• 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

Papa bull said:
We the people
Click to expand...
don't want our state to endorse homosexual marriage. I imagine it's a matter of time before the deviant left wins this but for now, the will of the people still prevails in my state. Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...



You're not 'we the people. You're one person and most people in the USA don't agree with your ideas. Read a few polls.
 
Papa bull said:
It doesn't have to impact my life directly in order for it to matter. It impacts my SOCIETY. It impacts my state taxes. It impacts our court systems. It is not something my state needs or wants because my state doesn't consider homosexual unions to be the fundamental building block of society that it feels needs to be endorsed, encouraged and supported. I think it is quite reasonable enough that the state does not consider homosexuality to be a criminal behavior and does not interfere with people living with or having sex with whomever they choose. Homosexuals may enjoy their homosexual relationships without interference from the state - but also without the state's blessing. I know it's just awful that all the homosexuals in Ohio can't say "we're just as normal as heterosexuals" but our state just isn't interested in perpetuating that lie.
Click to expand...

What interest do the states have in banning gay marriage?
 
clownboy said:
That's clownboy and the only thing I've lost is what we all lost in this, the US Constitution, my state constitution, the will of the people and the system we were taught we had.

Yes, the end is in sight for our constitutional republic. Not because of homosexual marriage, but because of how this thing was done.
Click to expand...

The end is in sight only for your particular interpretation of the constitution.
 
clownboy said:
That's clownboy and the only thing I've lost is what we all lost in this, the US Constitution, my state constitution, the will of the people and the system we were taught we had.

Yes, the end is in sight for our constitutional republic. Not because of homosexual marriage, but because of how this thing was done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there is no shortage of hyperbole!
 
clownboy said:
Why were the 13th, 14th and 15th written and ratified? Learn a bit more about the US Constitution and you'll not need to ask that. As for the over 45 judges, yes, they ruled inconsistently with both law and constitution.
Click to expand...

Strict constructionist interpration of the constitution is not the status quo.
 
clownboy said:
Why were the 13th, 14th and 15th written and ratified? Learn a bit more about the US Constitution and you'll not need to ask that. As for the over 45 judges, yes, they ruled inconsistently with both law and constitution.
Click to expand...
all 45?!?!?!?!?!
LMAO
links? facts?
 
clownboy said:
Why were the 13th, 14th and 15th written and ratified? Learn a bit more about the US Constitution and you'll not need to ask that. As for the over 45 judges, yes, they ruled inconsistently with both law and constitution.
Click to expand...

I see. So you consider yourself a better judge of the Constitution than the actual judges who are responsible for interpreting the Constitution? And you are a fan of the Ann Coulter argument that the 14th amendment only pertains to slavery and race?
 
clownboy said:
Why were the 13th, 14th and 15th written and ratified? Learn a bit more about the US Constitution and you'll not need to ask that. As for the over 45 judges, yes, they ruled inconsistently with both law and constitution.
Click to expand...
The 14th was ratified in part to require equal protection of the laws. Not just the laws that clownboy, Internet poster, thinks the writers happened to be thinking about at that time. The idea that the equal protection only applies to racial issues is ludicrous.
 
AGENT J said:
all 45?!?!?!?!?!
LMAO
links? facts?
Click to expand...

Yes, and 45 is a very small fraction of the judicial population btw.

Now, repeat endlessly something about how you are honest and forthright and have all the facts in response.
 
Wiggen said:
Apparently the voters in the state of Washington - and in many other states - are also rogue/activists.

Referendum Measure No. 74 Concerns marriage for same-sex couples
Click to expand...

hell the majority of the country has gone rogue and activist then, think last I looked 55% support equal rights/SSM!

even though that doesnt matter, its just a nice bonus because even if 90% of america was against it, it wouldnt matter just like interracial marriage.
 
CriticalThought said:
I see. So you consider yourself a better judge of the Constitution than the actual judges who are responsible for interpreting the Constitution? And you are a fan of the Ann Coulter argument that the 14th amendment only pertains to slavery and race?
Click to expand...

Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
 
clownboy said:
1.)Yes, and 45 is a very small fraction of the judicial population btw.

2.)Now, repeat endlessly something about how you are honest and forthright and have all the facts in response.
Click to expand...

1.) so every other judges has ruled a against it? how often does every judge rule on everything? oh thats right another meaningless strawman that provides ZERO support for your failed claims lol
2.) no need the majority here already see that fact :D

still waiting for you to post ONE single fact that supports your claim and makes it true . . . . . ONE
 
Papa bull said:
It was always the state's decision. And hopefully, it will continue to be forever, but it's not looking that way.
State's rights are being eroded very quickly and to the detriment of this country, as a whole.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Only to the detriment of the far-right evangelicals who would like to get the US government off of Wall Street's back and into every American bedroom.

That's not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. :roll:

Wait and see.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, aren't you interpreting the constitution?
 
clownboy said:
Why were the 13th, 14th and 15th written and ratified? Learn a bit more about the US Constitution and you'll not need to ask that. As for the over 45 judges, yes, they ruled inconsistently with both law and constitution.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'll take this up. The thirteenth was to ban slavery. It doesn't just say slavery of blacks, but all slavery. It likewise prohibited the enslavement of American Indians, which had been quite common for the entirety of American history until that point. The fourteenth was to guarantee citizenship and equal rights to all Americans, not just blacks and whites, but to everyone of every race. Likewise, it has been instrumental in protecting minority religious groups and women. Keep in mind, the fourteenth amendment is why the bill of rights applies to state laws and not just to the federal. It is because of the fourteenth that you, despite not being black, can invoke your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in a state court instead of just federal courts, even if your state doesn't want you to have that right. Lastly, the fifteenth amendment guaranteed the right to vote for all races, again, not just blacks and whites.

The idiotic assertion that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are only about post Civil War rights for blacks is complete nonsense. It is doubly hilarious that this argument is often offered by people who describe themselves as strict constructionalists, despite the fact that there is no mention of race in either the 13th or 14th amendments. What these amendments did was set the tone for the nature of American citizenship for the modern era. No longer would we be a nation of first and second class citizens. Every citizen would be equal in the eyes of the law and would enjoy the full and complete measure of rights as every other citizen. Except, apparently, for women. These men dropped the ball on that one and we're still trying to get that sorted out.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
Click to expand...
Targeted at, does not imply limited to.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
Click to expand...

So you are upset every time the court overturns any law?
 
Papa bull said:
Learn to read. It's a tax benefit for couples that meet the requirements and apply for state sanction. It's a dodge for those that aren't complying with the state's requirements but want that benefit, anyway.
Homosexual marriage serves no useful purpose my state.
Click to expand...
If your state has a different perspective, that's your state's business.
Click to expand...



100% WRONG.

It serves the purpose of giving gay people the same rights that straight people have and takes nothing away from straight people.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What interest do the states have in banning gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Note that the states aren't banning homosexual liaisons. A state's ban on gay marriage is a statement that it is not going to be coerced into normalizing homosexuality and sanctioning homosexual unions and giving tax incentives for people to enter into homosexual unions. The "benefit" is that they don't have to jump through whatever hoops homosexuals want. Unless a state sees a benefit in doing so, it shouldn't be made to do so and this state sees no benefit in sanctioning homosexual unions as "marriage" and I think my state's decision is a wise one.
 
shrubnose said:
100% WRONG.

It serves the purpose of giving gay people the same rights that straight people have and takes nothing away from straight people.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, it takes away their right to self-righteousness and religious superiority! :roll:
 
Papa bull said:
Whether the state does or does not endorse homosexual marriages has no bearing on your freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with something others have to give you and state sanctioned marriage is a concession from the state and it's no restriction of your freedom if you don't have it.
Anyone that considers not being married to be a restriction of their freedom is a little nuts, anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Denying gay people the right to be married while granting that right to straight people in an unconstitutional restriction on gay people's rights.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
Click to expand...

You are not incorrect. However, the equal protection clause is an exception because its purpose was to limit state powers. The real question is then not whether their is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage but whether or not states have the Constitutional authority to ban same-sex marriage. That is where your side has failed to provide a sufficient argument as to the rationality of these bans. But if you do not even recognize the legitimacy of the courts to interpret the Constitution then there really is no debate to be had. You reject the very notion of how the government has been run for over 200 years.
 
shrubnose said:
100% WRONG.

It serves the purpose of giving gay people the same rights that straight people have and takes nothing away from straight people.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion. And the people of MY STATE are entitled to theirs. And the people of this state's opinion is the one that matters. Gay people already have the same rights everyone else does and the state of Ohio sees no benefit in creating a new type of marriage just to accomodate people with alternative lifestyles. If you want to enjoy an alternative lifestyle, then an alternative to marriage makes perfect sense. Homosexuals should pursue that instead of trying to mimic the heterosexual model that they detest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom