• 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

Now we have come full circle. Loving was about access to an extant institution. The debate about same sex marriage has been about creation of a new institution.

How is it new? Esp. compared to interracial marriage? They were judged similarly in their time.

But as a 'new' institution, what is 'new?' (Again, the races marrying...2 races...that was 'new' in western countries) Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of 'new?'
 
We're over 50% for same-sex marriage in terms of population, and SCOTUS is still punting. The similarities continue!

The SCOTUS did not punt. They took the surest, clearest path to affirming the right to gay marriage.
 
The SCOTUS did not punt. They took the surest, clearest path to affirming the right to gay marriage.

Could be another reason. The pubic is not in the bag with this yet. With the elections coming up, the republicans could take both houses. Congress can impeach SCOTUS justices you know.
 
Could be another reason. The pubic is not in the bag with this yet. With the elections coming up, the republicans could take both houses. Congress can impeach SCOTUS justices you know.

That's not going to happen.
 
That's not going to happen.

We know SCOTUS has already kicked the can down the road. So the only part that you could be referring to is the republicans taking the senate, they'll keep the house easily.
 
We know SCOTUS has already kicked the can down the road. So the only part that you could be referring to is the republicans taking the senate, they'll keep the house easily.

The SCOTUS did not kick the can anywhere. They took the surest, shortest path to affirming the right to gay marriage.
 
The SCOTUS did not kick the can anywhere. They took the surest, shortest path to affirming the right to gay marriage.

I disagree. They are doing what they have done since Madison v Marbury, wait another generation and then invoke precedent. They're waiting to see if the majority against will erode with time in face of the current lower court decisions. If the states and the people don't fight back effectively, it becomes an easy decision when they do take it up.
 
I disagree. They are doing what they have done since Madison v Marbury, wait another generation and then invoke precedent. They're waiting to see if the majority against will erode with time in face of the current lower court decisions. If the states and the people don't fight back effectively, it becomes an easy decision when they do take it up.

They effectively made gay marriage the law of the land in 30 states, and the others will follow.
 
They effectively made gay marriage the law of the land in 30 states, and the others will follow.

Except they still may not. The states and the People are still searching for ways to fight back against these rogue federal courts. You may think they'll lose in the end, but that chapter hasn't been written yet.
 
Except they still may not. The states and the People are still searching for ways to fight back against these rogue federal courts. You may think they'll lose in the end, but that chapter hasn't been written yet.

I think the opposition has already surrendered.
 
I disagree. They are doing what they have done since Madison v Marbury, wait another generation and then invoke precedent. They're waiting to see if the majority against will erode with time in face of the current lower court decisions. If the states and the people don't fight back effectively, it becomes an easy decision when they do take it up.

the majority already support equal rights even though thier support isn't needed
the states and minority of people have no effective fight against equal rights so thats a lost cause
Fact still remains SCOTUS "may" never rule on this

while I hope they do just to drive that last nail in the coffin or bigotry adn or rights oppression they might not
 
It would still have to be recognized by the government.
Please show everyone where I have said otherwise. This is about the third time you have brought up this strawman argument. I have explicitly stated the above point multiple times. The rest of your post also misses my actual point. I don't know how to be any clearer than I already have been, but at this point I'm beating a dead horse. Let me spell it out one last time.

1. I support same-sex marriage.
2. I prefer that there be no marriage license at all, but have the common sense to know that isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.
3. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. This is the case in the United Kingdom.

Now your point about notarization is more relevant to my claims, so I will address that respecfully. The maximum fee a notary can charge varies from $0.50 to $10.. That is cheaper than a marriage license pretty much anywhere. Keep in mind, however, that notaries are not required for all types of contract, and only exist because government forces people to use them for certain contracts.
 
If the government is still involved, then what would be the point? They would still decide which ones they recognized.

And I still don't see where you think that it wouldn't cost money to set these up, even if it is just a single document. They would still have to have it notarized, which likely means a fee. Plus, I don't see the government not requiring a fee to at least file the paperwork either.
As long as the court system is controlled by government, it will be involved in the enforcement of all contracts. Does that mean there is no point to having private contracts? Government would not get to decide which contracts to recognize. If I say my best friend Bob is my next of kind and we sign a contract, the government would recognize that. Period. Notary fees are a creation of government, and some notaries charge less than a dollar.
 
So, put your money where your libertarian mouth is. All the things you mention can be done with a private contract. So make one. Start your own marriage contract firm. Offer marriage contracts that do everything the government one does for less money and less hassle. Run them out of business with a superior product. Surely the market will gravitate towards your much better option.
What a stupid suggestion. You know as well as I do that the current system as it is set up does not allow for this. Such contracts would be useless and could never have the benefits of a marriage license. You might as well tell a same-sex couple in Texas to "put your money where you mouth is and just get a Texas marriage license." Of course they couldn't do that, because the government does not allow them to. Likewise, government does not allow me to confer the benefits of marriage through a private contract.

And by the way, have you ever heard of a prenup? Those are essentially additional privately created marriage contracts tacked on to the license.
 
Even before Loving marriage between races was legal in most of the US.

Actually, it was only just before Loving, within a decade or so, that most states started changing their laws to allow interracial couples to marry. Almost every state has had, at one point in time, laws against interracial marriage. The vast majority of people were still against interracial relationships in 1970, after the Loving ruling, 70% in fact.
 
As long as the court system is controlled by government, it will be involved in the enforcement of all contracts. Does that mean there is no point to having private contracts? Government would not get to decide which contracts to recognize. If I say my best friend Bob is my next of kind and we sign a contract, the government would recognize that. Period. Notary fees are a creation of government, and some notaries charge less than a dollar.

They are not needed for most people so long as marriage is available. Marriage is efficient for most couples, and quite inexpensive.

The government would still get to decide which contracts were recognized and who got precedent over legal family, the same as they do now in those states that do not recognize same sex marriages and there have been cases of same sex partners getting screwed over by the courts and legal kin of their loved one.
 
Please show everyone where I have said otherwise. This is about the third time you have brought up this strawman argument. I have explicitly stated the above point multiple times. The rest of your post also misses my actual point. I don't know how to be any clearer than I already have been, but at this point I'm beating a dead horse. Let me spell it out one last time.

1. I support same-sex marriage.
2. I prefer that there be no marriage license at all, but have the common sense to know that isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.
3. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. This is the case in the United Kingdom.

Now your point about notarization is more relevant to my claims, so I will address that respecfully. The maximum fee a notary can charge varies from $0.50 to $10.. That is cheaper than a marriage license pretty much anywhere. Keep in mind, however, that notaries are not required for all types of contract, and only exist because government forces people to use them for certain contracts.

Legal kinship cannot be legitimately established without the government being involved in some way. It is ridiculous to assume that it would be different if there were some form of legal kinship documents available that the government didn't offer. And so long as the government is involved, it is not likely to be cheap going through non-government sources, since legal kinship is pretty important for legal matters and affairs of a person.
 
Actually, it was only just before Loving, within a decade or so, that most states started changing their laws to allow interracial couples to marry. Almost every state has had, at one point in time, laws against interracial marriage. The vast majority of people were still against interracial relationships in 1970, after the Loving ruling, 70% in fact.

I'm unconcerned by most people. Your own post confirms that Loving broke no new ground nationally.
 
I'm unconcerned by most people. Your own post confirms that Loving broke no new ground nationally.

Nor will any ruling from the SCOTUS on same sex marriage. Same sex couples can already get married in over half the states in the US. It is quite possible that by the time the SCOTUS does take on a case pertaining to state same sex marriage bans (that it doesn't punt, again), there will be more states that allow same sex couples to marry than there were states that allowed interracial couples to marry when Loving was decided.

My state didn't even have a ruling yet for the same sex marriage cases here in NC, but now we do, after the SCOTUS refused the cases that reached them so far. Since the Circuit Court covering my state already struck down the laws in VA, it only took a ruling by the judge to strike it down here as well.

It should hit 35, which outnumbers pro-interracial marriage states at Loving, within the next few months, certainly before the next time SCOTUS might review another case pertaining to same sex marriage.

States | Freedom to Marry

Same-Sex Marriage Fast Facts - CNN.com

Alaska is likely going to make it 30 (once the legal extras are decided).

Federal judge rules Alaska's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional | Alaska Dispatch
 
Nor will any ruling from the SCOTUS on same sex marriage. Same sex couples can already get married in over half the states in the US. It is quite possible that by the time the SCOTUS does take on a case pertaining to state same sex marriage bans (that it doesn't punt, again), there will be more states that allow same sex couples to marry than there were states that allowed interracial couples to marry when Loving was decided.

My state didn't even have a ruling yet for the same sex marriage cases here in NC, but now we do, after the SCOTUS refused the cases that reached them so far. Since the Circuit Court covering my state already struck down the laws in VA, it only took a ruling by the judge to strike it down here as well.

It should hit 35, which outnumbers pro-interracial marriage states at Loving, within the next few months, certainly before the next time SCOTUS might review another case pertaining to same sex marriage.

States | Freedom to Marry

Same-Sex Marriage Fast Facts - CNN.com

Alaska is likely going to make it 30 (once the legal extras are decided).

Federal judge rules Alaska's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional | Alaska Dispatch

Yes. That has been my point.
 
Yes. That has been my point.

What? That same sex marriage is mirroring interracial marriage, just at a faster pace? Because that is what is happening. It may not continue, since we don't know what the SCOTUS will do, but so far, it has been pretty similar.
 
What? That same sex marriage is mirroring interracial marriage, just at a faster pace? Because that is what is happening. It may not continue, since we don't know what the SCOTUS will do, but so far, it has been pretty similar.

SCOTUS has followed the surest, swiftest path to marriage equality.
 
SCOTUS has followed the surest, swiftest path to marriage equality.

Not quite, but it should happen soon unless by some miracle the other few Circuit Courts actually just strike down the marriage bans themselves, something I just don't see happening. I think at least one of those left will side with the states, but we'll see.
 
Not quite, but it should happen soon unless by some miracle the other few Circuit Courts actually just strike down the marriage bans themselves, something I just don't see happening. I think at least one of those left will side with the states, but we'll see.

It's over. No one wants to go down in history as the last holdout.
 
Back
Top Bottom