• 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

rocket88 said:
Yeah, but it happens. The last year of my marriage, I can probably count how many times I had sex on one hand. (If I kept count, but it wasn't often that's for sure)

I guess the point is that they're not watching to see if you are having sex. Except for the legal contract, what's the difference between a sexless marriage and a roommate situation?
Click to expand...

Nagging, mostly.
 
Lakryte said:
I agree that there is really no need to get rid of the marriage license, but recognition of legal kinship could be done without a marriage license issued by the government.
Click to expand...

Well, ok, but the government could also build "paved driving surfaces" instead of "roads" but I don't see that as changing anything.
 
Deuce said:
Recognizing legal kinship is important for all manner of government operations, and it staggers me that people don't realize this.
Click to expand...

The government should not be defining marriage nor defining the sexes of the people involved in marriage. They need to focus on bigger issues and move away from this issue. Involving government and its representatives is the reason why SSM has also become a political issue, and marriage isn't political. It's a matter of picking a mate.
 
tres borrachos said:
They shouldn't have to sanction or promote any form of marriage. It ain't their job. They can't even handle the job they are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
The government should not be defining marriage nor defining the sexes of the people involved in marriage. They need to focus on bigger issues and move away from this issue. Involving government and its representatives is the reason why SSM has also become a political issue, and marriage isn't political. It's a matter of picking a mate.
Click to expand...

Your first statement indicated a "not have government even recognize marriage at all," notion, which is silly.
 
Deuce said:
Your first statement indicated a "not have government even recognize marriage at all," notion, which is silly.
Click to expand...

It indicated no such thing, Deuce. That's what you read into it. I never said anything of the sort.
 
tres borrachos said:
It indicated no such thing, Deuce. That's what you read into it. I never said anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

When people say they don't want the government to sanction any sort of marriage, they typically mean get the government out of marriage entirely. That is the typical usage of such phraseology.

Thank you for the clarification.
 
Deuce said:
When people say they don't want the government to sanction any sort of marriage, they typically mean get the government out of marriage entirely. That is the typical usage of such phraseology.

Thank you for the clarification.
Click to expand...

The word "sanction" in my mind in this context means "giving official approval". The government has no right to give approval for 2 adults of legal age to select each other as spouses. It's offensive to me to suggest that they even have that right or anyone thinks they have that right. They don't. I didn't marry my husband because I was given approval by Uncle Sam.
 
upsideguy said:
Not exactly. The court refused to hear the case, leaving stand what the circuits have decided. The circuits, as you may recall, have consistently over-ruled the states to date, broaden SSM. Since the authority of the circuit is across state lines, the SCOTUS ruling has the effect of broadening the rulings of the circuits. In other words, since almost all circuit court verdicts have been to overturn statues on SSM, those rulings now will apply to states where the question has not yet come to court. As soon as someone in one of these states files, they will get an uncontested judgement in their favor, thus broadening SSM.

In an odd-way, this is a major victory for the SSM movement.
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
The Supreme Court really can't avoid this issue forever. It will come back to them if, and more likely when, a gay couple, legally married in one state moves to a state where SSM is not recognized and demands equal treatment under the law. Likewise, when a gay couple who live in a state where SSM is not recognized travels to a state that does recognize it and legally marries only to return to their home state and demand equal treatment under their home state's laws.
Click to expand...

Having already ruled the DOMA unconstitutional, this seems to me to be commendable consistency on the part of the SCOTUS.
 
Ockham said:
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.
Click to expand...

It should be no more a 'state issue' than segregated schools were a state issue. Of course that court had balls.
 
tres borrachos said:
The word "sanction" in my mind in this context means "giving official approval". The government has no right to give approval for 2 adults of legal age to select each other as spouses. It's offensive to me to suggest that they even have that right or anyone thinks they have that right. They don't. I didn't marry my husband because I was given approval by Uncle Sam.
Click to expand...

Does the government have the right to 'officially' disapprove of 2 adults of legal age selecting each other as spouses?
 
Jack Hays said:
Having already ruled the DOMA unconstitutional, this seems to me to be commendable consistency on the part of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I think this particular decision is them just chickening out.
 
Wiggen said:
It should be no more a 'state issue' than segregated schools were a state issue. Of course that court had balls.
Click to expand...

This is fully consistent with the SCOTUS' earlier ruling against DOMA, taking the federal government out of the marriage definition business.
 
Wiggen said:
Does the government have the right to 'officially' disapprove of 2 adults of legal age selecting each other as spouses?
Click to expand...

I think the only confusion here is phrasing.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is fully consistent with the SCOTUS' earlier ruling against DOMA, taking the federal government out of the marriage definition business.
Click to expand...

Um, eleven states just had their definition of marriage overturned by Federal courts.
 
Deuce said:
I think this particular decision is them just chickening out.
Click to expand...

Sometimes judicial restraint is just judicial restraint, and very healthy. They already set DOMA aside, and rulings in lower federal courts to date have invalidated state laws against SSM. They are signalling that they will not pull a rabbit out of a hat for the anti-SSM folks. You should take "yes" for an answer.
 
Deuce said:
Um, eleven states just had their definition of marriage overturned by Federal courts.
Click to expand...

Yes. Please see my #266. The federal government is out of the marriage definition business. Federal courts, another matter entirely, still have jurisdiction.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sometimes judicial restraint is just judicial restraint, and very healthy. They already set DOMA aside, and rulings in lower federal courts to date have invalidated state laws against SSM. They are signalling that they will not pull a rabbit out of a hat for the anti-SSM folks. You should take "yes" for an answer.
Click to expand...

I don't advocate judicial restraint in cases of upholding individual liberty. :peace:
 
Deuce said:
I don't advocate judicial restraint in cases of upholding individual liberty. :peace:
Click to expand...

Since this matter concerns a profound and far reaching shift in public attitudes in the space of no more than a generation I think the SCOTUS is wise to let this extremely rapid evolution take its course naturally. Remember that rulings in the lower federal courts already make it clear there will be no backsliding. This will only end one way, and soon.
 
Helix said:
equal protection under the law. if heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right recognized by the state, conveying preferential status, than homosexual marriages must be recognized, as well.
Click to expand...
Equal protection pertains to laws that might sanction or promote marriage, it doesn't make ssm a fundamental right. Further, whether or not marriage is a fundamental right isn't terribly relevant to your equal protection claim, as you'll see when I remove it from your argument:

"If heterosexual marriage is recognized by the state, conveying preferential status, than homosexual marriages must be recognized as well"

The fundamental right assertion was appropriate in Loving because marriages were actually being banned. There is no real SSM ban, it's simply not recognized by the government.
 
Taylor said:
Equal protection pertains to laws that might sanction or promote marriage, it doesn't make ssm a fundamental right. Further, whether or not marriage is a fundamental right isn't terribly relevant to your equal protection claim, as you'll see when I remove it from your argument:

"If heterosexual marriage is recognized by the state, conveying preferential status, than homosexual marriages must be recognized as well"

The fundamental right assertion was appropriate in Loving because marriages were actually being banned. There is no real SSM ban, it's simply not recognized by the government.
Click to expand...

what?

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Helix said:
what?

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
If you can look beyond the wording used by your source, you'll see that all of this is perfectly consistent with what I said. These "bans" only pertain to legal recognition. SSM couples can marry to their hearts content -without consequence- in any of these states where there is a so-called ban. There is no fundamental right to state recognition of marriage, so their right to marry (if it exists) is not being infringed. Again, not terribly relevant to an equal protection claim.
 
Taylor said:
If you can look beyond the wording used by your source, you'll see that all of this is perfectly consistent with what I said. These "bans" only pertain to legal recognition. SSM couples can marry to their hearts content -without consequence- in any of these states where there is a so-called ban. There is no fundamental right to state recognition of marriage, so their right to marry (if it exists) is not being infringed. Again, not terribly relevant to an equal protection claim.
Click to expand...

there is a fundamental right to marriage, and i posted a link demonstrating this right in the thread multiple times. you may choose to ignore it or to try and parse terms, but SSM is specifically banned in multiple states. i have posted a link to back this up, as well.
 
Helix said:
there is a fundamental right to marriage, and i posted a link demonstrating this right in the thread multiple times. you may choose to ignore it or to try and parse terms, but SSM is specifically banned in multiple states. i have posted a link to back this up, as well.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the links you post don't really back up the argument you're trying to make. SSM "bans" do not prevent individuals from marrying, they prevent the government from recognizing that union. You may call that parsing terms, but that's only because you fail to understand why that might be important from a legal standpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom