• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

roguenuke said:
The United States is, not are. The states don't get the rights to themselves. The people, as in individuals, are included in that one too. In fact, they were limited by the 14th Amendment in that capacity. There was this little "skirmish" about a century and a half ago called the Civil War. It led to much less power in the hands of the states because the states just become smaller "tyrannies of the majority" or "little theocracies" if not kept in check by the federal government.
Click to expand...

Precisely, and in the case of homosexual marriage the states and the people have spoken. According to the US Constitution, the rights not enumerated fall to, the people and the states. And since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the states and the people decide.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think heterosexual marriage is in the Constitution.

I wonder if my marriage is Constitutional? Maybe clown boy can help answer this conundrum...
 
clownboy said:
No, it doesn't. That certainly wasn't the intent. The "others retained by the people" refers to what, precisely which rights, and who decides which rights? Care to guess the framer's answer? The PEOPLE. That's right at a local and state level. That's how it worked. Until a couple black robes decided to play with amend by decision. The people lose every time that's done.
Click to expand...

You can argue it all you want, but that is how its been working for awhile and the majority believe it should work that way. We like getting more rights rather than having others restrict our rights simply because they are in the majority.

Marriage is not at a state or local level. It is at a personal level. It is between the two people involved. Other people's only interest in marriage should be in protecting people from getting screwed over by others to the best of their ability. You can set reasonable restrictions, just like with any law. The 14th though applies to all laws, state and federal, even local.

Don't like it, get support enough to change it. I doubt it will happen.
 
clownboy said:
Precisely, and in the case of homosexual marriage the states and the people have spoken. According to the US Constitution, the rights not enumerated fall to, the people and the states. And since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the states and the people decide.
Click to expand...

The people spoke when it came to interracial marriage too and segregation. How will did that work out for them?
 
clownboy said:
It doesn't, but apparently it bothers you and your crowd. So much so you labor to change it through judicial fiat rather than use constitutional methods.
Click to expand...
...it's supreme law of the land, dude.

clownboy said:
Another cut in the death of a thousand cuts to the US Constitution. Want to legalize homosexual marriage? Amend the Constitution to make it a right to marry instead of getting there through the backdoor and amending through judicial fiat. THEN the 14th would apply and you'd have made the constitution and the country a stronger place.

Stop amending the text of the US Constitution through judicial decision.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually name anything.

Not one actual negative impact on any person's life.
 
clownboy said:
Precisely, and in the case of homosexual marriage the states and the people have spoken. According to the US Constitution, the rights not enumerated fall to, the people and the states. And since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the states and the people decide.
Click to expand...

Equal protection is enumerated in the constitution, therefore the will of the people and the states are subject to it.
 
Threegoofs said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think heterosexual marriage is in the Constitution.

I wonder if my marriage is Constitutional? Maybe clown boy can help answer this conundrum...
Click to expand...

Until this current attempt to skirt constitutional process, marriage was written into every STATE constitution. A right the people granted themselves that is not enumerated by the US Constitution.
 
roguenuke said:
You can argue it all you want, but that is how its been working for awhile and the majority believe it should work that way. We like getting more rights rather than having others restrict our rights simply because they are in the majority.

Marriage is not at a state or local level. It is at a personal level. It is between the two people involved. Other people's only interest in marriage should be in protecting people from getting screwed over by others to the best of their ability. You can set reasonable restrictions, just like with any law. The 14th though applies to all laws, state and federal, even local.

Don't like it, get support enough to change it. I doubt it will happen.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, it's not just between two people. If that were the case this discussion would not be happening. If it were as you say, any two people could say they were married, like going steady in school. There is a license and a relationship with the state who adopted old common law through the 9th and the 10th.

As to that last, how you get there matters too. You changed it, but broke it more in the process.
 
clownboy said:
Actually, no, it's not just between two people. If that were the case this discussion would not be happening. If it were as you say, any two people could say they were married, like going steady in school. There is a license and a relationship with the state who adopted old common law through the 9th and the 10th.

As to that last, how you get there matters too. You changed it, but broke it more in the process.
Click to expand...

Yes it really is. The rest is not the business of the people themselves. Do other people in the community have a right to deny you your relationship with your wife? If so, why? Do they have a right to tell you that you can't marry your wife because she has a higher IQ than you or is from a different social class than you or has a different color hair than you do?
 
clownboy said:
Bone up on your reading skills or stop reframing, whichever. I said nothing of the sort. The US Constitution isn't the width and breadth of the law. All sorts of things are legal because of state and local law.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what in your own words is the Constitution of the United States?
 
Deuce said:
...it's supreme law of the land, dude.
Click to expand...

You mean the will of the nine folks in black robes. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

Deuce said:
...I can't help but notice that you didn't actually name anything.

Not one actual negative impact on any person's life.
Click to expand...

I certainly did. Though it's telling that you fail to recognize damaging the Constitution negatively impacts all our lives. Even when one side effect may benefit our cause, we lose in other ways.
 
clownboy said:
Until this current attempt to skirt constitutional process, marriage was written into every STATE constitution. A right the people granted themselves that is not enumerated by the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

So you mean my state constitution specifically defines marriage is between a man and a woman? And the other 49 as well?

Can you actually cite this as fact, because I don't see a definition at all in the ILlinois constitution.
 
Cardinal said:
Out of curiosity, what in your own words is the Constitution of the United States?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to play. The text of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are a click away if you want to gain some understanding.
 
clownboy said:
Actually, no, it's not just between two people. If that were the case this discussion would not be happening. If it were as you say, any two people could say they were married, like going steady in school. There is a license and a relationship with the state who adopted old common law through the 9th and the 10th.

As to that last, how you get there matters too. You changed it, but broke it more in the process.
Click to expand...

14th applies to all laws, not just rights specifically enumerated in the constitution. And no, this does not open up blanket claim to any perceived inequality as much as many absolutists like to claim. That isn't how it works.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you mean my state constitution specifically defines marriage is between a man and a woman? And the other 49 as well?

Can you actually cite this as fact, because I don't see a definition at all in the ILlinois constitution.
Click to expand...

Once again, NOT what I said. State law defines what constitutes a legal marriage in the state. The State Constitution affirms that right.
 
Deuce said:
14th applies to all laws, not just rights specifically enumerated in the constitution. And no, this does not open up blanket claim to any perceived inequality as much as many absolutists like to claim. That isn't how it works.
Click to expand...

This is wholly outside the purpose and original meaning of Section 1 of the 14th. In software development they call it feature creep. In government it's called judicial amendment to the constitution.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, NOT what I said. State law defines what constitutes a legal marriage in the state. The State Constitution affirms that right.
Click to expand...

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Which laws do you think are exempt?
 
Deuce said:
Something something TRADITION something something INSTITUTION
Click to expand...
More like "something something government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all something something 'marriage' is a religious thing and so the 1st Amendment prevent the government from licensing it something something clergy having power to solemnize a municipal marriage license is the giving of government power to the church and thus violates the wall of separation something something".
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Equal protection is enumerated in the constitution, therefore the will of the people and the states are subject to it.
Click to expand...
Oh good, that means all 50 states have to honor my SD pistol permit.
 
clownboy said:
I'm not going to play. The text of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are a click away if you want to gain some understanding.
Click to expand...

It's a fair question. Aren't you concerned that every single time this goes to court bans against ssm are shot down? Even accounting for the dreaded "activist" judge, if bans against ssm are not, in fact unconstitutional, then even you have to admit that this defies the laws of odds. Maybe, you know...you just don't really understand what this whole Constitution thing is about and how it works?
 
Jerry said:
Oh good, that means all 50 states have to honor my SD pistol permit.
Click to expand...

Remember the part where I said it's not a blanket right to overturn any perceived inequality?
 
clownboy said:
Once again, NOT what I said. State law defines what constitutes a legal marriage in the state. The State Constitution affirms that right.
Click to expand...

Well, no. You specifically said it was written into State Constitutions.

I believe there was a precedent set here with, say Jim Crow laws.

The state had them, the judicial system said they were not Constitutional, and they changed with no Constitutional amendment.
 
I guess, in the end, some people are just afraid of the precedent of a court expanding individual liberty. That's fair, clownboy. We can agree to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom