based on challenge which I assume will be coming.

As far as DOMA, that could potentially be an obstacle and has been before, which I find ironic considering a lot of those who support gay marriage think/thought Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread until Obama showed his ugly face.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AGENT J said:
1.) good thing nobody claimed there are just legislators used the argument that they are
2.) no thats not a question at all really, the question is does the state have the power to infringing on individual rights and treat certain members as second class citizens based on heter/homo sexual orientation.

thats the real question and the law, rights, judges and constitution says the state cant so the fed is fixing this error.

3.) good thing no judge did
4.) why is this ironic? lol
Click to expand...

You cant even write a paragraph in a formal format, yet you want me to take your "points" seriously..

I hope someone teaches you a grammar lesson.

We don't number. When making points that we wish not to argue or are just questions we use:

-
-
-
-

Instead of 1, 2 or 3.

I understand your concerns but they are just not addressed properly.

You need help on how to put together a structurally sound intelligent argument, instead of 1,2,3's and 4's.
 
Last edited:
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Mr.Nick said:
1.)You cant even write a paragraph in a formal format, yet you want me to take your "points" seriously..

I hope someone teaches you a grammar lesson.

We don't number. When making points that we wish not to argue or are just questions we use:

-
-
-
-

Instead of 1, 2 or 3.
Click to expand...

Translation: you have nothing to support your failed claims so now you are deflecting and trying failed insults.
Nobody educated and honest buys it LMAO
also you dont have to take facts seriously, dossnt matter lol

let us know when you have somethign on topic that is accurate and factual
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Mr.Nick said:
1.)Wrong the SCOTUS will have to handle this ruling based on challenge which I assume will be coming.

2.) As far as DOMA, that could potentially be an obstacle and has been before, which I find ironic considering a lot of those who support gay marriage think/thought Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread until Obama showed his ugly face.
Click to expand...

1.) 100% factually false they could decide theres nothing to hear and simply decline a full case and say the lower courts did a sufficient job and theres nothing that warranted further review.

2.) this type of nonsensical, biased, dishonest ranting is why your posts fail so often and nobody educated or honestly takes them serious. Millions of republicans and conservatives support equal rights.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AGENT J said:
Translation: you have nothing to support your failed claims so now you are deflecting and trying failed insults.
Nobody educated and honest buys it LMAO
also you dont have to take facts seriously, dossnt matter lol

let us know when you have somethign on topic that is accurate and factual
Click to expand...

I have plenty of claims - reading your posts can just be torture tho...
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Mr.Nick said:
Wrong the SCOTUS will have to handle this ruling based on challenge which I assume will be coming.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS is the final arbiter, not the only arbiter.

As far as DOMA, that could potentially be an obstacle and has been before, which I find ironic considering a lot of those who support gay marriage think/thought Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread until Obama showed his ugly face.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS already ruled against part of DOMA.

I think Clinton was a good president. That does not mean I think he was perfect. That should not even be remotely hard to understand, so clue why you have trouble with the concept.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AGENT J said:
1.) 100% factually false they could decide theres nothing to hear and simply decline a full case and say the lower courts did a sufficient job and theres nothing that warranted further review.

2.) this type of nonsensical, biased, dishonest ranting is why your posts fail so often and nobody educated or honestly takes them serious. Millions of republicans and conservatives support equal rights.
Click to expand...

What's nonsense is actually believing a Wisconsin district judge can actually decide the constitutionality of an issue. The Law that does decide these ideas is called the Supreme Court of The United States.

If you paid attention to the legal process you would understand this or have an understanding of how our government works. This isn't the "Wild West" where law was arbitrary at best and a judge could sentence you to death and you would be hanged a few hours or a couple of days later.

I'm not the biggest fan of how our legal system works, but at least we have an appeals process.

I understand law and the "system" a lot better than you do.

No doubt the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling because the SCOTUS represents tyranny, but I do understand the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom