• 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!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Which is still better than having left it up to the states themselves, where it would have been longer, evidenced by the fact that segregation is still on the books in at least one state and interracial marriage bans were just removed from SC and Alabama constitution/laws around 15 years ago.

Well, if they are so great, why didn't they get rid of it the first time it was before them?
 
translation: once again your posts have been proven wrong and you choose to run away
par for the course
this wont stop me and many other posters from pointing out the failures in them LOL

Very valid observation.
 
It does if you are not related by blood. In that case, only things like marriage and adoption are acceptable and those require legal paperwork. Which, costs $$ unless you get it automatically thru marriage. It is the extra cost that is discriminatory.
I'm not debating whether something is discriminatory or not. Obviously holding same-sex couples to a different standard is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Please try to stick to my point.

My point is that legal kinship does not require a marriage license to be recognized. Even if you are not related by blood, you do not need a marriage license in order for legal kinship to be recognized. If legal kinship is granted by a marriage license, then it should be granted to opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. But the fact remains that if there were no such thing as a marriage license, legal kinship would not suddenly be impossible. It could be recognized just fine through other means, none involving government issued licenses.
 
It requires some form of documentation from the government, which is what the marriage license is.
Why does the documentation have to come from the government? Government recognizes and enforces private contracts as well. Legal kinship could easily be recogonized through private contracts. Nothing needs to be issued from the government.
 
I'm not debating whether something is discriminatory or not. Obviously holding same-sex couples to a different standard is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Please try to stick to my point.

My point is that legal kinship does not require a marriage license to be recognized. Even if you are not related by blood, you do not need a marriage license in order for legal kinship to be recognized. If legal kinship is granted by a marriage license, then it should be granted to opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. But the fact remains that if there were no such thing as a marriage license, legal kinship would not suddenly be impossible. It could be recognized just fine through other means, none involving government issued licenses.


What other document establishes legal kinship for the myriad of laws that exist and do so for the $35.00 of a Civil Marriage license?

(And no Powers of Attorney do not establish legal kinship, the provide a legal proxy - something totally different).



>>>>
 
I don't support SSM, which is an aside from the issue I am posting about. I support SSU.

So, it's literally that you just don't want the gays to use "your" word. And you're willing to create an entirely redundant government process to accomplish that goal.

Interesting. Why should the government have to do all that to protect your personal definition of a word? Why not my definition? I'd like heterosexual couples to use "civil union" and homosexual couples to use "marriage." Is that an acceptable compromise to you? That way, the religious don't have to feel like they're being forced into the same grouping with something they disagree with. Their religious liberty is 100% secured. They'd be equally treated, right? So you'd have no problem with that, right?
 
Last edited:
What other document establishes legal kinship for the myriad of laws that exist and do so for the $35.00 of a Civil Marriage license?

(And no Powers of Attorney do not establish legal kinship, the provide a legal proxy - something totally different).



>>>>
Why are you bringing up powers of attorney? You don't need an attorney to sign a contract for you in order for it to enforced by the court system. What specifically are you saying is impossible without a government issued marriage license?
 
Why are you bringing up powers of attorney? You don't need an attorney to sign a contract for you in order for it to enforced by the court system. What specifically are you saying is impossible without a government issued marriage license?

Not impossible. Harder, lengthier, more expensive, and not as bulletproof in court. Nobody said impossible. Why did you bring up impossible?

edit: But hey, you want something impossible? Sure. Spousal privilege in a criminal trial.
 
Last edited:
Why does the documentation have to come from the government? Government recognizes and enforces private contracts as well. Legal kinship could easily be recogonized through private contracts. Nothing needs to be issued from the government.

National defense doesn't "need" to be done by the government either. But government is better at it than you are.
 
Why are you bringing up powers of attorney? You don't need an attorney to sign a contract for you in order for it to enforced by the court system. What specifically are you saying is impossible without a government issued marriage license?


I'm asking what other documents establish a legal next of kin relationship with the same scope currently existing for a $35.00 marriage license that is recognized and enforceable in all 50 states?



>>>>
 
Well, if they are so great, why didn't they get rid of it the first time it was before them?

Because people make mistakes? Why didn't our founding fathers get rid of slavery from the beginning or give women the right to vote from the very start of our country?
 
Why does the documentation have to come from the government? Government recognizes and enforces private contracts as well. Legal kinship could easily be recogonized through private contracts. Nothing needs to be issued from the government.

All legal kinship recognition comes from the government because the government handles legal matters, which is where such recognition actually occurs. No legal kinship is done through anything but the government.
 
I'm not debating whether something is discriminatory or not. Obviously holding same-sex couples to a different standard is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Please try to stick to my point.

My point is that legal kinship does not require a marriage license to be recognized. Even if you are not related by blood, you do not need a marriage license in order for legal kinship to be recognized. If legal kinship is granted by a marriage license, then it should be granted to opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. But the fact remains that if there were no such thing as a marriage license, legal kinship would not suddenly be impossible. It could be recognized just fine through other means, none involving government issued licenses.

Legal kinship requires some sort of government recognized documentation to exist. You need a marriage license to be recognized as someone's legal spouse, just as you need a birth certificate or official adoption record or court order (all from the government) to be recognized as any other legal kin (connections made somewhat like that linking the actors via roles game).
 
In other words, you got nuthin'. And you are just another that's fallen into the "Loving" trap and don't have what it takes to admit that you are wrong about it. Obviously, you need to ignore that "Loving" is completely different, because you want so very badly for it to fit your argument. But it's a case about race, not marriage, which I'm sure you know, not even that deep down, but... you... just... can't... face the truth. Carry on.


lol....if you read and understood Loving you would know that it isn't "Completely different"....loving was about marriage....it was also about race. Being about one does not require the exclusion of the other (maybe you didn't realize that). The reality is, the Supreme Court in Loving stated in no unclear terms that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights that a human being has. You can try to spin and cajole all you want....it doesn't change the facts. If you want to converse intelligently on the topic, I suggest you take a course or do a little self study on conlaw. Education is not something to fear.
 
lol....if you read and understood Loving you would know that it isn't "Completely different"....loving was about marriage....it was also about race. Being about one does not require the exclusion of the other (maybe you didn't realize that). The reality is, the Supreme Court in Loving stated in no unclear terms that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights that a human being has. You can try to spin and cajole all you want....it doesn't change the facts. If you want to converse intelligently on the topic, I suggest you take a course or do a little self study on conlaw. Education is not something to fear.

You are correct about Loving, although it's inconceivable that the court deciding that case would have had SSM in mind. And that's where the analogy breaks down, IMHO. The debate about SSM has been about whether there can be such a thing as SSM (which I favor, btw).
 
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg



The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....

So I heard Mark Levin yelling and screaming about that as if it was a bad thing: he of course did not explain, but I undersatand as well that conservatives are somehow upset with this. Does anyone know why?
 
You are correct about Loving, although it's inconceivable that the court deciding that case would have had SSM in mind. And that's where the analogy breaks down, IMHO. The debate about SSM has been about whether there can be such a thing as SSM (which I favor, btw).

Doesn't matter whether or not they had it in mind. They set the precedent. Marriage is a right, and certain classifications are protected. Gender is one of them. Some level of constitutional scrutiny applies, and same-sex marriage bans don't pass any of them.
 
Doesn't matter whether or not they had it in mind. They set the precedent. Marriage is a right, and certain classifications are protected. Gender is one of them. Some level of constitutional scrutiny applies, and same-sex marriage bans don't pass any of them.

Re SSM bans, I agree and so does the SCOTUS. Otherwise, no. A decision about access to a traditional social convention cannot be a precedent for the validity of creating a new social convention.
 
Re SSM bans, I agree and so does the SCOTUS. Otherwise, no. A decision about access to a traditional social convention cannot be a precedent for the validity of creating a new social convention.

Trying to narrow marriage into merely a "traditional social convention" is disingenuous. It is also a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. Decisions about those legal rights absolutely can carry future precedent.
 
Because people make mistakes? Why didn't our founding fathers get rid of slavery from the beginning or give women the right to vote from the very start of our country?

That is a bit more complicated than "people make mistakes." In this case, and many by the Federal courts, I'd have to call it more than a mistake. Actually, they had quite a while to work on it, so it's more like a colossal, egregious blunder. And that's the point I was making, that our Supreme Court has a history full of this, and will do so in the future.
 
lol....if you read and understood Loving you would know that it isn't "Completely different"....loving was about marriage....it was also about race. Being about one does not require the exclusion of the other (maybe you didn't realize that). The reality is, the Supreme Court in Loving stated in no unclear terms that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights that a human being has. You can try to spin and cajole all you want....it doesn't change the facts. If you want to converse intelligently on the topic, I suggest you take a course or do a little self study on conlaw. Education is not something to fear.

You've got to stop lying to yourself. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat it.
 
That is a bit more complicated than "people make mistakes." In this case, and many by the Federal courts, I'd have to call it more than a mistake. Actually, they had quite a while to work on it, so it's more like a colossal, egregious blunder. And that's the point I was making, that our Supreme Court has a history full of this, and will do so in the future.

A convenient argument if you think that allows you to just dismiss any ruling you don't like.

Overturning same-sex marriage bans is not a mistake. It's defending individual freedom. Homosexuals do not have to justify their individual liberty to you by proving this wont lead to some other, unrelated thing you also personally disapprove of.
 
Trying to narrow marriage into merely a "traditional social convention" is disingenuous. It is also a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. Decisions about those legal rights absolutely can carry future precedent.

All social conventions carry a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. That's why they're conventions and why access to them is important. That's why the question whether SSM should become a convention has been important.
 
You've got to stop lying to yourself. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat it.

And when the best argument you have before the Supreme Court of the United States is semantics, you have to understand that they are going to side with someone else's freedom and not your whining about a definition. Definitions aren't the key here, actions are. Specifically: the government treating two groups of people differently based on absolutely nothing more than your disapproval.
 
All social conventions carry a broad range of legal and economic benefits and rights. That's why they're conventions and why access to them is important. That's why the question whether SSM should become a convention has been important.

Uhh, no, most social conventions are purely social conventions. Buying a girl dinner on the first date is a social convention. This isn't what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is the government making a distinction of gender based on "convention." And under an equal protection challenge "it has been convention to treat people differently" has never been a particularly good argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom