• 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:
You want a legal relationship create one, oh wait, we have it is called a civil union.
Click to expand...


Texas Constitution,
Section 32
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)​



The discrimination crowd blocked that option in many States where they passed bans on BOTH Civil Unions and Civil Marriages.



>>>>
 
Conservative said:
We have a Representative democracy, learn how it works. In the meantime do a little studying of states rights and see how it relates to our Founders
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering, electoral college, and the **** 2 party system all conspire to guarantee we do not. That's why we'll be stuck with Bush III vs Clinton II and fossils like mccain in the senate. If it's so perfectly representative as you claim, why the hell does wyoming get 2 senators and a vote in ratification, same as huge states like CA and texas? This isn't 1780 anymore. The system is broken.
 
chromium said:
Gerrymandering, electoral college, and the **** 2 party system all conspire to guarantee we do not. That's why we'll be stuck with Bush III vs Clinton II and fossils like mccain in the senate. If it's so perfectly representative as you claim, why the hell does wyoming get 2 senators and a vote in ratification, same as huge states like CA and texas? This isn't 1780 anymore. The system is broken.
Click to expand...

Bush IV. We already elected Bush III.
 
roguenuke said:
What a stupid waste of time and money you are suggesting. Not going to happen.

But interesting to see how you have no issue with trying to waste more taxpayer money to try to maintain your hateful, discriminatory, unconstitutional position within the laws.
Click to expand...

The waste of time and money is on your part, not mine. seems you don't have any problem wasting money on issues important to you but not to have the true will of the people heard. You made the claim that the majority support Same Sex Marriages but cannot prove it at the ballot box and therein lies your problem
 
chromium said:
Gerrymandering, electoral college, and the **** 2 party system all conspire to guarantee we do not. That's why we'll be stuck with Bush III vs Clinton II and fossils like mccain in the senate. If it's so perfectly representative as you claim, why the hell does wyoming get 2 senators and a vote in ratification, same as huge states like CA and texas? This isn't 1780 anymore. The system is broken.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked it was the people who voted, not the lobbyists but guess you have a problem with that concept. Gerrymandering would indicate that people are robots and the only robots I know are the liberal robots. Suggest they stay out of TX.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Texas Constitution,
Section 32
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)​



The discrimination crowd blocked that option in many States where they passed bans on BOTH Civil Unions and Civil Marriages.



>>>>
Click to expand...

So I guess the will of the people only matters on some issues
 
Conservative said:
Wouldn't want to force you to pray to my God as you will have to face yours one of these days. I couldn't care less what you think or believe but you want to force your beliefs on me and nothing is going to ever change my mind, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You want a legal relationship create one, oh wait, we have it is called a civil union. Leave decades and centuries of tradition and precedence alone.
Click to expand...

Something being legal isn't forcing my beleifs on you. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex, nor do you personally have to think they are married. For instance, I was not married in a Catholic church. Therefore the Catholic church does NOT recognize my marriage. You also are not forced to marry someone of the same sex. No beliefs are being forced on you. Hell, you can personally think that homosexuality is a sin.

Now, please tell me where YOU and the right OWN the word marriage. Show me in writing the property form that dictates YOU own the word marriage and what happens with it.
 
Conservative said:
Every time I get into this topic I do visit Hell. I don't make decisions for my God and never will. My God will make a decision about me. So far my God has been very good to me and my family. Why is it that people like you are so miserable and unhappy? Liberals are such a miserable lot and calling yourself a moderate is a joke
Click to expand...

I'm not a liberal, not unhappy. I just believe in one less god than you. I am moderate, but compared to someone that is so far flung ultra right like you, anyone would be a liberal. You created your own god, who just happens to believe what you believe...LOL
 
TheNextEra said:
Something being legal isn't forcing my beleifs on you. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex, nor do you personally have to think they are married. For instance, I was not married in a Catholic church. Therefore the Catholic church does NOT recognize my marriage. You also are not forced to marry someone of the same sex. No beliefs are being forced on you. Hell, you can personally think that homosexuality is a sin.

Now, please tell me where YOU and the right OWN the word marriage. Show me in writing the property form that dictates YOU own the word marriage and what happens with it.
Click to expand...

Getting a little hysterical, the right doesn't own the word marriage, history does

History of Marriage
 
Conservative said:
The waste of time and money is on your part, not mine. seems you don't have any problem wasting money on issues important to you but not to have the true will of the people heard. You made the claim that the majority support Same Sex Marriages but cannot prove it at the ballot box and therein lies your problem
Click to expand...

Nope. Those against same sex marriage put the laws in place to begin with. Waste of money. Then they have spent years and millions fighting against the rights of others, which we have seen inevitably, all these bans are being overturned. Waste of money. Fighting DOMA, waste of money. So much wasted money to stop people you don't even know from getting married.

Actually, 4 states so far have shown that they will vote for same sex marriage and against same sex marriage bans. The only other state to put in a marriage amendment since then was this one, and it was done in a way that guaranteed it would pass, during a Republican primary, where the Dems would not have nearly the turnout since their candidate was the sitting President. That is why the turnout for the vote was around 20% of those who were registered to vote, the smallest turnout for any southern state that voted in a same sex marriage ban.
 
Conservative said:
Guess you must have missed the history class on the founding of this country. Interesting that the SC hasn't ruled yet, wonder why? You seem to fear the same group of people that created all those amendments, why? You want marriage in the Constitution, put it there. If not let the people of the states decide their own issues.
Click to expand...

Guess you missed that class on arguing without arrogance and condescending tone.
 
roguenuke said:
Nope. Those against same sex marriage put the laws in place to begin with. Waste of money. Then they have spent years and millions fighting against the rights of others, which we have seen inevitably, all these bans are being overturned. Waste of money. Fighting DOMA, waste of money. So much wasted money to stop people you don't even know from getting married.

Actually, 4 states so far have shown that they will vote for same sex marriage and against same sex marriage bans. The only other state to put in a marriage amendment since then was this one, and it was done in a way that guaranteed it would pass, during a Republican primary, where the Dems would not have nearly the turnout since their candidate was the sitting President. That is why the turnout for the vote was around 20% of those who were registered to vote, the smallest turnout for any southern state that voted in a same sex marriage ban.
Click to expand...

Awesome, four states? 19 states had the will of the people overturned by an activist judge. Guess maybe you aren't as sure as you think when it comes to the majority voting for same sex marriage. What costs would be incurred to put it on the ballot and let the people decide? You really don't understand states' rights do you?

So don't you find it a little concerning to your cause that there isn't more passion for this issue as only 20% showed up to vote? Interesting logic on your part. If it was as passionate of an issue as you thought more would have turned out just on that issue alone.
 
Peter King said:
So what? Just because there is no gay gene does not mean it is a free choice, someone is gay or is not gay. Straight people do not choose to "be gay".
Click to expand...

How do you know straight people haven't CHOSEN to become gay? You spout your opinion and that of others as fact when the proof is there is no such thing as born gay or there would be a "gay" gene. People choose to become gay or that at least is the argument you don't want to address. Wonder why?
 
beefheart said:
Guess you missed that class on arguing without arrogance and condescending tone.
Click to expand...

Another "liberal" hiding under the leaning of moderate, what a surprise! While taking a history course take one in civics as well learning about states' rights as well as the fact that marriage isn't in the Constitution.
 
Conservative said:
Another "liberal" hiding under the leaning of moderate, what a surprise! While taking a history course take one in civics as well learning about states' rights as well as the fact that marriage isn't in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Big man....uses labels. I'd love to see what your style would be if we were all debating in person. You are the one hiding...from reality!
 
Conservative said:
Awesome, four states? 19 states had the will of the people overturned by an activist judge. Guess maybe you aren't as sure as you think when it comes to the majority voting for same sex marriage. What costs would be incurred to put it on the ballot and let the people decide? You really don't understand states' rights do you?

So don't you find it a little concerning to your cause that there isn't more passion for this issue as only 20% showed up to vote? Interesting logic on your part. If it was as passionate of an issue as you thought more would have turned out just on that issue alone.
Click to expand...

Nope. Just as I have absolutely no problem with Loving having taken down over a dozen state laws banning interracial marriage.

It is simply an issue that most people don't care about or don't have the time to care about because it doesn't actually affect them. Just like it doesn't really affect you, which is why the court does need to get involved to overturn these laws/bans.
 
Conservative said:
How do you know straight people haven't CHOSEN to become gay? You spout your opinion and that of others as fact when the proof is there is no such thing as born gay or there would be a "gay" gene. People choose to become gay or that at least is the argument you don't want to address. Wonder why?
Click to expand...

Because you don't choose to be gay. You can only choose to be in certain relationships, which is not the same.
 
roguenuke said:
Nope. Just as I have absolutely no problem with Loving having taken down over a dozen state laws banning interracial marriage.

It is simply an issue that most people don't care about or don't have the time to care about because it doesn't actually affect them. Just like it doesn't really affect you, which is why the court does need to get involved to overturn these laws/bans.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you figure out what states' rights are and how the courts are destroying the foundation upon which this country was built. You don't seem to get it or understand. If your state votes for SSM so be it, great. If my state votes for SSM no problem. It is a state issue. What part of that don't you understand?
 
roguenuke said:
Because you don't choose to be gay. You can only choose to be in certain relationships, which is not the same.
Click to expand...

We have civil unions for people who want a legal relationship. No, what you want to do is destroy states' rights and centuries of history and precedence all for your own personal pleasure or in your case the pleasure for someone else.
 
Conservative said:
I have had my ass kicked many times but never by you. The Constitution was written by our Founders who understood, unlike you, that too much power at the central level is no better than what they had in England thus they listed those powers in that Constitution. Equal protection and the 14th Amendment apply to the Constitution. You want marriage in the Constitution, then go for it
Click to expand...

Equal protection is already in there. If the states have contracts, they cant discriminate against protected classes, like gender. If SSM is illegal, it discriminates against gender in the marriage contract.
 
Lursa said:
Having sex is a personal choice. Sexual orientation is not.
Click to expand...

I'll bet if anyone even dared suggest we not protect religion, he'd be up in arms, even though, clearly, religion is a personal choice.
 
Conservative never answered this question:

What language in the constitution makes interracial marriage bans unconstitutional? After all, marriage isn't in the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom