• 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

Race is indeed a Constitutional issue, marriage isn't. You want to marry your partner move to a state that allows it


Loving (1967) was decided based on the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment, please show the class where race is specified as a condition?


I don't need to move to marry my partner, we've been married for 27 years and have two fine children that are now adults. But thanks for the unneeded suggestion.


From ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195

The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.​



>>>>
 
Last edited:
You want to marry your partner move to a state that allows it

I love how this is always your response.

"Hey I know you love where you live, where you work, your families all here, but we want to be discriminatory dicks so go live somewhere else".

Nah, sorry Conservative, this issue is already decided, SSM will be the law of the land, we just have a few formalities to deal with.
 
isn't that just wonderful, we have an economy in the crapper, a world on fire, and another same sex marriage thread showing how poor individual priorities are. Didn't realize that Marriage was a Federal law as when I got married I got a state marriage license. Liberals will do anything to overturn the will of the people but only on issues they deem important. Marriage has always been common law and all Americans have the same rights, marry someone of a different sex and there is no problem. Now the leftwing wants to overturn the states' rights issue by going through the courts. I have absolutely no problem with states approving same sex marriage but I do have a problem with the Federal Govt. getting involved especially the courts. What a bunch of typical leftwing bs that is destroying the will of the people.

I'm sorry equal protection bothers you so much. I suppose you thought interracial marriage bans passed equal protection also. After all, everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.
 
Loving (1967) was decided based on the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment, please show the class where race is specified as a condition?


I don't need to move to marry my partner, we've been married for 27 years and have two fine children that are now adults. But thanks for the unneeded suggestion.



>>>>

Loving was an issue of race not marriage. I was married to my wife for over 40 years and we have two well adjusted kids as well. I lost my wife to cancer last year and have over 40 years of wonderful memories.
 
I'm sorry equal protection bothers you so much.

It only bothers me when it is applied to issues that it has no business being involved in. This is a state issue not a Federal one. Marriage isn't a civil right it is a privilege and has been controlled by the states for decades.
 
Race is indeed a Constitutional issue, marriage isn't. You want to marry your partner move to a state that allows it

Equal protection is a constitutional issue.
 
Loving was an issue of race not marriage. I was married to my wife for over 40 years and we have two well adjusted kids as well. I lost my wife to cancer last year and have over 40 years of wonderful memories.

So the question is, why would you seek to deny someone else those same wonderful memories based solely on their sexual orientation alone...
 
seems that a lot of people in the country are wrong by your standards. We are indeed a republic and have 50 sovereign states that make the laws that govern marriage. The will of the people is being overturned by justices. Why hasn't the sc ruled on marriage yet? Bring your opinion to tx and spend all the money in the world and see what that gets you here. You and others want to overturn the will of the people of tx as well as the many other states that don't buy into the ssm issue.
saying that the majority support the issue is a downright lie.



That's a downright lie.

Polls show that the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's outof touch, running out of time, GOP
 
Equal protection is a constitutional issue.

Equal protection has nothing to do with state and local laws. Show me marriage in the Constitution and I will agree with you
 
It only bothers me when it is applied to issues that it has no business being involved in. This is a state issue not a Federal one. Marriage isn't a civil right it is a privilege and has been controlled by the states for decades.

state vs federal is a straw man. This isn't a case of federal law, it's a case of equal protection. It's a case of the constitution.

Marriage laws, whether at the state or federal level, are subject to equal protection.
 
So the question is, why would you seek to deny someone else those same wonderful memories based solely on their sexual orientation alone...

I believe in tradition, history, and precedence not sexual orientation. You want to marry your partner go to a state that allows it. Marriage has always been a state issue. show me marriage in the Constitution and I will become a supporter of your cause. You want a Constitutional Amendment? Go for it and see what happens
 
You make my point, what you believe is right is all that matters not what the majority in the states believe. You buy the polls but don't look at the internals nor do you look at what happens when this issue is put on the ballot even in your own state. what was the vote in your state? How can you claim the majority of the people in North Carolina support SSM? This isn't a Constitutional issue and never has been. Marriage isn't a right, it is common law and controlled by the states

Human rights do not belong on a ballot. If that where the case slavery would not have ended, women would still not be voting, interracial marriages would never be granted, etc, etc. I mean are you serious? What do you think the will of the majority was when these issues where the hot topic of the day? It was only because the small margin of people who fought to circumvent the will of the majority that these things are no more.
 
state vs federal is a straw man. This isn't a case of federal law, it's a case of equal protection. It's a case of the constitution.

Marriage laws, whether at the state or federal level, are subject to equal protection.

Equal protection is the strawman in this argument. Civil unions exist but no liberal activists want to overturn precedence and history. Screw them. They have the same rights as I have.
 
Equal protection has nothing to do with state and local laws.
Absolutely comical.
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.


Show me marriage in the Constitution and I will agree with you

Equal protection of the laws, dude. It says it right there. Not "equal protection only regarding rights specifically mentioned in the constitution"
 
Equal protection is the strawman in this argument. Civil unions exist but no liberal activists want to overturn precedence and history. Screw them. They have the same rights as I have.

Civil unions are equal to marriage in precisely zero states.
 
Loving was an issue of race not marriage. I was married to my wife for over 40 years and we have two well adjusted kids as well. I lost my wife to cancer last year and have over 40 years of wonderful memories.


From ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL
Google Scholar

The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.​



Another case that over turned State laws on marriage based on the 14th that wasn't based on race.


**********

Very sorry to hear about your wife. God bless you both.



>>>>

>>>>
 
Human rights do not belong on a ballot. If that where the case slavery would not have ended, women would still not be voting, interracial marriages would never be granted, etc, etc. I mean are you serious? What do you think the will of the majority was when these issues where the hot topic of the day? It was only because the small margin of people who fought to circumvent the will of the majority that these things are no more.

Marriage isn't a human right, it is common law and a privilege. Ever American has the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have them. Civil unions are there for those who want the economic benefits.

See what I mean about the passion on this issue? Wow, get involved in something important like getting rid of Obama and turning the economy around.
 
I believe in tradition, history, and precedence not sexual orientation

What you believe in is discrimination.

You can try and justify it any way you want, but the fact of the matter is this is about equal protection.

You cited your story as a reason why marriage is such a positive thing... well here you are trying to deny it to others based solely on one aspect of them as a person.

Could you imagine how you'd feel if someone did that to you?

If you were denied those 40 years because of some arbitrary social construct of the time including in the not so distant past race...

Conservative the issue is settled.

It will be the law of the land.
 
Equal protection has nothing to do with state and local laws. Show me marriage in the Constitution and I will agree with you


Are you of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by the people?



>>>>
 
What you believe in is discrimination.

You can try and justify it any way you want, but the fact of the matter is this is about equal protection.

You cited your story as a reason why marriage is such a positive thing... well here you are trying to deny it to others based solely on one aspect of them as a person.

Could you imagine how you'd feel if someone did that to you?

If you were denied those 40 years because of some arbitrary social construct of the time including in the not so distant past race...

Conservative the issue is settled.

It will be the law of the land.

Look, I am done with this topic, You aren't going to change my mind or me change yours. There is a lot of discrimination in common law but you pick and choose what you want to apply to discrimination.

I couldn't care less about what others think of me but my opinion stands, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It has been that way for centuries and it isn't the Federal Government's business to change it. States control marriage and that is the way it should be. Show me marriage in the Constitution. When it becomes the law of the land I will still be against it just like I am against abortion.
 
You make my point, what you believe is right is all that matters not what the majority in the states believe. You buy the polls but don't look at the internals nor do you look at what happens when this issue is put on the ballot even in your own state. what was the vote in your state? How can you claim the majority of the people in North Carolina support SSM? This isn't a Constitutional issue and never has been. Marriage isn't a right, it is common law and controlled by the states

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.
 
Marriage isn't a human right, it is common law and a privilege. Ever American has the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have them. Civil unions are there for those who want the economic benefits.


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.



>>>>
 
Look, I am done with this topic, You aren't going to change my mind or me change yours. There is a lot of discrimination in common law but you pick and choose what you want to apply to discrimination.

I couldn't care less about what others think of me but my opinion stands, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It has been that way for centuries and it isn't the Federal Government's business to change it. States control marriage and that is the way it should be. Show me marriage in the Constitution. When it becomes the law of the land I will still be against it just like I am against abortion.

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.
 
Marriage isn't a human right, it is common law and a privilege. Ever American has the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have them. Civil unions are there for those who want the economic benefits.



First of all, it is a right. And No Homosexuals are not afforded the right to marry the sex that they are attracted to. Heterosexuals are. That is where the disparity lies. Try again.

& for the hundredth time, Civil Unions are not equal to Marriages -

Marriage Compared to Civil Unions | LegalMatch Law Library

What Are the Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions?
There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions, including:

Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
Tax benefits available to married couples only
Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance

And even if they where the same - Separate but Equal is not Equality. That's why it didn't work for African Americans, or were you too in favor of segregating schools, buses, and water fountains?

See what I mean about the passion on this issue? Wow, get involved in something important like getting rid of Obama and turning the economy around.

I see an impassioned bigot trying to feign indifference to an issue while simultaneously responding to every refutation to his tired, fallacious, and weak points.
 
Marriage isn't a human right, it is common law and a privilege. Ever American has the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have them. Civil unions are there for those who want the economic benefits.

See what I mean about the passion on this issue? Wow, get involved in something important like getting rid of Obama and turning the economy around.


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?
 
Back
Top Bottom