• 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!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

WCH said:
When a minority is seen as a detriment to the overall wellbeing of the whole, then we must make exeptions.
Click to expand...

And since that is not the case in this matter, your position does not apply.
 
WCH said:
When a minority is seen as a detriment to the overall wellbeing of the whole, then we must make exeptions.
Click to expand...

and homosexuality is hurting people how gay marriage is hurting people how?

what you see is not enough if its only in your head
 
Navy Pride said:
There are no atheists in foxholes or on their deathbed my left wing friend.
Click to expand...

First of all, yes there are.

Second of all, a person doesn't have to be atheist to believe that Christians and even other organized religions are full of it.
 
year2late said:
In government terms, marriage is a type of contract between two people.

DIvorce ends the "contract".

Your overthink is amusing.
Click to expand...

It is a contract which lasts by nature until the death of one of the spouses. The state should not purport otherwise.
 
Paleocon said:
It is a contract which lasts by nature until the death of one of the spouses. The state should not purport otherwise.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about.

Seriously. I think you are down this "nature" path because you do not want to say "God".
 
matchlight said:
You've got it backwards. In rational basis review, the law being challenged is presumed constitutional. The party challenging it has the burden of showing that is is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose.

That is usually very hard to do, because under this standard courts defer strongly to the legislature that passed the law being challenged. They do that to respect the basic principle of the separation of powers that's built into the Constitution. That requires courts in equal protection cases to have a damn good reason to substitute their judgment for the legislature's--and indirectly, for the judgment of the people who elected that legislature.

Take public nudity as an example. If a state law prohibits it, or allows it only in a few specified places, is it denying nudists the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 14th Amendment? If some nudists' rights group sued, would the state, to justify its law, have to produce evidence that allowing public nudity is an unwise, socially destructive policy? Would it have to refute evidence presented by the nudists that its view was unfounded, because public nudity has never been shown to have harmed anyone where it was practiced?

Of course not. Ordinary rational basis review would apply, because there is no fundamental right to go nude in public, nor do laws that discriminate against nudists create a suspect classification. The nudist group wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

What bigotry! How terribly cruel and unfair! What about their rights to live as wonderful, loving people who mean no harm to anyone, free from oppression? Why doesn't the Supreme Court Do something!!??

Maybe next we'll see nudists recognized as a new victim group, trying like the others, no doubt, to trade on the imagery of the black civil rights movement. I can picture them marching--in the snow, maybe, to symbolize the suffering they've endured all these years. "We shall overcome some day-ay-ay-ay-ay . . ."
Click to expand...

I've shot down every supposed rational interest supporting a same-sex marriage ban.

Do you have some more?
 
WCH said:
Gay adulterers and fornicators and SSM for sure. Thanks for describing the problems.
Click to expand...

Why only oppose their marriage and not heterosexual fornicators and adulterers?
 
WCH said:
When a minority is seen as a detriment to the overall wellbeing of the whole, then we must make exeptions.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that sentiment is not codified in any US Law, Federal statute, or Constitutional provision.

There is absolutely no blue-print in any lawful US document that describes how those exemptions would be applied.
 
Jerry said:
In my case it keeps my children 1200 miles away from me. I don't think you should be able to marry with that great a distance between the parents.

Also, the woman my dad married when I was a kid caused nothing but drama in the family and continues to keep a wedge between us and him. I think a professional should have to conduct comprehensive pre-marital counseling and aprove your marriage aplication before the state will issue a license. I also think cohabiting while caring for children should be illegal.

I'm not sure why you lie and say no one's ever answered that question, it's been directly answered many times. Your emotinal hysteria doesn't advance the discussion.
Click to expand...

Your answer is stupid. And I don't just mean all the misspelled words. The fact that two people of the same sex get married doesn't hurt you. Your personal family issues are not a part of this. I don't have "emotinal hysteria", but the question I asked has never been answered, other than in a non germane and idiotic way.
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, yes there are.

Second of all, a person doesn't have to be atheist to believe that Christians and even other organized religions are full of it.
Click to expand...

When you face your maker you will regret that statement.
 
year2late said:
WTF are you talking about.

Seriously. I think you are down this "nature" path because you do not want to say "God".
Click to expand...

I'm talking about marriage. Please try to keep up.
 
Deuce said:
I've shot down every supposed rational interest supporting a same-sex marriage ban.

Do you have some more?
Click to expand...

You flatter yourself. And the rational basis standard used in equal protection and substantive due process cases requires that a law serve a legitimate government interest. Words matter.

It's not up to me, or anyone in another state, to justify a state marriage law that excludes same-sex partners. The Supreme Court itself does not try to justify laws under rational basis review, because as it acknowledges, that is not its job.

The question is not whether the judge thinks a law implements a wise policy, or implements it in the best possible way. He personally may think it's a very poor way to further a very foolish policy--but he doesn't have to like it. The question for the court is whether there is any conceivable legitimate purpose of government that the people of that state might have thought was served by their law.
 
Paleocon said:
1. Divorce should not exist as it purports to do that which is ontologically not possible for the state to do.

2. Legal separation should only be an option in cases of adultery or abuse.
Click to expand...

year2late said:
In government terms, marriage is a type of contract between two people.

DIvorce ends the "contract".

Your overthink is amusing.
Click to expand...

Paleocon said:
It is a contract which lasts by nature until the death of one of the spouses. The state should not purport otherwise.
Click to expand...

year2late said:
WTF are you talking about.

Seriously. I think you are down this "nature" path because you do not want to say "God".
Click to expand...

Paleocon said:
I'm talking about marriage. Please try to keep up.
Click to expand...

Good gracious.

You are the one wiggling around the marriage discussion trying to make like divorce should be illegal because it is some sort of "nature" thing.

At least have the character to say what you are actually getting at. You believe divorce should be illegal because of your religious beliefs.
 
matchlight said:
You flatter yourself. And the rational basis standard used in equal protection and substantive due process cases requires that a law serve a legitimate government interest. Words matter.

It's not up to me, or anyone in another state, to justify a state marriage law that excludes same-sex partners. The Supreme Court itself does not try to justify laws under rational basis review, because as it acknowledges, that is not its job.

The question is not whether the judge thinks a law implements a wise policy, or implements it in the best possible way. He personally may think it's a very poor way to further a very foolish policy--but he doesn't have to like it. The question for the court is whether there is any conceivable legitimate purpose of government that the people of that state might have thought was served by their law.
Click to expand...

You can claim it's not up to you to justify a measure, but you at least have to name the interest it supposedly serves. Otherwise you end up in this weird situation akin to proving a negative, where the plaintiff must disprove a literally infinite number of possible reasons.

"We have to ban same-sex marriage because vanilla ice cream is unhealthy" is not an interest I need to disprove, surely you agree. Rather, stated interests need to be disproven.

There is no conceivable legitimate purpose to banning same-sex marriage. There is no rational belief that banning same-sex marriage will result in better homes for children, or more heterosexual marriages, or more stable homes, or more children, or any other reason ever stated. Upholding your tradition and imposing it on to me is not a legitimate state interest. Ensuring you aren't personally offended by a change in definition of a legal term is not a legitimate state interest.

And this is all even assuming rational basis review is the correct standard. Several courts disagree. Personally, I think at least intermediate scrutiny applies because defining marriage as between a man and a woman is quite clearly a distinction of gender.
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
When a minority is seen as a detriment to the overall wellbeing of the whole, then we must make exeptions.
Click to expand...

How are they a detriment? Can you please give examples of how they are harming anyone, or society?
 
Paleocon said:
It is a contract which lasts by nature until the death of one of the spouses. The state should not purport otherwise.
Click to expand...

Individuals are welcome to behave as you suggest with or without a state contract.

People dont have to be married...or get state sanction...to make a commitment to themselves, or before God, or anything else.
 
year2late said:
Good gracious.

You are the one wiggling around the marriage discussion trying to make like divorce should be illegal because it is some sort of "nature" thing.

At least have the character to say what you are actually getting at. You believe divorce should be illegal because of your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

He uses the 'natural law' premise to try and get around his Catholic beliefs and using God. He has admitted he knows however, that the 'natural law' philosophy also appeals to a higher authority and nature being driven by a higher purpose.

I am not criticizing but explaining his use of 'natural', which he has written here himself.
 
year2late said:
Good gracious.

You are the one wiggling around the marriage discussion trying to make like divorce should be illegal because it is some sort of "nature" thing.

At least have the character to say what you are actually getting at. You believe divorce should be illegal because of your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

It is correct that my being Catholic is why I believe divorce should be illegal.
 
WCH said:
Heteros are by nature non-fornicating but, I do indeed dislike adulterers.
Click to expand...

Straight men live to have sex....the less strings attached the better. So your comments on 'fornicators' is completely wrong. Unless you have a different definition of fornication than I do.

Of course, women enjoy sex outside of marriage too.
 
Lursa said:
How are they a detriment? Can you please give examples of how they are harming anyone, or society?
Click to expand...

Simply by their unnatural existence. They are like a blight on the citrus crop....a stye on your eye....the nasty last sip of a cheap beer.
 
Paleocon said:
Divorce should absolutely be illegal.
Click to expand...

Why? Obviously the people divorcing have their own lives, situations, their kids, futures, etc best interests in mind. Are you saying that you or the govt know better than the individuals?

You sure like the idea of the govt using force on people.
 
WCH said:
Heteros are by nature non-fornicating but, I do indeed dislike adulterers.
Click to expand...


Hetro's by nature are non-fornicating...


What?


Never pulled into the Philippines or Thailand with a Carrier Battlegroup I take it.



>>>>
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
Simply by their unnateral existence. They are like a blight on the citrus crop....a stye on your eye....the nasty last sip of a cheap beer.
Click to expand...

Since they are born that way, they are not unnatural.

And you did not explain any harm (detriment you used) to individuals or society.

Are you saying we should discriminate against people based on your personal feelings of discomfort....which all that you described?
 
Lursa said:
Why? Obviously the people divorcing have their own lives, situations, their kids, futures, etc best interests in mind. Are you saying that you or the govt know better than the individuals?

You sure like the idea of the govt using force on people.
Click to expand...

That's not the least bit obvious.

I have no problem with government punishing adulterers and abandoners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom