• 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

Conservative said:
If the laws aren't in the Constitution then they are created at the state level by the people. The people have the right to determine whether or not they support SSM and that is where the issue belongs, not in the courthouse
Click to expand...

First of all a number of States have passed SSCM through the legislatures and the ballot box.

Secondly, that doesn't answer the question. I didn't ask about laws or powers. I'm asking about rights.




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:
Sorry but I am a states' right supporter and this is where it belongs
Click to expand...

So you support slavery where it's allowed by states then? Interracial marriage bans? "Black codes"? I mean where does it end?
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, in Loving both parties were adhering to state law and one party was black and the other was white but both were of different sexes. Prevention was discrimination.
Click to expand...

I wasn't speaking directly to Loving, but you're right in that the circumstances surrounding the case were eventually viewed as discriminatory based on race only because (as far as I know) that couple never encountered any physical harm nor were they denied federal benefits.
 
Conservative said:
Equal protection of what laws?
Click to expand...

All laws.

if it isn't in the Constitution it is a state issue, pretty easy to see that in the Constitution
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law is in the constitution.

"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...

Right. So if you want to make a law about marriage then the state can do it because it's not something directly delegated to the federal government. However, said laws must abide by the constitution's protections...

For example, a state couldn't make a law that "Those that enter into a marriage contract may not own a firearm" because that infringes upon the [2nd]1st amendment. And they can't say "Those that enter into a marriage contract may not be of different races" because that infringes upon the 14th amendment.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't know that. Imagine the charade if it was on the ballot and passed during repub primary, then the dem primary repealed it, then the next repub primary...and on and on. This is why nothing of import should ever be left up to ballots.
 
Zyphlin said:
For example, a state couldn't make a law that "Those that enter into a marriage contract may not own a firearm" because that infringes upon the 1st amendment. And they can't say "Those that enter into a marriage contract may not be of different races" because that infringes upon the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Think you meant 2nd. ;)



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
That says "powers" not rights, so again...


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...


Yes, if it isn't listed in the Constitution it is left to the states to legislate. Marriage isn't in the Constitution, it is a state issue and that is where it belongs. Those that say it is a right ignore history as well as what the Constitution says. Marriage is common law

com·mon law
noun
the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes. Often contrasted with statutory law.
Click to expand...

Because it is derived from custom and judicial precedence it isn't a civil right thus not a Constitutional issue.
 
Conservative said:
Again, you don't seem to understand the Constitution at all, read this very slowly

"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."

It means that powers not listed in the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states. that is where marriage resides and where it should reside. You don't seem to understand the Constitution at all. You want to make Common law and a privilege a civil right. No where in the Constitution is that power granted since Marriage isn't in the Constitution
Click to expand...
Unequal protection of the laws is a power denied to the states.

Under your reasoning, Loving was an incorrect decision. Marriage isn't in the constitution. It was a race issue, this is a gender issue, that's the only difference,
 
WorldWatcher said:
Yep, the vote was held in May during the Republican Primary instead of November during the General Election.


North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage, Amendment 1 (May 2012) - Ballotpedia


>>>>
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that people supporting SSM could only vote if they voted in the Republican Primary and for a Republican Candidate? Doesn't seem to be the passionate issue in N.C. that some here want it to be. If it were a passionate issue more people would have shown up at the polls to support SSM
 
Deuce said:
Unequal protection of the laws is a power denied to the states.

Under your reasoning, Loving was an incorrect decision. Marriage isn't in the constitution. It was a race issue, this is a gender issue, that's the only difference,
Click to expand...

What part of marriage being common law and not in the Constitution that you don't understand?
 
Zyphlin said:
All laws.



Equal protection under the law is in the constitution.



Right. So if you want to make a law about marriage then the state can do it because it's not something directly delegated to the federal government. However, said laws must abide by the constitution's protections...

For example, a state couldn't make a law that "Those that enter into a marriage contract may not own a firearm" because that infringes upon the [2nd]1st amendment. And they can't say "Those that enter into a marriage contract may not be of different races" because that infringes upon the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

My interpretation is that equal protection under the law refers to the laws in the Constitution, not common law or state law. The state can make any laws the people want as long as it doesn't infringe on the Constitutional laws. Marriage isn't in the Constitution and thus isn't governed under equal protection clause
 
Conservative said:
My interpretation is that equal protection under the law refers to the laws in the Constitution, not common law or state law.
Click to expand...

So do the rest of the constitutions amendments only apply to laws and powers enumerated in the US Constitution, or do you just have this interpritation for a single solitary amendment and all the rest of them apply across the board?

Does a law or power not vested to the Federal Government have to adhere to the 2nd amendment? Can a state pass a law that violates the 1st amendment as long as it's not a power or law stated in the Constitution?

If I understand you right as well, you therefore don't believe that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional?
 
Conservative said:
What part of marriage being common law and not in the Constitution that you don't understand?
Click to expand...

And what part of equal protection of the laws do you not understand?

Unequal protection of the laws is denied to the states. It doesn't have to be something specifically mentioned in the constitution to require equal protection.
 
WorldWatcher said:
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...
Conservative said:
Yes, if it isn't listed in the Constitution it is left to the states to legislate.
Click to expand...


You have just domstrated that you don't understand the workings of the Constitution. NO rights must not be listed in the Constitution to be held by the people. The Constitution is a limiting document on government, it is not a list of rights. During the Constitutional Convention there was some objection to even including a Bill of Rights because some uninformed individuals might think that rights are granted by the government and therefore must be listed in the Constitu


You sir just demonstrated why the 9th Amendment was added which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



Just because the word "Marriage" does not appear in the Constitution does not mean that it isn't a right held by the people.



>>>>
 
Zyphlin said:
So do the rest of the constitutions amendments only apply to laws and powers enumerated in the US Constitution, or do you just have this interpritation for a single solitary amendment and all the rest of them apply across the board?

Does a law or power not vested to the Federal Government have to adhere to the 2nd amendment? Can a state pass a law that violates the 1st amendment as long as it's not a power or law stated in the Constitution?

If I understand you right as well, you therefore don't believe that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
He says interracial marriage is a race issue, not a marriage issue, but is unwilling to admit that same sex marriage is a gender issue, not a marriage issue.
 
Conservative said:
So what you are saying is that people supporting SSM could only vote if they voted in the Republican Primary and for a Republican Candidate? Doesn't seem to be the passionate issue in N.C. that some here want it to be. If it were a passionate issue more people would have shown up at the polls to support SSM
Click to expand...


No that's not what I said.


I only said they scheduled it for a Republican Primary date which would statistically increase the likely vote in support of the amendment.



>>>>
 
Conservative said:
My interpretation is that equal protection under the law refers to the laws in the Constitution, not common law or state law. The state can make any laws the people want as long as it doesn't infringe on the Constitutional laws. Marriage isn't in the Constitution and thus isn't governed under equal protection clause
Click to expand...

Your interpretation is irrelevant. The same with mine or anyone else's outside of the federal judiciary. The federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of the constitution. The federal courts have ruled consistently that the equal protection clause is interpreted as no law at no level of government whether its federal, state, or local, can deny equal protection under its jurisdiction to anyone. For example, while owning a drivers license is not a specific constitutional right, a state cannot deny drivers licenses to individuals under its jurisdiction simply due to their race, sex, religion, and so on. Its a pretty simple concept and that is why the federal courts have been so consistent with their rulings striking down state bans on same sex marriage recognition.
 
Conservative said:
My interpretation is that equal protection under the law refers to the laws in the Constitution, not common law or state law.
Click to expand...

Then you aren't reading the Constitution:

"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."​


The very text of the 14th Amendment itself shows you are wroing because it specifically places limitations on the States.


>>>>
 
Zyphlin said:
So do the rest of the constitutions amendments only apply to laws and powers enumerated in the US Constitution, or do you just have this interpritation for a single solitary amendment and all the rest of them apply across the board?

Does a law or power not vested to the Federal Government have to adhere to the 2nd amendment? Can a state pass a law that violates the 1st amendment as long as it's not a power or law stated in the Constitution?

If I understand you right as well, you therefore don't believe that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Don't know how much clearer I can make it but if it is in the Constitution it circumvents state law, Marriage isn't in the Constitution. Any Amendment to the Constitution has been ratified by the Representatives of the state thus become laws enforceable in the states. Again marriage isn't in the Constitution, everything you mentioned is.

As for interracial marriage, race is in the Constitution and thus any law in the state that discriminates against race is a violation of the Constitution. Seems simple to me
 
Deuce said:
And what part of equal protection of the laws do you not understand?

Unequal protection of the laws is denied to the states. It doesn't have to be something specifically mentioned in the constitution to require equal protection.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to show me marriage in the Constitution. Equal protection is for laws in the Constitution not common law.
 
Deuce said:
He says interracial marriage is a race issue, not a marriage issue, but is unwilling to admit that same sex marriage is a gender issue, not a marriage issue.
Click to expand...

Again, please show me marriage, Common law, in the Constitution. Amazing, how simple this is except for zealots who don't give a damn about anything other than their own social issues.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Then you aren't reading the Constitution:

"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."​


The very text of the 14th Amendment itself shows you are wroing because it specifically places limitations on the States.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Great, how does this relate to common law? Did you read the definition of common law? Every American in this country has the same rights when it comes to marriage. I cannot marry my sister, my mother, my dog so you tell me what the difference is? Are you going to support that next?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Your interpretation is irrelevant. The same with mine or anyone else's outside of the federal judiciary. The federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of the constitution. The federal courts have ruled consistently that the equal protection clause is interpreted as no law at no level of government whether its federal, state, or local, can deny equal protection under its jurisdiction to anyone. For example, while owning a drivers license is not a specific constitutional right, a state cannot deny drivers licenses to individuals under its jurisdiction simply due to their race, sex, religion, and so on. Its a pretty simple concept and that is why the federal courts have been so consistent with their rulings striking down state bans on same sex marriage recognition.
Click to expand...

And yet the will of the people is being ignored and that should scare the hell out of every American. Marriage is a state issue, it is common law, and the Federal govt. should never be involved. Activists justices are involved and making law rather than interpreting law. There is one solution, a Constitutional Amendment. You aren't going to like the outcome.
 
Conservative said:
And yet the will of the people is being ignored and that should scare the hell out of every American. Marriage is a state issue, it is common law, and the Federal govt. should never be involved. Activists justices are involved and making law rather than interpreting law. There is one solution, a Constitutional Amendment. You aren't going to like the outcome.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone else, but I can't get worked up over a slippery slope argument that begins with the judiciary EXPANDING human rights (or privileges if you prefer) to an historically disfavored group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom