• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

roguenuke said:
The majority, in a single vote in time, despite some people's beliefs about this, are not the final deciders of law in the US. This is an issue covered by the Constitution, no matter how much you want to deny it.

Marriage is controlled by the states and still must abide by equal protection.

Example, driving is not a right. However, getting a driver's license cannot be limited based on your age, sex, race, disability, etc. unless the people/government/state can show that doing so furthers a state interest. This is why it is constitutionally fine for driving to be restricted by a minimum age but however a state could not arbitrarily decide that at 50 you have to give up your driver's license for a month, a year, 5 years, or for the rest of your life just because. The state cannot decide that only women can have driver's licenses or only Asians. They would have to show how doing this furthers a legitimate state interest, at least.
Click to expand...

You claimed that the majority are for SSM and I asked you a question, what was the vote in North Carolina on the issue? You want badly to believe Marriage is in the Constitution but it isn't. Activist justices are trying to put it there ignoring the will of the people. Any law not listed in the Constitution is left to the states to decide and that relates to marriage.
 
Deuce said:
The federal government isn't changing it. The 14th amendment issue. Your claim that it "has nothing to do with state laws" is absurd, it outright says it applies to state laws.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion but since it isn't in the Constitution it is left to the states and that is where it belongs. Our Founders created that principle, history isn't your friend.
 
Deuce said:
They said everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race. Why was that constitutionally unsound, but everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is acceptable?
Click to expand...

It was a race issue not a SSM as this was between two consenting adults of different sexes.
 
WorldWatcher said:
1. Many States busy passwing amendments a decade ago banned BOTH Civil Marriages and Civil Unions. Here is the way my State worded it:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​



2, Even with Civil Unions in some states, they often don't function the same under State law and no Civil Unions are recognized by the Federal government.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Then focus on getting the Federal Govt. to recognize civil unions. Seems simple to me
 
Papa bull said:
Marriage equality. That's really the right phrase because this isn't about equal rights for people.

I hope my state has the distinction of being the last to succumb to liberal social engineering.
Click to expand...

But shouldn't the same "right to choose" who you wish to spend the rest of your life with from one human being to another as consenting adults be extend to gay and lesbian couples same as they eventually came to be granted to slaves and mixed raced couples? I get that this is a moral issue, but so were mixed marriages at one point and to an extent slave marriages as well.

It's about equal protection under the law - in this case, protecting the rights of individuals who by any other name are living in a "common-law committed relationship" being denied their right to receive the same legal benefits as any other straight married couple. Convoluting the problem is the fact that "marriage" is a legal practice regulated (licensed) by the states, but the protections afforded to all married couples whether state-licensed or common-law recognized is adhered to by the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
That is your opinion but since it isn't in the Constitution it is left to the states and that is where it belongs. Our Founders created that principle, history isn't your friend.
Click to expand...

Literally no court agrees that equal protection only applies to constitutionally enumerated rights, and our founders wrote the 9th amendment purely to dispense with the opinion you are expressing right now.

equal protection of THE LAWS. All of them.
 
Conservative said:
It was a race issue not a SSM as this was between two consenting adults of different sexes.
Click to expand...

so you think equal protection doesn't cover gender?
 
Deuce said:
Literally no court agrees that equal protection only applies to constitutionally enumerated rights, and our founders wrote the 9th amendment purely to dispense with the opinion you are expressing right now.

equal protection of THE LAWS. All of them.
Click to expand...

Where is marriage listed in the Constitution?
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion but since it isn't in the Constitution it is left to the states and that is where it belongs. Our Founders created that principle, history isn't your friend.
Click to expand...



1. Interracial marriage wasn't listed specifically in the Constitution, how'd that turn out for Texas that barred interracial marriage?


2. Again are you of the opinion that a right must be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?


3. You realize that a Federal requirement for equal protection and due process IS in the Constitution right?



>>>>
 
Conservative said:
You claimed that the majority are for SSM and I asked you a question, what was the vote in North Carolina on the issue? You want badly to believe Marriage is in the Constitution but it isn't. Activist justices are trying to put it there ignoring the will of the people. Any law not listed in the Constitution is left to the states to decide and that relates to marriage.
Click to expand...

They are for same sex marriage. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if a vote were taken within the next month or so, when we have our elections here, that there would be no ban because even here, people have changed. This is why even one of the Republican candidates refused to talk about the issue for more than 7 seconds because he knows that those against this are losing, even in the South.

Are you unaware of the circumstances of the vote here in NC? It occurred during a Republican primary. No Democrat primary at that time either. It was a set up to ensure it passed. It had the lowest number of votes for any such amendment because of this fact. If anything, dirty politicians got it passed here.

No, any law not listed in the Constitution is not left up to the states. No matter what you think. You are free to believe that, but it isn't true and past SCOTUS decisions prove this.
 
WorldWatcher said:
1. Interracial marriage wasn't listed specifically in the Constitution, how'd that turn out for Texas that barred interracial marriage?


2. Again are you of the opinion that a right must be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?


3. You realize that a Federal requirement for equal protection and due process IS in the Constitution right?



>>>>
Click to expand...

A Constitutional Amendment was passed regarding race, you must have missed it

Any law not enumerated in the Constitution goes to the states. show me marriage in the Constitution. Marriage is a privilege not a civil right. Millions of Americans aren't married.

Equal protection applies to the laws in the Constitution, Marriage isn't one of those laws
 
Conservative said:
Then focus on getting the Federal Govt. to recognize civil unions. Seems simple to me
Click to expand...


I'd have no problem with the government recognition being Civil Unions for everyone, different-sex and same-sex. Works for me.

"Marriage" would be used by religious organization.


***********************

The reality is it would be a colossal waste of time because everyone would still call it "marriage" anyway, but if that temporary measure floats your boat for a transition. I'm on board.



>>>>
 
roguenuke said:
They are for same sex marriage. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if a vote were taken within the next month or so, when we have our elections here, that there would be no ban because even here, people have changed. This is why even one of the Republican candidates refused to talk about the issue for more than 7 seconds because he knows that those against this are losing, even in the South.

Are you unaware of the circumstances of the vote here in NC? It occurred during a Republican primary. No Democrat primary at that time either. It was a set up to ensure it passed. It had the lowest number of votes for any such amendment because of this fact. If anything, dirty politicians got it passed here.

No, any law not listed in the Constitution is not left up to the states. No matter what you think. You are free to believe that, but it isn't true and past SCOTUS decisions prove this.
Click to expand...

Since you won't answer the question this will

Amendment One, North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban, Passes Vote

61% isn't a majority for same sex marriage

Care to change your statement that the majority support same sex marriage? Not in North Carolina
 
Conservative said:
Where is marriage listed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Equal protection applies to the laws, not enumerated rights.

If you insist that because marriage isn't mentioned, equal protection doesn't apply to marriage, then we are back to overturning Loving because marriage isn't in the constitution. Equal protection doesn't mention race either, chief.
 
Conservative said:
Where is marriage listed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...


For at least the 3rd time now...


Do you believe that the Constitution is a list of rights and if a right is not enumerated there that they are not held by the people?



>>>>
 
Conservative said:
Marriage isn't an equal protection issue, never has been
Click to expand...

Numerous Supreme Court decisions disagree with you. As do I.

Marriage is enshrined in laws. Equal protection of the laws. Therefore equal protection applies to marriage laws. Reread the 9th amendment.
 
Conservative said:
Marriage isn't an equal protection issue, never has been
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS disagrees ruling in 1967 that it was an equal protection issue. That even though coloreds could marry, just so long as it was other coloreds, and that whites could marry, just so long as it was other wites - that even though they were treated the same - it was an equal protection violation.


>>>>
 
Deuce said:
Doesn't matter. Equal protection applies to the laws, not enumerated rights.

If you insist that because marriage isn't mentioned, equal protection doesn't apply to marriage, then we are back to overturning Loving because marriage isn't in the constitution. Equal protection doesn't mention race either, chief.
Click to expand...

Equal rights refers to anything listed in the Constitution. Where did you get your basic civics education?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Click to expand...
 
Conservative, identify the exact line or lines in the constitution that lists interracial marriage.
 
WorldWatcher said:
For at least the 3rd time now...


Do you believe that the Constitution is a list of rights and if a right is not enumerated there that they are not held by the people?



>>>>
Click to expand...

Held by the people, voted on by the people

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
Conservative said:
Equal rights refers to anything listed in the Constitution. Where did you get your basic civics education?
Click to expand...

I read the 14th amendment, which you clearly have not.
 
Deuce said:
Conservative, identify the exact line or lines in the constitution that lists interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

Loving was a race issue not a marriage issue. Why hasn't the SC ruled on SSM? Pretty simple, it is a state issue.
 
Conservative said:
Held by the people, voted on by the people

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Click to expand...

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom