• 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

As I've written a few times, the other states should just read the handwriting on the wall and stop wasting their taxpayers' money fighting it.
 
County officials in both Boulder, Colorado and St. Louis, Missouri issued licences yesterday in order to challenge their respective state's bans.

St. Louis Challenges Missouri Ban on Gay Marriage - ABC News
Boulder County Clerk begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses after historic court ruling - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

Colorado I get since they are under the 10th

Missouri though already had a challenges and legislation in the works.

But hey thats fine by me, anything to speed up the process as long as its legal, legit and follows protocol.
 
They have also in the past struck down marriage bans on the basis of a person not paying their child support (Zablocki v Redhail) and being incarcerated (Turner v Safley). They were both held to the lowest level of scrutiny. Same sex marriage bans should be held to the heightened level of intermediate if we are holding that interracial marriage bans were based on race because same sex marriage bans are based on sex, not sexuality. That requires an important state interest. "Because the people of the state want this" is not and should not ever be "an important state interest". In fact, it shouldn't even be considered a legitimate state interest since it could easily justify pretty much an violation of people's rights that are not specifically listed within the US Constitution, something that is not supposed to happen.

And no harm to state interests can be/has been shown.
 
Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

And the people of Indiana and Utah lose. Not supposed to be this way.
 
And the people of Indiana and Utah lose. Not supposed to be this way.

the people win cause equal rights wins, doesnt work any other way

the opinions and wants of bigots and those that want to infringe on rights dont matter :D
 
That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country. And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights. Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.
 
1.)That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country.
2.) And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights.
3.) Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.

1.) no it NEVER mattered when its infringing on individual rights LMAO Nice failed strawman though. To bad nobody honest and educated would ever take that mentally retarded claim seriously
sorry rights and freedom bother you, maybe move to another country that doesnt have those things
2.) not a claim its a fact that has been proven many times.
Law, rights, court cases, the constitution etc etc. Remind us what you have on your side again? oh thats right made up conspiracy theories and opinions lol
3.) factually wrong again, man thats 3 for 3 all your points are wrong. Thats not how the definition of bigot works.
Seems theres a lot about this topic your posts are severely uneducated on.

Feel free to ask questions, people will help.
 
That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country. And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights. Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.

Did the will of the people matter during Jim Crow? During women's suffragette? This is a matter of equal protection under the law...it is not subject to state discretion.
 
Did the will of the people matter during Jim Crow? During women's suffragette? This is a matter of equal protection under the law...it is not subject to state discretion.

shhhhhh dont use silly facts whan they will just be ignored.


thos things dont matter and are maaaaaaaagically different LOL

its just rogue judges using those same rulings to justify thier bias ways, its a conspiracy theory by over 30 judges:lamo

some people simply dont value rights
 
Did the will of the people matter during Jim Crow? During women's suffragette? This is a matter of equal protection under the law...it is not subject to state discretion.

You can keep the false comparisons to Jim Crow laws, and women's suffrage was the will of the people. And no, it's not, just like abortion has nothing to do with constitutional privacy rights, because they just don't exist. It's social engineering by court decision plain and simple. You're cheering that a few robed fellows can change law, constitution and society without involving that old pesky will of the people thing.
 
And the people of Indiana and Utah lose. Not supposed to be this way.

Perfect.

Tell me what they lost. What impact will this have on their lives?
 
That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country. And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights. Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.

That's right. The constitution supersedes the will of the people in this country. Sorry this troubles you so much.

As for being labeled bigots, if your guys have the right to say homosexuals are an abomination before God, I have the right to call them a bigot in response. The best part is that neither of us have the right to use the government to enforce our belief onto the other.
 
That's right, the will of the people no longer matters in this country. And when you're done here, there will be another issue you'll be eager to claim has something to do with equal rights. Anyone who opposes you will be labeled bigots or whatever.

The will of the people is always subject to the restrictions of the US Constitution. You cannot deny people rights guaranteed by the US Constitution just because you want to or you voted to do so. That isn't how our system of government works or ever was supposed to work.
 
That's right. The constitution supersedes the will of the people in this country. Sorry this troubles you so much.

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.

As for being labeled bigots, if your guys have the right to say homosexuals are an abomination before God, I have the right to call them a bigot in response. The best part is that neither of us have the right to use the government to enforce our belief onto the other.

Not "my guys", never sided with them before, still not.
 
Perfect.

Tell me what they lost. What impact will this have on their lives?

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.
 
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 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.

It is already a right. What is wrong with you guys and believing that every single right that individual citizens (not states) have has to be explicitly written in the Constitution? That is the entire point of the 9th and even 10th Amendments to state that no they don't need to be written in there to be rights.
 
The will of the people is always subject to the restrictions of the US Constitution. You cannot deny people rights guaranteed by the US Constitution just because you want to or you voted to do so. That isn't how our system of government works or ever was supposed to work.

And there is currently no right to marriage in the US Constitution outside of judicial rewrite/reimaging of what words mean.
 
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.

Ahahahaha, so basically what you're saying is that every activity known to man has to be listed in the constitution by name before it can be legal. Nice.
 
It is already a right. What is wrong with you guys and believing that every single right that individual citizens (not states) have has to be explicitly written in the Constitution? That is the entire point of the 9th and even 10th Amendments to state that no they don't need to be written in there to be rights.

Because the ones not mentioned in the US Constitution can and are written in STATE constitutions. Remember that whole United States thing? The backbone of the US Constitution.

And the 10th says they leave the hands of the federal constitution and the power passes to the STATES and the PEOPLE. Not the courts.
 
And there is currently no right to marriage in the US Constitution outside of judicial rewrite/reimaging of what words mean.

Yes there is because we have all the rights to begin with as citizens. What part of this Amendment do you not understand?

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That tells us that we do have that right. The only right people are trying to make up is this "right" to maintain the "traditional" definition of marriage. That is not a right at all.
 
Ahahahaha, so basically what you're saying is that every activity known to man has to be listed in the constitution by name before it can be legal. Nice.

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.
 
Because the ones not mentioned in the US Constitution can and are written in STATE constitutions. Remember that whole United States thing? The backbone of the US Constitution.

And the 10th says they leave the hands of the federal constitution and the power passes to the STATES and the PEOPLE. Not the courts.

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.
 
Yes there is because we have all the rights to begin with as citizens. What part of this Amendment do you not understand?

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That tells us that we do have that right. The only right people are trying to make up is this "right" to maintain the "traditional" definition of marriage. That is not a right at all.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom