• 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

Helix said:
i understood it perfectly. it's the classic "of course homosexuals can get married; to someone of the opposite sex! (even though homosexuality is not a choice, and they are as attracted to members of the opposite sex as heterosexuals are to the same sex, so this argument is fatally flawed.)"

i've read this same bull**** argument about a thousand times now, and it's still bull****.
Click to expand...

And you still don't get it.
 
tres borrachos said:
This issue needs to be out to bed once and for all on a national level. It's exhausting.
Click to expand...

How exactly does it affect you?

Sherman123 said:
So instead you'd prefer the Federal Circuit courts do it in their stead? All right then. As long as the states aren't deciding for themselves I'm comfortable.
Click to expand...

I'm comfortable that we're going with the constitution, rather than legislating popular prejudices. Whether the ruling comes from a circuit court or the supreme court, the reasoning and outcome are the same. The constitution doesn't permit this kind of discrimination.

Crovax said:
There can be no compromise, either sexual orientation is a protected class or it isnt. This affects a lot more than just gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why opponents keep bringing up protected classes. It has never been a significant portion of any rulings on the subject. Sexual orientation needn't be a protected class in order for the fourteenth amendment to protect it.

CanadaJohn said:
I agree that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, but they are. And as long as they are, this issue will not be settled through avoidance.
Click to expand...

Having a functioning system of inheritance will be almost impossible without legally defined families.

Jerry said:
They probably have real issues to pay attention to.
Click to expand...

If it's not a real issue, why are conservatives devoting so much energy to fighting it?

clownboy said:
Nope, it was about INTERRACIAL marriage. Ignoring that detail isn't helping your argument.
Click to expand...

And the compelling reason to distinguish the two is...?

Anthony60 said:
I am no Constitutional scholar, but if you see little difference, then you don't even have a basic understanding of the cases, the subjects, and the Constitution. Can't really put it any other way.
Click to expand...

I am a constitutional scholar. There is no significant difference between the two. It seems to be you that misunderstands the issues at play here.

clownboy said:
No, it doesn't, and to whom specifically do those unremunerated rights fall to? The STATES and the PEOPLE, not the federal.
Click to expand...

That is a completely incorrect assertion about the ninth amendment. Governments don't have rights. People do. And it falls to federal and state governments to protect the rights of people. But the ninth amendment refers to rights protected by the federal constitution.

CriticalThought said:
The tally is currently 41 wins and 2 losses. The losses were a state judge in Tennessee and a federal judge in Louisiana.
Click to expand...

Plus both of those losses are facing appeals at levels below the supreme court. They are exceedingly unlikely to stand and won't require the supreme court to take up the issue.

Anthony60 said:
Quick point, nobody is being told they can't get married. It isn't a fundamental right to change marriage to suit your own needs. That's the real issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those gays are really oppressing you by trying to marry. Imagine what they'll change next!?

Hamster Buddha said:
State courts don't really matter at this point because their on the bottom rung as I understand it.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of state court rulings aren't appealed, because there are no grounds upon which to do so. When it comes to constitutional questions, that's not what will happen, but SSM is very much a constitutional issue.

clownboy said:
In terms of the federal constitution state courts are the end of the chain for unremunerated rights. They decide if the issue comports or conflicts with the STATE constitution. They should not be allowed to consider precedence set by the federal courts in their decisions for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

You have made this up out of thin air.

Anthony60 said:
Thanks for the softball. First, there is no pro-discrimination side in this. Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone. And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else. That has to be stopped, it undermines our society. If SSM happens, it needs to happen within the rules that we have set up. You can't have an entire State vote on an issue, and then when you lose, get one person to flip it. What the Hell was the vote for???
Click to expand...

This is within the rules we have set up. And there was no reason to put civil rights to a vote, since that's unconstitutional.

clownboy said:
You can play games with my arguments as much as you like, it's not a response to them. They are still part of "any person", however, they are not a protected class and the 14th just does not apply here.
Click to expand...

Again, all this bit about protected classes... There's a lot more to the 14th amendment than this. It's actually a relatively minor part of 14th amendment law.

j-mac said:
Show me this fundamental right in the constitution please.
Click to expand...

The ninth amendment specifically says that we have protected rights that are not enumerated. This argument is ALWAYS wrong. Please stop making it. It's wrong about abortion. It's wrong about gay rights. It's wrong every time you make it.

Gaius46 said:
In a word yes. Is there a compelling reason - other than the "ick" factor - not to?
Click to expand...

It would certainly complicate many areas of law. And of course there is the question of where we draw the line. How many people can a marriage have? At what point are we no longer talking about marriages and start talking about corporations? I don't th ink these are insurmountable problems, but there are actual legal problems with recognizing polygamy.

Taylor said:
And just to be clear, just because they claim marriage a fundamental right does not mean that ssm is necessarily a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

What it means is that every person (consenting adult) has the right to marry the person (consenting adult) they want, unless there's a compelling reason to stop them. This is just as true for same sex marriages as it is for opposite sex marriages.

Jack Hays said:
Yes. Please see my #266. The federal government is out of the marriage definition business. Federal courts, another matter entirely, still have jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Circuit court judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress, the same as supreme court justices. How exactly is the latter part of the federal government and not the former?

Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the difference? Whatever marriage you think same sex couples can have, it's a lesser form, which is unconstitutional. "Recognizing" as you put it, includes a thousand or so benefits and restrictions. This is just nonsense semantics you have here.

Jack Hays said:
Not necessarily. If EVERYONE is allowed a heterosexual marriage then the law is being applied equally. What is new is the recognition of the idea of homosexual marriage. That is social and cultural evolution.
Click to expand...

So if EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the same race then the law is being applied equally. That was nonsense in 1967 and it's nonsense now.
 
Paschendale said:
If it's not a real issue, why are conservatives devoting so much energy to fighting it?
Click to expand...
To generate dues and donations. If all that money were actually going to fighting SSM then there would be more resistance to SSM. Conservatives give lip service to the cause so as to generate revenues. Once the money is in the general pot, money is prioritized and distributed, and SSM is not the top issue. Just enough money is put into fighting SSM to keep the commercials emotional and thus the funds rolling in.
 
Anthony60 said:
And you still don't get it.
Click to expand...

Unless your point is to just repeat "you don't get it" over and over again, then you need to explain what he doesn't get because his interpretation of your post is my interpretation as well.
 
Jerry said:
To generate dues and donations. If all that money were actually going to fighting SSM then there would be more resistance to SSM. Conservatives give lip service to the cause so as to generate revenues. Once the money is in the general pot, money is prioritized and distributed, and SSM is not the top issue. Just enough money is put into fighting SSM to keep the commercials emotional and thus the funds rolling in.
Click to expand...

So why are conservatives giving all this money so inspired to donate because of this non-issue? Not the leaders who are supposedly giving lip service, but the actual people in the party to whom the lip service is given. If it's such a non-issue, why is that lip service effective?
 
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...

Well, they took themselves out of the segregation ruling for a long time, too. Eventually they realized they had to step up to the plate and meet their responsibilities. People - including SSM's - travel from state to state. They can't be married in one state and not married in another. Too many possible legal issues arise.
 
Paschendale said:
So why are conservatives giving all this money so inspired to donate because of this non-issue? Not the leaders who are supposedly giving lip service, but the actual people in the party to whom the lip service is given. If it's such a non-issue, why is that lip service effective?
Click to expand...
It's just the commercial that raises revenue for the party. Little money is actually put into fighting SSM, while SSM takes a front seat on image. Conservatives sell the image that SSM matters because the idea is the product people buy. The brand. Then that money is put into issues which are actually important, like the healthcare situation. We lead you to believe we oh sooo care about SSM because that's what sells. We take the money generated from stimulating emotions on SSM and do other things with it.

It's similar to how the Aryan Brotherhood readily accepts Jews and blacks. The whole Aryan thing is just a brand. Likewise the whole Conservative thing is just a brand. Conservatives can be sold on gun control if it's within the brand, just look at Reagan for an example on that. Liberals would oppose SSM, or at least reduce support, if it were put behind the Liberal brand.

Take ordinary carrots and re-brand those same exact carrots as "McCarrots" and children will love them. Google that story for fun, it's a good read.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
If that's the narrative that SSM advocates want to portray that's fine by me. I see it as yet another victory that the federal government won't be taking over SSM with a SCOTUS ruling - regardless of which way they would rule.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think fed appeals courts using the 14th to overturn SSM bans is? I would say that's the fed govt taking over. Not to mention "DOMA" being struck down. Don't kid yourself either. The judges in 6th circuit have already decided to uphold the bans in MI OH etc, which will be appealed to guess where? SCOTUS, which because the 6th circuit ruling will be uconstitutional, will take up the appeal next term. So yeah, SCOTUS will decide this for about 10-20 states in the end.
 
Helix said:
they punted the issue, and will have to revisit it if a circuit court upholds a state ban. it's my opinion that they should have heard the case, but i've said that already.
Click to expand...

pretty ridiculous to take up those appeals when they punt now, considering the winning side in the lower court (pro gay marriage) pleaded just as strongly for SCOTUS to take up the cases. It's a complete cowardly move, placating the bigots for a year or 2 and giving no explanation.

It's so transparent what ginsburg is doing, given her roe v wade comments, yet oklahoma is among those where SSM is suddenly now legal. Does she expect more opposition from ohio had they granted cert? Just senseless.

Since i expected this to be resolved positively in june, only good thing from this from my pov is the couples in this handful of states don't have to wait till june.
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
Thanks for the softball. First, there is no pro-discrimination side in this. Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone.
Click to expand...

So if, for sake of argument, marriage law read that people can only marry the same gender, you'd be totally cool with that, no discrimination? After all, same law for everyone.

How about if you can only marry the same race? Starting to see a pattern here...

Anthony60 said:
And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else.
Click to expand...

lol, it's the supreme court's job to *uphold* the constitution, which was violated via these state laws.

Anthony60 said:
That has to be stopped, it undermines our society. If SSM happens, it needs to happen within the rules that we have set up. You can't have an entire State vote on an issue, and then when you lose, get one person to flip it. What the Hell was the vote for???
Click to expand...

Then tell the voters and your state reps to stop wasting their time and $ on discrimination. It's all their fault, no sympathy from me.

Anthony60 said:
Oh, and as a little P.S. to this entire argument. The left couldn't give a rat's butt about gays and whether or not they can marry, if they could get more votes by being on the other side of the issue, they'd leave you all at the alter in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourselves.
Click to expand...

If by "the left," you mean democrats in office, i totally agree. They are politicians and the vast majority didn't jump on board the pro gay rights train until polls supported it. In fact, two federal laws since overturn (DADT and "DOMA") were put in place by a dem president.

If by "the left" you mean liberals, i hardly think you speak for any of them. Why don't you take it up with self identified conservatives, since most of them now support SSM as well

Push comes to shove, this is a human rights issue, not a political one
 
Deuce said:
So they didn't want the 14th amendment to cover anything except former slaves/racial issues? Who said that? What lead you to believe this was the intent? What if I suggested they were wiser than this, and realized that there were other aspects of a person that might be cause for discrimination in the future that they wanted to preempt?
Click to expand...

The 14th does read to me like they said to hell with discrimination of all forms, and anticipated further civil rights challenges. What's amazing to me is, despite clearly being a racial issue that the 14th directly meant to address, it took 100 years for "white only" laws to end in the south.
 
Deuce said:
So, in the end, somebody needs a new, compelling argument as to why same-sex marriage bans should stand, if they want to keep this fight going. I'd ask the people against same-sex marriage in this thread to ponder that question: "Do I actually have an argument that I don't think has been expressly rejected several times already?" Theoretically another circuit could uphold a ban, at which point there would be a circuit split SCOTUS would be forced to settle. Unlikely.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the 6th, which ended arguments 2 months ago (so they already decided), will uphold the bans before the year is over and yeah, SCOTUS will have to take it then. One of the two judges who were skeptical of a constitutional right could change his mind based on today's non-ruling, but i doubt it.

The texas circuit i also think will force SCOTUS hands. But you're right. This has always been petty bigotry, but is exposed as such now more than ever, when the outcome is inevitable.
 
Gaius46 said:
In a word yes. Is there a compelling reason - other than the "ick" factor - not to?
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily an equal protection issue since there is still the option to have one spouse, and I'd think numerous laws would have to be re-written, to cope with divorce and inheritance. Still, administrative inconvenience isn't all that compelling.
 
Ockham said:
If I had my way government wouldn't be involved at all.
Click to expand...

When I joined this site a year and a half ago, I had the position that governments today shouldn't be in the marriage business and particularly not in the marriage promotion business - there's no need for government tax allowances/incentives related to marital status - if there weren't any such allowances/incentives, there'd be no big push to expand marriage "equality".

Since I've been here, I've noticed a shift in the way people view this and perhaps it's simply that more are voicing similar views. There will be a time, perhaps not in my lifetime, when tax and social policy will be devoid of references to "spouses" at which point all people will be treated equally.
 
chromium said:
It's not necessarily an equal protection issue since there is still the option to have one spouse, and I'd think numerous laws would have to be re-written, to cope with divorce and inheritance. Still, administrative inconvenience isn't all that compelling.
Click to expand...

I can see where the argument has merit given that homosexuals don't have any choice. I'm not sure I agree with it - or disagree with it for that matter. Thanks for giving me something to chew on during my commute to work this morning.
 
Phys251 said:
As opposed to LGBTs, for whom this decision directly affects? Unless you've been out and I missed the memo.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Don't get defensive and/or assume something nefarious in my post. I am PRO-SSM and find this issue ridiculous in that it has NOT been decided in favor of SSM.

It really bothers me when posters don't take the time to find out what another poster's view is on something. If you want to tell me that LGBTs don't feel as I do about the issue, then I'll listen. Otherwise please assume that my post supports the exhaustion that they are also feeling.
 
Lakryte said:
You did not comprehend my point. I didn't mean government should just rename the marriage license to something else and then issue that. I'm not sure why you would assume I was talking about semantics.

I meant what I said. Recognition of legal kinship could be done without a marriage license issued by the government. No license marriage license or anything equivalent to a marriage license needs to be issued by the government for the government to recognize legal kinship.
Click to expand...

Some sort of legal documentation is necessary in order for the government to recognize legal kinship. For most, this documentation is birth certificates that can be linked to people in families. It also can be either legal adoption records or court rulings. All legal kinship claims though do require some documentation, at least in this day and age. Why would or should that change when it comes to spousal recognition?
 
Anyone else find it strange that DP's #1 homophobe and gay topic starter has remained completely silent on this topic?
 
Gaius46 said:
I can see where the argument has merit given that homosexuals don't have any choice. I'm not sure I agree with it - or disagree with it for that matter. Thanks for giving me something to chew on during my commute to work this morning.
Click to expand...

Np but for full disclosure, i'm not going to stay up at night worrying that mormons who did all they could to prevent gay marriage can't legally have 5 wives. That is definitely not a priority for me.
 
Lakryte said:
You did not comprehend my point. I didn't mean government should just rename the marriage license to something else and then issue that. I'm not sure why you would assume I was talking about semantics.

I meant what I said. Recognition of legal kinship could be done without a marriage license issued by the government. No license marriage license or anything equivalent to a marriage license needs to be issued by the government for the government to recognize legal kinship.
Click to expand...

They still need to document that change in kinship status, wouldn't you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom