• 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!

4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

Hicup said:
Huh? They are both legal? But I think I know what you meant.

Because race and gender have no material similarities concerning marriage. They ARE different matters to adjudicate.

Next question.

Tim-
Click to expand...

And what is the basis for adjudicating them differently?
 
roguenuke said:
No, men and women do not have equal access to marriage. I cannot marry a woman, not because I am heterosexual, but because I a woman, but a man can marry a woman. This is discrimination based on sex. This is unequal access to marriage based on my gender. It doesn't matter that men cannot marry men, but I can. That only shows that every single person is being treated unequally by the laws of marriage so long as same sex marriage bans exist within our laws.

It is like saying that only women can hold a teaching license, not men, but only men can hold a license to practice medicine, not women, and saying that both have equal access to licensed career opportunities since both are restricted from being able to be licensed in a single career field.
Click to expand...

Yes. And that contract excludes a gender. It is indeed gender-based discrimination, as no criteria for having sex or particular attraction is defined in marriage contracts. Straight couples do not have to meet any such requirements...why should gays? It is based on them not being able to marry (enter into a contract) with the same gender.
 
VanceMack said:
Sorry but I disagree. What we have seen over the last 15 years is the will of the people completely usurped by judges. At some point, the battle has to be decided one way or the other and we need to be able to move forward, however that looks.

Different opinions.
Click to expand...

Yes very different and it's pretty obvious your way of thinking is losing ground every week.

It's sad that you dont believe in actually seeing society grow and needing change to fairly accommodate its members. If you see anyway that straight people are being harmed by this change, please let me know. And 'being offended' is meaningless.
 
Mr.Nick said:
No it's not..... ANYONE can engage in a civil contract....

Technically all marriage is contract.....


.
Click to expand...

In states where SSM is illegal a MAN and another MAN cannot enter into that contract. The restriction is based on gender.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What do you mean by PDA?

You're right tho - I see a lot that I don't care about because I've been trained to either ignore it or am desensitized to it.
Click to expand...

Public displays of affection.


And I see blatant ones all the time for all ages, sizes, and shapes of opposite sex couples in public. Did so in Chic. metro area as well.
 
VanceMack said:
Sorry but I disagree. What we have seen over the last 15 years is the will of the people completely usurped by judges. At some point, the battle has to be decided one way or the other and we need to be able to move forward, however that looks.

Different opinions.
Click to expand...

What you should really ask yourself is whether a 53% vote is by itself a good enough reason to restrict individual freedom. If "will of the people" upholds a same-sex marriage ban, what else does it uphold?

If 53% of the population votes to define "arms" as a biological appendage attached to a person's shoulder, is that good enough to uphold a gun ban?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
What you should really ask yourself is whether a 53% vote is by itself a good enough reason to restrict individual freedom. If "will of the people" upholds a same-sex marriage ban, what else does it uphold?

If 53% of the population votes to define "arms" as a biological appendage attached to a person's shoulder, is that good enough to uphold a gun ban?
Click to expand...
After you manage to amend the Constitution? You bet...go for it. Unfortunately, marriage is not specifically defined in the Constitution. Thats a shame.
 
Mr.Nick said:
That is what you believe not what reality is.....

You want to talk about prenuptial agreements?
Click to expand...

no some of those are facts already proven with links about what marriage can do that nothing else can lol
 
Lursa said:
Yes very different and it's pretty obvious your way of thinking is losing ground every week.

It's sad that you dont believe in actually seeing society grow and needing change to fairly accommodate its members. If you see anyway that straight people are being harmed by this change, please let me know. And 'being offended' is meaningless.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry...what do you mean 'my way of thinking'?
 
VanceMack said:
After you manage to amend the Constitution? You bet...go for it. Unfortunately, marriage is not specifically defined in the Constitution. Thats a shame.
Click to expand...

And about that first question? Is a simple majority vote good enough to restrict your freedom, as long as it isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution?
 
VanceMack said:
After you manage to amend the Constitution? You bet...go for it. Unfortunately, marriage is not specifically defined in the Constitution. Thats a shame.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is meant to limit the government, and since the government is the people, including votes of the people, it is the government that is limited, not what the people can do. The government has to show why a law/restriction is needed if there is a valid challenge (and this certainly is a valid challenge) to further a legitimate state interest. There is no need to Amend the Constitution for that.
 
AGENT J said:
government can never stop protecting contracts, I have no idea why anybody even tries to suggest something so asinine.
Click to expand...


The two are not exclusive.


How about the government grant "Domestic Contracts" that can be created between, any number or sex, of consenting adults. It does not need to be so restricted or have the label of marriage attached. We can then leave "Marriage" as a non legal binding term that can be granted by your religious institution of choice (assuming they will grant it).
 
Lursa said:
Rigid and black and white. Not open to change.
Click to expand...

And yet, my very comments on this topic CLEARLY demonstrate an acceptance of change.

Try again.
 
Deuce said:
And about that first question? Is a simple majority vote good enough to restrict your freedom, as long as it isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution?
Click to expand...

You will have to do better than vague generalities. Taxation issues? Noise ordinances? Historically, many issues in towns cities, states, and even issues decided by the Supreme Court are decided and enforced based on a 'majority'.
 
roguenuke said:
The Constitution is meant to limit the government, and since the government is the people, including votes of the people, it is the government that is limited, not what the people can do. The government has to show why a law/restriction is needed if there is a valid challenge (and this certainly is a valid challenge) to further a legitimate state interest. There is no need to Amend the Constitution for that.
Click to expand...

Are you referencing marriage or gun bans?
 
Baralis said:
1.)The two are not exclusive.


2.)How about the government grant "Domestic Contracts" that can be created between, any number or sex, of consenting adults. It does not need to be so restricted or have the label of marriage attached.
3.).) We can then leave "Marriage" as a non legal binding term that can be granted by your religious institution of choice (assuming they will grant it).
Click to expand...



1.) actually they are for legal marriage/contracts
2.) these already exist in certain forms in certain states, they are not called marriage because they are not but they still involve government
3.) leave? LEGAL marriage already exist and theres no logical reason to change that and RELIGIOUS marriage already exists in this fashion this too wouldn't be anythign new

religious and legal marriage are 100% separate, some people do them together by choice but they have no impact on eachother
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Are you referencing marriage or gun bans?
Click to expand...

Do you believe I support gun bans? If so, you'd be wrong. I do not support gun bans. But it does apply the same way, only gun rights are automatically held to the higher level scrutiny, meaning that restrictions on gun ownership has to be shown to further a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional (such as restriction on owning nuclear or chemical weapons).
 
roguenuke said:
Do you believe I support gun bans? If so, you'd be wrong. I do not support gun bans. But it does apply the same way, only gun rights are automatically held to the higher level scrutiny, meaning that restrictions on gun ownership has to be shown to further a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional (such as restriction on owning nuclear or chemical weapons).
Click to expand...

In context of the question asked, gun bans are radically different than definition of marital rights. The courts are proving that regularly.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) actually they are for legal marriage/contracts
2.) these already exist in certain forms in certain states, they are not called marriage because they are not but they still involve government
3.) leave? LEGAL marriage already exist and theres no logical reason to change that and RELIGIOUS marriage already exists in this fashion this too wouldn't be anythign new

religious and legal marriage are 100% separate, some people do them together by choice but they have no impact on eachother
Click to expand...


1. I think we misunderstood one another, or I you. We agree here.

2. I would like to see the restrictions placed by the government removed, namely sex and number. I believe a domestic contract should be open to whatever the individuals involved wish it to be. Think of it as a group prenup contract of sorts. The government only need to insure that contract is followed.

3. I just do not see why we do not separate the name between the two as many ( I feel needlessly ) have issue with the name being used for the legal term. It just seem a very simple name change could sooth a lot of people while from a legal standpoint the name it means nothing.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
Click to expand...


Made up out of whole cloth? I don't think so. The Supreme Court considers certain rights fundamental even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution, because it's clear most Americans would have seen them as basic rights even before the Constitution was written. The Court has phrased its standard for fundamental right slightly differently in its decisions, but the most common phrasing of the "magic words" is that to be fundamental, a right must be so "deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this Nation" that they are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

The Court has recognized for a long time now that marriage between a male and a female is a fundamental right:

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

And there are similar statements in Supreme Court decisions going back to the 1800's. But notice I said marriage between a male and a female. There is no fundamental right to polygamy, or bigamy, or to marriage between parties very closely related by blood, or where one or both parties is a very young minor, or where the parties are of the same sex. None of those forms of marriage even comes close to meeting the Court's standard for fundamental rights.

That's why Justice Kennedy has had to be so creative (some would say disingenuous) with the Constitution in the three "gay" decisions he's authored: Romer v. Evans in 1996; Lawrence v. Texas in 2003; and U.S. v. Windsor last year. I won't go into all the details here. But if you study those three decisions, you can see the bizarre rationale he has been developing, which the Court is probably planning to use when it some day declares a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor all turned on the Court's belief that the only possible motive for the laws in question was animosity--a "bare desire to harm"--homosexuals. Now, even if a law doesn't infringe any fundamental right--which would make it subject to "strict scrutiny," a very demanding constitutional test--it still has to at least be "reasonably related" to some "legitimate government interest" to be constitutional. But harming a group of people can never be a legitimate purpose of government. So if the Court thinks that's the only conceivable reason for a law, it will hold that law unconstitutional.

I can already see the would-be incestuous adult couples arguing, once same-sex marriage has been proclaimed the newest constitutional "right," that the only motive for excluding them from state marriage laws, too, is a "bare desire to harm" them. And how about the polygamists, who have historically been the target of all sorts of animosity and legal persecution in this country? Doesn't justice cry out for legalizing homosexual incest--or even incestuous homosexual polygamy?

And why should we get so uptight about age, either? Don't the NAMBLA people assure us their young cadets are fully consensual partners in sodomy, and that man-boy love is a beautiful thing? Shouldn't everyone be able to force all those Ozzie-and-Harriet squares in bourgeois America to put their seal of approval on his or her way of loving--even if it is a little different?
 
Baralis said:
1. I think we misunderstood one another, or I you. We agree here.

2. I would like to see the restrictions placed by the government removed, namely sex and number. I believe a domestic contract should be open to whatever the individuals involved wish it to be. Think of it as a group prenup contract of sorts. The government only need to insure that contract is followed.

3. I just do not see why we do not separate the name between the two as many ( I feel needlessly ) have issue with the name being used for the legal term.

3.)It just seem a very simple name change could sooth a lot of people while from a legal standpoint the name it means nothing.
Click to expand...

1.) very possible happens all the time :D
2.) again in general these things already exist im not sure what you mean, the types of contracts you are referring to exist in some places already but they are not marriage and rightfully so.

So are you saying you want to see marriage stripped down and made a lesser to the likes of these other contracts?

3.) theres no need to separate them because they are already separated. They are currently thier own thing already

i guess i see what you are saying but people having hurt feelings or opinions over it also being a legal term is meanignless to me and i dont care because they have no rational to support it and they certainly have no rational to support denying others equal rights.

how many people didn't want minority being person under law, women equal under law, interracial marriage? we didn't give into those bigots and or anti-equal rights people then so why would we now? and if we do give in they win and then we have somethign NOT equal and a lesser.

What if we gave in to the people that said a half black man should be president? what if we said listen Barack, people dont like the idea of a black man being president. The office is "sacred, and has years and years of tradition behind it and as a sanctity to it" so we are going to call you the CEO of AMerica. Youll still have all the similar powers but we cant call you POTUS because of these peoples feelings. Also we never really cared before when it bother people but NOW we are definitely going to change it.

sorry thats complete crap and selling out to bigots and anti-freedom people

and be clear, im not claiming you feel that way just pointing out why peoples feelings dont matter one hoot on this subject since it deals with rights.

3.) again this would be giving in and sacrificing equal right and the name is everything because the name is equality. Make no mistake about it thats why they fight against the name so hard they know thats where the equality lies.

It is the name of a legal contract and has years and years of court precedence to it, the legality behind this is huge so making it somethign new would be making it a lesser.

Soothing bigots and or anti-equality people is of no concern. See Loving Vs Virginia when more than 80& of the country was against interracial marriage. Opinions like those dont matter when it comes to the constitution and rights.
 
VanceMack said:
And yet, my very comments on this topic CLEARLY demonstrate an acceptance of change.

Try again.
Click to expand...

This direct response to mine on adapting to social change indicated otherwise:

VanceMack said:
Sorry but I disagree. What we have seen over the last 15 years is the will of the people completely usurped by judges. At some point, the battle has to be decided one way or the other and we need to be able to move forward, however that looks.
.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
This direct response to mine on adapting to social change indicated otherwise:
Click to expand...
That whole "one way or another" thing is too confusing to you?
 
VanceMack said:
You will have to do better than vague generalities. Taxation issues? Noise ordinances? Historically, many issues in towns cities, states, and even issues decided by the Supreme Court are decided and enforced based on a 'majority'.
Click to expand...

No, the vote alone has never been sufficient for an equal protection challenge. If "it was enacted" is a legitimate state interest, then the rational basis test isn't a test at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom