• 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!

Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

No, it couldn't. It provides EQUAL protection, not ANY protection.

Equal in whose eyes?

You see that is the question that needs to be answered. If a State decides that an action is unlawful, at what point does the federal government supercede that?
 
Equal in whose eyes?

You see that is the question that needs to be answered. If a State decides that an action is unlawful, at what point does the federal government supercede that?
When it's only unlawful for some people and not others. It really isn't a difficult concept.

Your argument about age was the best one you made, because it could be argued the other way.
 
When it's only unlawful for some people and not others. It really isn't a difficult concept.

Your argument about age was the best one you made, because it could be argued the other way.

I'm not looking for the best argument, only the one that makes sense to you. Is age discrimination acceptable?
 
Because the ideas can't be advanced by a Constitutional amendment, which would be the proper way to make societal changes...
The court can't conduct social change, either. Interacial marriage wasn't accepted by even a simple majority of the public until the early 90s. Courts don't decide public opinion.
 
Sure it can. Please provide an example of where it cannot...

If every married couple had to draw up an individual legal contract to cover every single thing a marriage contract covers? You don't see how that is more of a challenge than the current system?
 
Equal in whose eyes?

You see that is the question that needs to be answered. If a State decides that an action is unlawful, at what point does the federal government supercede that?

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the subject.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is clearly a distinction of gender. Such distinctions are subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny.
 
Of course it is, we have full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. A person married in one state must be treated as married in all states. Therefore it's a federal thing.

That statement is false. It has never been decided with any certainty that the constitution REQUIRES states to recognize any marriage from any other state. Till now, it's been voluntary cooperation between states but with the attempts of some states to try to force others to accept homosexual marriage, the battle to decide this is underway and it's not decided yet. So it is false to state that they must. At some point in the future that statement may become true or it might not but for now, it's just your unqualified opinion.
 
No, the right thing to do is enforce the equal protection clause regarding this unconstitutional distinction of gender.

I don't know how many times I have to explain why this is ridiculous. The homosexual marriage issue isn't one of gender discrimination. No one was ever denied the right to marry because of their gender. The fact they can't choose someone of their own gender to marry isn't about equal rights for genders because both men and women have equal rights to marriage and the fact that marriage has virtually always been defined as one man and one woman joined together doesn't equate to an equal rights violation based on gender. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that all partner relationships are created equal.
 
I don't know how many times I have to explain why this is ridiculous. The homosexual marriage issue isn't one of gender discrimination. No one was ever denied the right to marry because of their gender. The fact they can't choose someone of their own gender to marry isn't about equal rights for genders because both men and women have equal rights to marriage and the fact that marriage has virtually always been defined as one man and one woman joined together doesn't equate to an equal rights violation based on gender. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that all partner relationships are created equal.

And I don't know how many times I have to explain to you that exactly this logic was rejected with interracial marriage. Before you try to deflect with whining about how race and gender aren't the same thing, the logic is the same and the 14th amendment covers both race and gender.

Without an identified important state interest, defining marriage as between a man and a woman can be overturned under the 14th amendment in the same way marriage used to "virtually always" be defined as "one man and one woman of the same race," and was overturned.
 
That statement is false. It has never been decided with any certainty that the constitution REQUIRES states to recognize any marriage from any other state. Till now, it's been voluntary cooperation between states but with the attempts of some states to try to force others to accept homosexual marriage, the battle to decide this is underway and it's not decided yet. So it is false to state that they must. At some point in the future that statement may become true or it might not but for now, it's just your unqualified opinion.

It has also never been decided that states have unlimited right to define marriage, so that's just your unqualified opinion.
 
It has also never been decided that states have unlimited right to define marriage, so that's just your unqualified opinion.

If you add "unlimited", you changed my statement to something that is false. The statement I actually made, however, is true.
 
I think that's why they're actually not reviewing it. By not reviewing it, lower court decisions stand and the majority of those are starting to favor gay marriage.

But, then again, they may realize that they will have no recourse to decide that they'll have to over-turn all the lower court decisions.
 
But, then again, they may realize that they will have no recourse to decide that they'll have to over-turn all the lower court decisions.

You really think every one of those lower courts are just activist judges, don't you?
 
You really think every one of those lower courts are just activist judges, don't you?

You can't resist making it personal, can you?
 
You can't resist making it personal, can you?

Yes, apdst, I am challenging statements you personally made. This is a debate forum, after all.

So, tell me, why do you think the Supreme Court would need to overturn all the lower courts' rulings? Why do you think every single circuit court has made a mistake?
 
Yes, apdst, I am challenging statements you personally made. This is a debate forum, after all.

So, tell me, why do you think the Supreme Court would need to overturn all the lower courts' rulings? Why do you think every single circuit court has made a mistake?

I made no such statement in this thread.
 
I made no such statement in this thread.

But, then again, they may realize that they will have no recourse to decide that they'll have to over-turn all the lower court decisions.

Feel free to clarify this statement then. Why do you think they could have "no recourse [but] to decide they'll have to over-turn all the lower court decisions?" Is there a reason you might expect this?
 
Feel free to clarify this statement then. Why do you think they could have "no recourse [but] to decide they'll have to over-turn all the lower court decisions?" Is there a reason you might expect this?

I don't see anything there about activist judges.
 
I don't see anything there about activist judges.

And I don't see any clarification that would help with my apparent confusion.
 
And I don't see any clarification that would help with my apparent confusion.

If you're confused, it's your problem, not mine. Stop trying to make your problem my problem.
 
If you're confused, it's your problem, not mine. Stop trying to make your problem my problem.

I'm sorry that asking you to clarify your opinion is such a burden on a debate forum.

On what grounds do you think SCOTUS would overturn the circuit court decisions?
 
I'm sorry that asking you to clarify your opinion is such a burden on a debate forum.

On what grounds do you think SCOTUS would overturn the circuit court decisions?

You made a false statement. Carry on.
 
It's an issue that needs to be put to rest. Completely.

Rule on it and be done. We pretty much know what that ruling MUST be.

So just do it.
Really. This. I don't think it matters what side you or I or anyone else is on, it's an important current issue and it needs to be done once and for all. IMHO, to not rule on it is willful shirking of duties and obligations.
 
Without an identified important state interest, defining marriage as between a man and a woman can be overturned under the 14th amendment in the same way marriage used to "virtually always" be defined as "one man and one woman of the same race," and was overturned.
To my knowledge, marriage in this country has *never* been defined in that manner, and most certainly not 'virtually always' - perhaps you can provide evidence (e.g. text of an old statute)?
 
Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the subject.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is clearly a distinction of gender. Such distinctions are subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny.

Baloney. State marriage laws do not discriminate by sex in excluding same-sex partners. They no more allow two men to marry each other than they allow two women to marry each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom