• 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

Jerry said:
A SSM ban is not gender/sex discrimination because each sex can do what the other can do. Neither sex has any special privilege the other sex lacks. The right is to marry someone of the opposit sex. It was never a right of a man to marry a woman with the right of a woman to marry a man. Its a right of everyone to marry someone of the opposit sex, of the age of magirity, who is of sound mind. Neither sex ever had any right to marry the same sex primeraly because homosexuality itself is a birth defect to begin with.

If a SSM ban is discrimination then it's discrimination against an uncontrollable medical condition, and Public Accomidation should step in and let gays 'marry' just like a post-op transexual woman is now a 'man'. I'm a very big supporter of Pubic Accomidation and support gays marrying because it helps them cope with their condition and become more functional and productive members of society. God knows many gay couples can do better than I did at marriage.
Click to expand...

banning interracial marriage is still racial discrimination even if black and white people can all marry the same race and are all bared form marriage to some one of a different race

when a black person cant marry a white person and a different white person can that's racial discrimination

when a man cant marry another man and a woman can that's gender based discrimination

i
 
Lursa said:
yes it is because the contract does not allow 2 people of the same gender to enter into the marriage contract.
Click to expand...
That's not gender discrimination. One gender has to enjoy some priviledge or suffer some burdon which the other gender does not, in order to be gender discrimination.

Lursa said:
I'll ignore the total ignorance part, since I'd love to see any way or *justification* for straight people to 'control their medical condition' of being attracted to the opposite gender, lol.
Click to expand...
Since you oppose any givernment involvement at all in the first place, I invite you to ignore the entire topic.
 
Jerry said:
That's not gender discrimination. One gender has to enjoy some priviledge or suffer some burdon which the other gender does not, in order to be gender discrimination.


Since you oppose any givernment involvement at all in the first place, I invite you to ignore the entire topic.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I am much more strongly against discrimination in general so I do support this fight. ("First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I was silent....")

And sorry but you'll have to support your first claim...who says one gender has to enjoy the privilege, etc????

One gender is naturally excluded from those contracts....discrimination.
 
blarg said:
banning interracial marriage is still racial discrimination even if black and white people can all marry the same race and are all bared form marriage to some one of a different race
Click to expand...
That case was discrimination because some races enjoyed a privilege which others did not; some races suffered a burdon which other races did not. The rule did not apply to all. A black couldn't marry a white, but an asian could marry a white. A white couldnt marry a black, but a white could marry a pacific islander. Thats unballanced.

A SSM ban applies to all sexes wheras the interacial-marriage ban did not apply to races.
 
Lursa said:
One gender is naturally excluded from those contracts....discrimination.
Click to expand...
Neither gender is excluded form entering a marriage, thus its not gender discrimination.
 
Jerry said:
That case was discrimination because some races enjoyed a privilege which others did not; some races suffered a burdon which other races did not. The rule did not apply to all. A black couldn't marry a white, but an asian could marry a white. A white couldnt marry a black, but a white could marry a pacific islander. Thats unballanced.

A SSM ban applies to all sexes wheras the interacial-marriage ban did not apply to races.
Click to expand...

would still be racial discrimination if you applied it to every race
 
Jerry said:
Neither gender is excluded form entering a marriage, thus its not gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. One gender is, necessarily, since the ONLY thing that stops them from entering into that contract is gender or close familial relationship). Felons in jail can enter into it. Adulterers, domestic abusers. Old people, sterile people....anyone!

(in some states, age is also a factor for minors but they do not have the same rights as adults)
 
Jerry said:
Neither gender is excluded form entering a marriage, thus its not gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

black and white people were not excluded from entering into a marriage it was racial discrimination when they could not marry one another
 
blarg said:
would still be racial discrimination if you applied it to every race
Click to expand...

The rule would have to be "you can only marry someone of the same racial composition" in order to not be discrimination. A very difficult thing to determine, practicaly unenforceable.
 
Jerry said:
The rule would have to be "you can only marry someone of the same racial composition" in order to not be discrimination. A very difficult thing to determine, practicaly unenforceable.
Click to expand...

it would still be discrimination
 
Jerry said:
A SSM ban is not unconstitutional because marriage is not a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Actually, laws creating marriage bans have been found to be unconstitutional.

It is left to the states to regulate.
Click to expand...

No. No, it isn't.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only way for SCOTUS to have proper authority to rule on SSM is to make a marriage amendment.
Click to expand...

Demonstratively false:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Hatuey said:
Actually, laws creating marriage bans have been found to be unconstitutional.



No. No, it isn't.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Demonstratively false:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

an interesting article

especially these bits

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."
 
Jerry said:
By a court which has no authority to rule on the issue.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS rules on whether a law violates the constitution. It has the authority to rule on any issue for which may violate any amendment in the constitution. Loving v. Virginia was one such case. Actually, I'm pretty sure SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to make a judgement on any law which may violate the constitution regardless of the topic at hand.

Ecamples of violating the seporation of powers, grounds to dismiss the entire court.
Click to expand...

You're getting desperate. SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to rule on marriage thanks to the 14th amendment.
 
blarg said:
an interesting article

especially these bits

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Click to expand...
They said something somiler about another right, and yet it's gang-raped everywhere. This means SCOTUS are liers.
 
Hatuey said:
Only that's not how SCOTUS works and you know it. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution about healthcare. Does that mean that any SCOTUS decision rendered on it can be ignored because SCOTUS by your logic has no jurisdiction on matters concerning healthcare?
Click to expand...
There is no constitutional authority behind healthcare. It's a recent invention. SCOTUS was determining the legality of a federal law, which not the same as a right left to the states. There is no federal law on any such 'national marriage' policy.

Hatuey said:
You're getting desperate. SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to rule on marriage thanks to the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
It's actualy thanks to Artical 3, not the 14th, but you idiots are to stupid to do anything but parrot talking points. Thank you for helping me demonstrate the shere ignorence of pro-ssm.
 
Jerry said:
There is no constitutional authority behind healthcare. It's a recent invention.
Click to expand...

So is marriage as practiced in America. :lol:

SCOTUS was determining the legality of a federal law, which not the same as a right left to the states. There is no federal law on any such 'national marriage' policy.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a federal racial discrimination policy either Jerry. And SCOTUS was still able to rule Jim Crow laws unconstitutional.

It's actualy thanks to Artical 3, not the 14th, but you idiots are to stupid to do anything but parrot talking points. Thank you for helping me demonstrate the shere ignorence of pro-ssm.
Click to expand...

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, as a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Hatuey said:
So is marriage as practiced in America. :lol:
Click to expand...
And theres no constitutional authority behind or mandate for marriage licenses, either.

If a State issues them, then the state has to act equitably, but the state doesn't have to give or honor marriages at all. The state can't stop you from having a ceremony, putting rings on and calling eachother 'husband' or 'wife', but nothing forces the state to honor your union.

California could choose not to honor marriage licenses from states who not require a blood test. Any state could require pre-marital counseling and not honor marriages from states who do not require the same. It's all up to the state.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
And theres no constitutional authority behind or mandate for marriage licenses, either.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. SCOTUS can still determine whether marriage law is in violation of the 14th amendment as shown by Loving v. Virginia. :shrug:

If a State issues them, then the state has to act equitably, but the state doesn't have to give or honor marriages at all. The state can't stop you from having a ceremony, putting rings on and calling eachother 'husband' or 'wife', but nothing forces the state to honor your union.

California could choose not to honor marriage licenses from states who not require a blood test. Any state could require pre-marital counseling and not honor marriages from states who do not require the same. It's all up to the state.
Click to expand...

Whether a state has to honor or doesn't have to honor is irrelevant. The state still needs to comply with the 14th amendment when it comes to marriage law. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
 
Hatuey said:
Doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Then you shouldnt have brought it up.

Hatuey said:
Whether a state has to honor or doesn't have to honor is irrelevant. The state still needs to comply with the 14th amendment when it comes to marriage law. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...
Theres no 14th amendment violation taking place. A SSM-ban does not violate the 14th and for the reasons stated.
 
Jerry said:
Then you shouldnt have brought it up.
Click to expand...

I explained why it doesn't matter. :shrug:

Theres no 14th amendment violation taking place. A SSM-ban does not violate the 14th and for the reasons stated.
Click to expand...

You've stated no reason lol. All you've stated is that a state can choose to not honor a marriage because of... what? Blood tests? It's laughable to compare a blood test to what is the outright discrimination based on the gender of the participants. Discriminating based on gender/sexual attraction? Violation of the 14th, Jerry. Craig v. Boren, Reed v. Reed, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Thomas - look them up.
 
Jerry said:
That's not gender discrimination. One gender has to enjoy some priviledge or suffer some burdon which the other gender does not, in order to be gender discrimination.
Click to expand...


Let's take 3 people - Martha, John, and Heather - who are consenting, adult, non-related, law abiding, US Citizens.

John can Civilly Marry Martha.

John can Civilly Marry Heather.

Martha though cannot marry Heather.​


Because of gender John enjoys a right (or privilege if you prefer) to marry someone who consents that is denied Martha who has a burden placed on her that does not inhibit John.

The only factor that mandates under the law (on most States) the different treatment of Martha and Heather verses John and Heather is the gender composition of the couple.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Because of gender John enjoys a right (or privilege if you prefer) to marry someone who consents that is denied Martha who has a burden placed on her that does not inhibit John.
Click to expand...
All 3 people have the same right: to marry someone of the opposit sex. All 3 people have the same burdon: can't marry the oppoait sex.

That it would be good and proper for us to create a new right to marry the same sex does not mean such a right exists now, or ever did.

What you highlight here is yhat yhis is truly about sexual preferences, not gender, but you lie and argue gender because a few years ago SCOTUS declined to hear a key case because preference isnt a protected class.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
A SSM ban is not unconstitutional because marriage is not a Constitutional right. It is left to the states to regulate.

The only way for SCOTUS to have proper authority to rule on SSM is to make a marriage amendment.
Click to expand...

First of all, marriage has been ruled as a constitutional right. It would be covered by the 9th.

Second, it doesn't have to be a constitutional right for a restriction within a law to be unconstitutional. Getting a driver's license is not a constitutional right. However, if a state made a law that said that those who had red hair (whether natural or dyed) cannot get a driver's license, that would most likely be ruled unconstitutional because the state would be unable (in all likelihood) to provide a legitimate state interest furthered by such a law/restriction.

The Amendment that is applicable already exists, it is the 14th and the Equal Protection Clause it contains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom