• 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

Anthony60 said:
What protection are they not getting that I am?
Click to expand...

You can get married to a woman, I nor any other woman can do that, and only due to our genders. I can marry a woman but you nor any other man can do that (in those states with same sex marriage bans). That is treating people differently with the law, which has been recognized as violating the EPC of the 14th Amendment. The law is not recognizing our rights to marry the person of our choice regardless of our relative genders. The state nor the people have any legitimate state interest furthered in doing this.
 
Deuce said:
So you think overturning interracial marriage bans was outside the power of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I think I already answered that silly question in this thread. I didn't know that same sex meant interracial.
 
roguenuke said:
You can get married to a woman, I nor any other woman can do that, and only due to our genders. I can marry a woman but you nor any other man can do that (in those states with same sex marriage bans). That is treating people differently with the law, which has been recognized as violating the EPC of the 14th Amendment. The law is not recognizing our rights to marry the person of our choice regardless of our relative genders. The state nor the people have any legitimate state interest furthered in doing this.
Click to expand...

So, anyone can that wants to can get married. And if you don't want to, you don't have to. But I digress. Not a federal issue, that's all I am saying.
 
Anthony60 said:
What protection are they not getting that I am?
Click to expand...

Spousal privilege in criminal cases.

Anthony60 said:
So, anyone can that wants to can get married. And if you don't want to, you don't have to. But I digress. Not a federal issue, that's all I am saying.
Click to expand...

Not a Federal issue, no, nobody says it is. Constitutional issue.
 
Anthony60 said:
I think I already answered that silly question in this thread. I didn't know that same sex meant interracial.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment doesn't mention race, marriage, and certainly not interracial marriage. Why do you think it applies to racial issues? Why do you think it applies to interracial marriage?
 
Anthony60 said:
1.)As far as I can remember in this country, marriage has been between a man and a woman only. I don't know of any time in our history that it's been anything else. That's why it's a redefinition.
2.) But the issue that bothers me, whichever way it goes, is that the Federal government has no authority to get involved.
3.) Those judges should be turning the cases away because it is up to the States. The Constitution does not give the power to them, so it automatically resides with the States and the people.
Click to expand...
1.) sorry still not a redefinition, just a protection of rights.
2.) actually they are doing EXACTLY what they are supposed to, keep eachother in heck. In this case the state over reached and violated individual rights and the FED fixe it.
3.) 100% False, see facts, law, rights and court cases. States have no rights here to violated the constitution or individual freedom.
 
Anthony60 said:
I think I already answered that silly question in this thread. I didn't know that same sex meant interracial.
Click to expand...

THis is a dodge, you know this question is more prove that your opinion is actually false and this is also why court rulings on this issue even refer to loving v virginia.
Thats "silly" questions totally proves your failed argument wrong.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, it was spelled out quite simply. Not that hard to understand, unless of course, you don't want to.
Click to expand...

So then you do support big govt and expanding it so that it can provide a broader definition of marriage which is already covered by anti-discrimination laws (as fed courts are finding for?)
 
Anthony60 said:
No, you mashed it up to say something I didn't say, so your misunderstanding would fit better. Don't play that game with me. If you can't figure out how some amendments increase government power, and other's restrict it, it's not my problem to educate you. Most libs don't look beyond what's in front of their faces anyway, so they don't care what the effect is down the road, as long as they get what they want right now.
Click to expand...

Ooooo, scary generalizations that mean nothing!

And yet, no substance to back up your support for (& belief in necessity) a new amendment.
 
Anthony60 said:
As far as I can remember in this country, marriage has been between a man and a woman only. I don't know of any time in our history that it's been anything else. That's why it's a redefinition. But the issue that bothers me, whichever way it goes, is that the Federal government has no authority to get involved. Those judges should be turning the cases away because it is up to the States. The Constitution does not give the power to them, so it automatically resides with the States and the people.
Click to expand...

Do you remember when polygamy was legal and included in the definition?

How about...did you live in the states where the definition didnt include people of different races marrying and THAT had to be redefined?

No amendments needed.
 
roguenuke said:
Why would you think it was "better" just because the government isn't involved in the actual paperwork?
Click to expand...
What I actually said:

lakryte said:
Establishing the next of kin with a simple contract gives people the most free choice in selecting people they trust to look out for their best interest.
Click to expand...

Why don't you address the actual arguments I am making? It really is frustrating. Do you think the closest relative always has the best interest of someone in mind? Do you think government should make it difficult for people to choose someone who represents their interests in cases where they can't or are dead?

I think the issue here is how loosely the term kinship is being thrown around. I am talking about next of kin. Spousal benefits such, such as employer provided insurance for the spouse, or tax benefits, have nothing to do with establishing next of kin. You seem to be conflating status as next of kin with the full range of spousal benefits. That is false.
 
Deuce said:
And I told you to do it. Start a business specializing in that contract. Offer all the same rights and benefits with less hassle and less cost. You'll run the government out of the marriage business with your superior product. Free market at work, right? Do it, if you think it's superior to what we have now. Cheaper and easier, that's what will get people to flock to you.

It's possible, right?
Click to expand...
And I told you why your suggestion completely missed the point, and then you ignored that response. Let me remind you.

Lakryte said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
So then you do support big govt and expanding it so that it can provide a broader definition of marriage which is already covered by anti-discrimination laws (as fed courts are finding for?)
Click to expand...

You clearly don't know what it means to expand government, or big government. Putting a clear definition of marriage in isn't expanding government. And, if you've read prior posts, you would know that I am for the federal government staying out of marriage as it has absolutely no authority to be involved there.
 
Lursa said:
Do you remember when polygamy was legal and included in the definition?

How about...did you live in the states where the definition didnt include people of different races marrying and THAT had to be redefined?

No amendments needed.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Why would you put in an amendment for something that is already in there? LOL!
 
Anthony60 said:
1.)You clearly don't know what it means to expand government, or big government. Putting a clear definition of marriage in isn't expanding government.

2.)And, if you've read prior posts, you would know that I am for the federal government staying out of marriage as it has absolutely no authority to be involved there.
Click to expand...

1.) yes it would, it would be MORE government control, MORE government restrictions, MORE government regulations, LESS freedoms and LESS rights

thats more government and no amount of spin changes that fact

2.) need government for a legal contract, no avoiding that either, government will always be involved
 
Anthony60 said:
Are you kidding? Why would you put in an amendment for something that is already in there? LOL!
Click to expand...

100% correct no amendment need for the equal rights of gays it is already there
 
Lakryte said:
What I actually said:

Why don't you address the actual arguments I am making? It really is frustrating. Do you think the closest relative always has the best interest of someone in mind? Do you think government should make it difficult for people to choose someone who represents their interests in cases where they can't or are dead?

I think the issue here is how loosely the term kinship is being thrown around. I am talking about next of kin. Spousal benefits such, such as employer provided insurance for the spouse, or tax benefits, have nothing to do with establishing next of kin. You seem to be conflating status as next of kin with the full range of spousal benefits. That is false.
Click to expand...

Why would you not trust someone that you just married, just made your closest next of kin? Why would they not have your best interests at heart? If you think they don't, there are ways to protect yourself, but most people trust their spouse to keep their best interests in mind.

I still have no idea what you are going off on. You are free to name someone else, besides who the government recognizes as your closest next of kin as your representative when you cannot speak for yourself. Those private methods are already available.

And this thread is about marriage not next of kin. Marriage establishes a next of kin for two people (those getting married) but it isn't the only way to do this. Spouse is your closest next of kin, even if you have paperwork that says that someone else gets to do something for you that your spouse would be able to do automatically sans such legal paperwork, and that paperwork, which represents your most current wishes, trumps even that spousal connection.
 
Anthony60 said:
You clearly don't know what it means to expand government, or big government. Putting a clear definition of marriage in isn't expanding government. And, if you've read prior posts, you would know that I am for the federal government staying out of marriage as it has absolutely no authority to be involved there.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is expanding government. It does not allow flexibility for the changing attitudes and beliefs of the populace. Afterall, the main reason that same sex marriage has become such a big issue is the changing attitudes and beliefs of what is now the majority of the populace.

There is a reason that I considered DOMA a "lesser evil", because without DOMA, there was enough support throughout Congress and the states to enact a Constitutional Amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman within our Constitution, meaning that at this point in time, such an Amendment, although no longer supported by a majority, would still be legal until a much higher number of people were able to change it, a supermajority of support from both Congress and the states. This would have almost certainly taken another decade or so to gain that sort of support in enough areas.

However, prior to DOMA, just a decade or so (maybe less), there weren't even really laws that said that same sex couples couldn't marry. It was simply viewed as so contrary to marriage by enough of the population (at least 90%) at that time, that it wasn't seen as something that was needed. This is why we should not put definitions of marriage into our Constitution because it cripples the will of the people by doing so. Constitutional Prohibition showed us how disastrous such specific Constitutional Amendments can be.
 
roguenuke said:
Why would you not trust someone that you just married, just made your closest next of kin? Why would they not have your best interests at heart? If you think they don't, there are ways to protect yourself, but most people trust their spouse to keep their best interests in mind.

I still have no idea what you are going off on. You are free to name someone else, besides who the government recognizes as your closest next of kin as your representative when you cannot speak for yourself. Those private methods are already available.

And this thread is about marriage not next of kin. Marriage establishes a next of kin for two people (those getting married) but it isn't the only way to do this. Spouse is your closest next of kin, even if you have paperwork that says that someone else gets to do something for you that your spouse would be able to do automatically sans such legal paperwork, and that paperwork, which represents your most current wishes, trumps even that spousal connection.
Click to expand...
Why do people get prenups? The why isn't really important. Maybe someone feels their marriage is going south, and worries the spouse wont have their best interest in mind if they were to get sick. They may not want a full divorce just to define someone else as next of kin. Perhaps they will reestablish their spouse as next of kin at a later date, when the marital conflict is resolved. The point is that marriage is not necessary for next of kin to be established, but the United States does not allow people to freely choose their next of kin.

In the United States, you are not free to name anyone you want as next of kin. You can sign a healthcare proxy, but the two are not the same. If I wanted my boyfriend to be my next of kin, for example, under U.S. law too bad. I could not establish him as such. This is one of the reasons bans on same-sex marriage have been so problematic. Imagine a gay man whose family has abandoned him (obviously not having his best interests in mind) but who has a loving partner of 20 years. Because he cannot marry his partner, his hateful family members will be his next of kin. The U.S. system does not allow people to establish next of kin freely. You are mistaken that we have that right in this country.

My point was that it is completely possible for next of kin to be established by a private contract, but the United States does not allow this. I was responding directly to a poster who said that establishing next of kin outside of marriage was "impossible." I have proved this to be inaccurate by pointing to countries where this is in fact done, although a basic understanding of contracts makes it clear that the only real barrier to free establishment of next of kin is the government itself.
 
Lakryte said:
Why do people get prenups? The why isn't really important. Maybe someone feels their marriage is going south,.........
Click to expand...

Prenups occur before marriage.

Has nothing to do with establishing next of kin, but instead, protection of assets.
 
Lursa said:
Prenups occur before marriage.

Has nothing to do with establishing next of kin, but instead, protection of assets.
Click to expand...
No kidding. I was comparing the irrelevance of the question asked to me with another irrelevant question.
 
Lakryte said:
Why do people get prenups? The why isn't really important. Maybe someone feels their marriage is going south, and worries the spouse wont have their best interest in mind if they were to get sick. They may not want a full divorce just to define someone else as next of kin. Perhaps they will reestablish their spouse as next of kin at a later date, when the marital conflict is resolved. The point is that marriage is not necessary for next of kin to be established, but the United States does not allow people to freely choose their next of kin.

In the United States, you are not free to name anyone you want as next of kin. You can sign a healthcare proxy, but the two are not the same. If I wanted my boyfriend to be my next of kin, for example, under U.S. law too bad. I could not establish him as such. This is one of the reasons bans on same-sex marriage have been so problematic. Imagine a gay man whose family has abandoned him (obviously not having his best interests in mind) but who has a loving partner of 20 years. Because he cannot marry his partner, his hateful family members will be his next of kin. The U.S. system does not allow people to establish next of kin freely. You are mistaken that we have that right in this country.

My point was that it is completely possible for next of kin to be established by a private contract, but the United States does not allow this. I was responding directly to a poster who said that establishing next of kin outside of marriage was "impossible." I have proved this to be inaccurate by pointing to countries where this is in fact done, although a basic understanding of contracts makes it clear that the only real barrier to free establishment of next of kin is the government itself.
Click to expand...

Most people don't get prenups. The majority of those who get prenups have a huge income disparity going into the marriage and are concerned about their assets if the relationship should end, which is a possibility for any relationship.

You don't need a divorce to declare someone else in charge of your important decisions. It just takes some extra paperwork. I'm not sure you truly understand how this works.

Yes, the US does allow people to choose their next of kin to an extent. Those things you are talking about, have nothing to do with next of kin, and everything to do with personal legal affairs.
 
roguenuke said:
Most people don't get prenups. The majority of those who get prenups have a huge income disparity going into the marriage and are concerned about their assets if the relationship should end, which is a possibility for any relationship.
Click to expand...
Most people would keep their spouse as next of kin. That isn't relevant.

You don't need a divorce to declare someone else in charge of your important decisions. It just takes some extra paperwork. I'm not sure you truly understand how this works.
Click to expand...
.
You cannot declare anyone you want as next of kin in the United States. Your understanding of how it works is incorrect.

Yes, the US does allow people to choose their next of kin to an extent. Those things you are talking about, have nothing to do with next of kin, and everything to do with personal legal affairs.
Click to expand...
Please describe "the extent" you are referring to. I am sorry, but you are simply mistaken. You can not choose anyone to be your next of kin in the United States. If so, please demonstrate how you would make your best friend with whom you have no blood relation to your next of kin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom