• 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]

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.

As in the past, the battles were over state-sanctioned interracial unions, state sanctioned unions where one is an inmate, or state-sanctioned unions where a person owes child support. Guess what? The Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause, covers all these things including "homosexual unions" or more appropriately, same sex unions (homosexuals can get married, to someone of the opposite sex).
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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.

No it isn't. What they are arguing is that the state cannot deny entry into a legal kinship-creating contract on the basis of two people's relative sexes, the same way that it was once argued that the state cannot deny entry into a legal kinship-creating contract on the basis of two people's relative races.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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

I think that signing DOMA into law, however horrible that law was, may have really saved us from a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. I could be wrong, and really we can't know what would have happened, but the support existed for a Constitutional Amendment in Congress at the time, and likely in the states as well. That would have been much harder to get gone than DOMA was. It would have taken more effort on the part of ban supporters, but there were votes for it when Bush was in office in Congress, and during that time was when many states were putting into place their own state bans.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

translation: your posts still have nothing of intellectual merit, honesty or accurate facts to support your claims/ So instead your posts continue to deflect and try failed insults even though you have been proven factually wrong by multiple posters.

again nobody honest and educated buys it LOL

Fatcs win again and your post fails again.

Let us know when your posts can defend your claims using facts or anythign accurate, not just your meaningless unsupportable opinions. Thanks in advance.

Define "intellectual" - does that mean agree with you or have my own ideals or theories?

I've made "intellectual" professors go bat**** crazy just saying that.

When I define intellectual - it seems I'm generally the intellectual and everyone else is the skeptic - because they believe something but are willing to exclude certain aspects of a theory or fact for political reasons.

Now who is the skeptic? the one who wants to ignore facts for political reasons or those that can accept the facts and deal with them?

Now who is the real skeptic?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Sorry to explain to you that the tyrannical SCOTUS is the end all of legislation - at least if it violates federal law, however they do occasionally handle state issues that have nothing to do with federal law that cant be resolved within the state legislator or through judicial means.

And if you really want my opinion on gay marriage - I could care less about the issue - but I do care about democracy, and states who have put gay marriage on their ballots - the pro-gay marriage population lost tremendously.

Also, why the hell does government need to be involved in marriage in the first place? the only reason I can concoct is taxes and somehow public acceptance.

Do you really think that if our government endorsed gay marriage that would somehow change peoples position on the issue?

Wrong. Any ruling by the SCOTUS can be overturned via an Amendment to the US Constitution. If you actually have the support, you can change the Constitution.

We do not live in a democracy, but a constitutional republic that has a system of checks and balances, which includes the SCOTUS.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

If you want gay marriage to be legalized then Amend the Constitution - this issue is doing nothing more than playing games with the Constitution - and the issue will never be resolved - because politicians don't want it resolved because it's a hot button issue.

In theory - gay marriage in Illinois is no different than selling pot in Colorado - both ideas are illegal under state law - not federal. However the Tenth Amendment gives leeway to states to operate how they see fit.


Passed by both houses on 11/5/2013
Signed by the Governor on 11/20/2013
Same-Sex Civil Marriages Started 6/1/2014

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB0010
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 098-0597



Illinois General Assembly
Public Act 098-0597

Section 10. Equal access to marriage.
(a) All laws of this State applicable to marriage, whether
they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy,
common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law, shall
apply equally to marriages of same-sex and different-sex
couples and their children.​



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

Social greed? Exactly what do I personally stand to gain by someone else getting married?

Satisfacation, social justice, power - the idea you have influence, the wish that the Constitution could be bought. Who really knows your intent or intent in general.

There are many ideas...

I could waste my time and give you a list of 100 potential reasons.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Define "intellectual" - does that mean agree with you or have my own ideals or theories?

I've made "intellectual" professors go bat**** crazy just saying that.

When I define intellectual - it seems I'm generally the intellectual and everyone else is the skeptic - because they believe something but are willing to exclude certain aspects of a theory or fact for political reasons.

Now who is the skeptic? the one who wants to ignore facts for political reasons or those that can accept the facts and deal with them?

Now who is the real skeptic?

The topic is Equal rights and SSM. WHen you post FACTS that support your claims a discussion can begin but currently none of your posts have done so on this topic. Please do so in your next post. Thanks in advance.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Passed by both houses on 11/5/2013
Signed by the Governor on 11/20/2013
Same-Sex Civil Marriages Started 6/1/2014

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB0010
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 098-0597



Illinois General Assembly
Public Act 098-0597

Section 10. Equal access to marriage.
(a) All laws of this State applicable to marriage, whether
they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy,
common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law, shall
apply equally to marriages of same-sex and different-sex
couples and their children.​



>>>>

And thanks to Chicago 90% of Illinois is democrat controlled, and that is a non-factor in your blurb.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

The topic is Equal rights and SSM. WHen you post FACTS that support your claims a discussion can begin but currently none of your posts have done so on this topic. Please do so in your next post. Thanks in advance.

If you want equal rights for gays then have your representatives amend the constitution, but comparing gays to blacks is racist IMO.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

BTW, having gay sex is not illegal - so being gay is not a crime. Homosexuality is not a crime - you cannot be arrested for being gay.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

1.)If you want equal rights for gays then have your representatives amend the constitution
2.) but comparing gays to blacks is racist IMO.

1.)not needed since the constitution already covers it.
2.) its factually not racist by definition LMAO theres nothing racist about it .

also NOBODY compares gays directly to blacks. WHat people, courts and facts have done and do is compare the infringement and denial of equal/civil rights this country has experienced in its passed. And women, minorities and interracial marriage are perfect examples of analogous comparison. .
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

BTW, having gay sex is not illegal - so being gay is not a crime.

did somebody say it was?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

1.)not needed since the constitution already covers it.
2.) its factually not racist by definition LMAO theres nothing racist about it .

also NOBODY compares gays directly to blacks. WHat people, courts and facts have done and do is compare the infringement and denial of equal/civil rights this country has experienced in its passed. And women, minorities and interracial marriage are perfect examples of analogous comparison. .

Plenty compare gay bias to racism - not to mention I really don't like you changing my posts - you have no ****ing right to do that and if you do it again I will refuse to even acknowledge you even exist on this planet.

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

did somebody say it was?

Then what the **** is your problem?

Oh yeah, you're a progressive and logic doesn't rationalize in your mind/.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

1.)Plenty compare gay bias to racism
2.) - not to mention I really don't like you changing my posts - you have no ****ing right to do that
3.)and if you do it again I will refuse to even acknowledge you even exist on this planet.
4.)Understood?

1.) yes and thats NOT what you said by any manner whatsoever.
The racism displayed against blacks in the manner they are lessers and not deserving of equal rights is the same as the bigotry displayed against gays in the manner they are lessers and not deserving of equal rights.
2.) your posts haven't been changed
3.) you are free to do so but this deflection wont stop your posts from being destroyed and proved factually wrong.
4.) see #3

do you have anythign that can be backed up by facts that supports your claims?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

1.)Then what the **** is your problem?
2.)Oh yeah, you're a progressive and logic doesn't rationalize in your mind/.

1.) I have no problem with sex being legal
2.) this deflection doesnt explain why you brought the topic of legal sex in to this discussion?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Moderator's Warning:
Mr. Nick has been thread banned.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Do you lament that people started marrying each other for love instead of the traditional function of uniting tribes and families or to acquire wealth?

You always had people who were marrying for love. It would be absurd to suggest it was only ever about financial or political considerations.

po·lyg·a·my
noun \-mē\

: the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time

Why are you being such a smart-ass? I have already said several times that the point is polygamy was not considered a marriage of all partners i.e. where both female partners would be married to each other, but a marriage of one partner with more than one partner. It was still legally between a man and a woman. The difference was that the man could also be legally married to another woman.

The position against gay marriage has been about hostility to gay people, and not at all about "tradition."

For thousands of years? Nonsense, it is just that male-female partnerships are the norm and a biological necessity, while male-male and female-female partnerships are an uncommon and unnecessary deviation from the norm.

This is demonstrated every time people don't talk about traditional marriage being under attack (or that government needs to step out of marriage) with every divorce or every quickie Vegas marriage.

Actually, the introduction of no-fault divorce was regarded with some controversy. Divorce was certainly not considered a very good thing a few decades ago. People have just become so accustomed to it that it is much less contentious.

And it's demonstrated every time they couldn't care less that polygamy and different functions of marriage were abandoned for more modern approaches. We're not stupid.

Polygamy was common, but not universal and it was not always legal. Again, history shows that it was not free of controversy both legal and social.

Yes, bit by bit the world moved on from slavery. So? This doesn't challenge my point. Humanity had some crappy practices, we abandoned them, yay team humanity. We're not forced to do something the same way forever just because we always have.

I am not saying we are forced to do something the same way forever. This is about changing something that has never fundamentally changed for thousands of years. Such changes occurring based on a novel reinterpretation of the law without regard for the societal perspective is the problem.

What if everybody is wrong and you're right, is that it? Unfortunately for your position, every time same sex marriage goes to court it wins because no argument against it can be upheld. You can only use the "activist judge" routine so many times before you have to consider the very real possibility that the case against ssm simply just sucks.

Most of these judges were appointed by Obama, most of the rest by Clinton. One was appointed by Bush, but from Tom Ridge's network and thus was more liberal, and another was appointed by Reagan but his ruling makes his political views blatantly obvious. Maybe it had something to do with his long-time friendship with a lesbian staffer or maybe he was just a representation of the more liberal attitude of Michigan Republicans. Regardless, it is fairly clear that these judges all have one thing in common: they support gay marriage personally.

Except that every time, bans on ssm are overturned citing the the 14th amendment.

Of course, because that's the only way they could possibly make the argument. If there were some other way they could make the argument seem plausible, they would use that as well or alternatively, in case they thought the 14th amendment argument were not plausible enough for some.

That's different, and isn't unique to same sex couples. Nobody can be legally required to recognize ssm, just as no law can legally force me to accept Jesus into my heart regardless of Christianity being legal in all fifty states.

Acceptance and recognition are not exactly the same. People would have to accept the change in the legal definition of marriage, even if they do not believe it is truly marriage.

Are you married? If so, what does the advent of ssm mean for your marriage? Does it mean less to you now?

Why do you keep making this argument? It has nothing to do with my point. Changing the meaning of marriage is invariably something that affects society as a whole. Various societal adjustments become necessary when the law of the land says this now constitutes a legal marriage. Whether it affects existing marriages is not important as it will affect society as a whole regardless. You undoubtedly think it would change society for the better, but since it is unprecedented in history what matters is that it is not a change forced on people without their consent.

Where did it say they weren't recognized under the law?

I'm not holding your hand.

You're extrapolating to absolutes where it isn't warranted. The point isn't that intent is irrelevant, the point is that intent isn't gospel.

Your own words betray you. If you really thought it were relevant, then you would not be using an ad-hominem fallacy to dismiss talk of intent.

You, on the other hand, are absolutely working from personal opinion and just hiding behind this "original intent" nonsense. Well, we don't have an original intent regarding same-sex marriage, or school segregation. We also don't have an original intent regarding nuclear weapons under the second amendment, or search and seizure in reference to electronic property.

You are making the mistake of presuming there should be explicit original intent regarding things that were not even conceivable in order for original intent to have value. Gay marriage was certainly conceivable at the time of the Constitution, they just never anticipated someone might actually try to force legal recognition with it because that was not in any way, shape, or form, the intent of the amendment. Other aspects of the Constitution were meant to apply to things like nuclear weapons and electronic property even if they did not exist at the time because they are merely evolutions of existing concepts. Those sorts of things are within their legitimate jurisdiction to interpret how the Constitution would apply and other matters that are ultimately dependent on changes in science and technology. Whether gay marriage should be legally recognized or not has nothing to do with science or technology at its core. No scientific or technological advancements would require any reconsideration about the application of the Constitution and its amendments regarding the question.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

In theory - gay marriage in Illinois is no different than selling pot in Colorado - both ideas are illegal under state law - not federal. However the Tenth Amendment gives leeway to states to operate how they see fit.

Passed by both houses on 11/5/2013
Signed by the Governor on 11/20/2013
Same-Sex Civil Marriages Started 6/1/2014

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB0010
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 098-0597



Illinois General Assembly
Public Act 098-0597

Section 10. Equal access to marriage.
(a) All laws of this State applicable to marriage, whether
they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy,
common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law, shall
apply equally to marriages of same-sex and different-sex
couples and their children.​



>>>>


Man, I worked as a paralegal and spent days in courtrooms running documents and watching cases so I know what the hell I'm talking about.
And thanks to Chicago 90% of Illinois is democrat controlled, and that is a non-factor in your blurb.


You claim to be a paralegal and know what the hell you are talking about and make facutally incorrect statements about the law (that SSCM was illegal in Illinois, yet the law was passed last November).


And thanks to Chicago 90% of Illinois is democrat controlled, and that is a non-factor in your blurb.

Correct, the party makeup of Illinois is not factor in my "blurb". You said SSCM was illegal in Illinois and you were wrong.

Seems like someone that claims to be a paralegal would know that something was legal before claiming it was illegal.



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

edit: Nevermind, saw mod alert.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Your own words betray you. If you really thought it were relevant, then you would not be using an ad-hominem fallacy to dismiss talk of intent.
Your talk of intent is ad hominem. You are attempting to dismiss my constitutional argument based on this notion that you think I have some kind of ulterior motives.

You are making the mistake of presuming there should be explicit original intent regarding things that were not even conceivable in order for original intent to have value. Gay marriage was certainly conceivable at the time of the Constitution, they just never anticipated someone might actually try to force legal recognition with it because that was not in any way, shape, or form, the intent of the amendment. Other aspects of the Constitution were meant to apply to things like nuclear weapons and electronic property even if they did not exist at the time because they are merely evolutions of existing concepts. Those sorts of things are within their legitimate jurisdiction to interpret how the Constitution would apply and other matters that are ultimately dependent on changes in science and technology. Whether gay marriage should be legally recognized or not has nothing to do with science or technology at its core. No scientific or technological advancements would require any reconsideration about the application of the Constitution and its amendments regarding the question.

No, that's your deal. You're the one obsessing over original intent, not me.
You're right, whether gay marriage should be legally recognized has nothing to do with science. Nor does it have anything to do with the personal opinion of a bunch of people whom you outright admit never even considered the possibility.

Classifications of gender require that the state demonstrate that the classification is substantially related to an important state interest. That's the constitutional test. You either provide that interest and pass the test, or the law gets canned. Just because our snail-paced court system hasn't accomplished that yet doesn't render the argument void.

Interracial marriage was illegal until it wasn't. Sodomy was illegal until it wasn't. Are you saying both of those things should still be illegal because the people who wrote the 14th amendment hadn't overturned those laws?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I
As I said, it comes down to legal gymnastics. People with fancy law degrees who ignore the intention of the Constitution, even ignore the intention of previous court rulings, and instead just try to find some plausible-sounding argument for why x policy is good or bad will have no trouble coming up with some line that will pass muster. Certainly, partisans who care naught for the law or rights except when it suits them will be more than pleased with any decision that favors their political perspective.


What grounds, in the Const, do you see for recognizing marriage? (If you do)

And if so, then on what grounds in the Const do you see the denial of marriage to people of the same gender?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Marriage has been considered to be between a man and woman since it came into existence. It may not affect a specific marriage, but it would be deceitful to claim expanding it to include relationships outside the traditional bounds of the institution is not changing marriage. This is about changing the fundamental accepted meaning of something that has been in existence for thousands of years.
.

Can you please give some specifics on how the institution of marriage is being changed? Besides gender?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I agree. That's why Ohio does not sanction either homosexual marriage or civil unions.

then some one in Ohio has made a terrible mistake (beyond the arbitrary gender based discrimination) gay marriage doesn't create a rival form of contract it includes more people into the existing one a gay couples that's married has the same kind of marriage you do ( if your hitched ) so it would add relevance to marriage rather then detract form it like a theoreticaly( and it is only in theory for as you imply its not recognized across the nation ) equal civil union would be
 
Back
Top Bottom