• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

No, because it was based on race alone which the 14th amendment specifically addresses. What was incorrect in Loving v. Virginia was that marriage or any other state granted, by license' status is a "basic right". States grant the "right" to drive via license but may deny that "right" based on many, otherwise unconstitutional, factors - for example not paying a ticket (or child support) without any due process at all.

You are very wrong on this. Driving is a privilege, but under equal protection laws, may not be limited based on race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity (although citizenship is actually an approved reason to deny people the right to having a state driver's license), and in certain ways, age or disability (when those things do not actually affect the ability to drive or really just can't be justified as furthering a state interest).

Examples:

Unconstitutional - not allowing Asians to get a driver's license
Constitutional - not allowing anyone who is not a citizenship to get a driver's license (although some states do allow non-citizens to get a license)

Unconstitutional - restricting or removing a driver's license between the ages of 37 and 42 (pretty sure the state would have a very hard time showing a legitimate state interest furthered by such a restriction/law)
Constitutional - age limits that do not allow a 12 year old to drive (can be legitimately shown to further a state interest in preventing accidents on the road from immature drivers and lack of legitimate need of a license at that age)

Unconstitutional - requiring heterosexuals, and only heterosexuals, to take a driving test for a license; anyone willing to put homosexual or bisexual on their license doesn't need to take a driving test
Constitutional - requiring everyone, regardless of their sexuality to pass a driving test for a license
 
But how does a marriage contract benefit the state? The contract between the fisherman and the fish monger promotes commerce which is beneficial to the state. What does marriage provide?

A stable, more self-sufficient household.
 
You are very wrong on this. Driving is a privilege, but under equal protection laws, may not be limited based on race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity (although citizenship is actually an approved reason to deny people the right to having a state driver's license), and in certain ways, age or disability (when those things do not actually affect the ability to drive or really just can't be justified as furthering a state interest).

Examples:

Unconstitutional - not allowing Asians to get a driver's license
Constitutional - not allowing anyone who is not a citizenship to get a driver's license (although some states do allow non-citizens to get a license)

Unconstitutional - restricting or removing a driver's license between the ages of 37 and 42 (pretty sure the state would have a very hard time showing a legitimate state interest furthered by such a restriction/law)
Constitutional - age limits that do not allow a 12 year old to drive (can be legitimately shown to further a state interest in preventing accidents on the road from immature drivers and lack of legitimate need of a license at that age)

Unconstitutional - requiring heterosexuals, and only heterosexuals, to take a driving test for a license; anyone willing to put homosexual or bisexual on their license doesn't need to take a driving test
Constitutional - requiring everyone, regardless of their sexuality to pass a driving test for a license

You forgot to mention that the 14th amendment doesn't actually specifically address race!
 
No, because it was based on race alone which the 14th amendment specifically addresses. What was incorrect in Loving v. Virginia was that marriage or any other state granted, by license' status is a "basic right". States grant the "right" to drive via license but may deny that "right" based on many, otherwise unconstitutional, factors - for example not paying a ticket (or child support) without any due process at all.

Funny that the 14th doesn't actually mention race at all then, only "citizens"
 
No, because it was based on race alone which the 14th amendment specifically addresses. What was incorrect in Loving v. Virginia was that marriage or any other state granted, by license' status is a "basic right". States grant the "right" to drive via license but may deny that "right" based on many, otherwise unconstitutional, factors - for example not paying a ticket (or child support) without any due process at all.
Loving vs Virginia did not declare civil marriage a basic right. Civil marriage, like driving on public roads, requires a license and is more of a privilege than a right. You don't need a license to drive on private property, and you don't need a license to have a private marriage. You have the "right" to do these without government interference.
 
It's not about marriage benefiting the "state" the government, the real question is does Civil Marriage benefit society - the people that participate in marriage.

1. Lower suicide rate when comparing single persons and married persons.
2. Married people are typically healthier.
3. Married people tend to live longer.
4. Married people tend to have better sex lives.
5. Married people tend to be happier then unmarried people.
6. Married people tend to earn more. (i.e. they are more financially stable)
7. Married people tend to have lower rates of fatal accidents.
8. Married people tend to have lower rates of chronic illnesses.
9. Married people tend to have lower rates of alcoholism.
10. Married people tend to have lower rates of depression.


Society benefits when, in general, members of the population are happier, healthier, and more finacially stable.


Marriage as a Public Issue, Princeton University


>>>>

The interesting thing is that many of these things do not have anything to do with having children, only being married. In fact, some of those things are most true when it comes to married couples without children.

Can parenthood make us miserable? How couples with children are LESS happy than those without (but only if they're married and earn over $50,000) | Daily Mail Online
 
Loving vs Virginia did not declare civil marriage a basic right. Civil marriage, like driving on public roads, requires a license and is more of a privilege than a right. You don't need a license to drive on private property, and you don't need a license to have a private marriage. You have the "right" to do these without government interference.

And getting a driver's license is still protected by the 14th Amendment. See my previous post on this.

It would be unconstitutional to prevent someone from getting a driver's license just because they were gay. I guarantee that would not fly under constitutional review.

In fact, even restricting marriage to only heterosexuals would not fly when it comes to constitutional review either. Because despite what so many want to believe about same sex marriage, homosexuals, and the Constitution, they know that any law that said specifically "only heterosexuals can marry each other", would be struck down under the 14th so fast.
 
And getting a driver's license is still protected by the 14th Amendment. See my previous post on this.

It would be unconstitutional to prevent someone from getting a driver's license just because they were gay. I guarantee that would not fly under constitutional review.

In fact, even restricting marriage to only heterosexuals would not fly when it comes to constitutional review either. Because despite what so many want to believe about same sex marriage, homosexuals, and the Constitution, they know that any law that said specifically "only heterosexuals can marry each other", would be struck down under the 14th so fast.
This is where the analogy breaks down, because driving is an action and marriage is a relationship between individuals. Yes, "restricting marriage to only heterosexuals would not fly" - but mostly for reasons that aren't relevant to the gay marriage issue. Such a law would be irrational because it would allow anyone to marry anyone else so long as one of them didn't admit/claim to be gay. Tired of being married? Just say "You know what, honey? I think I might be gay!" and POOF! Your marriage is gone.
 
A stable, more self-sufficient household.

I would disagree with "stable" given the divorce rate, and what is the society benefit of two people living together?

I would really doubt that a couple is more self sufficient married than they were single. If so then marriage would promote itself.
 
True, but if government creates an imbalance, then it is a civil rights and discrimination issue - the overreach creates the injustice. There would be no injustice if government didn't set unjust rules in areas where they have no business legislating in the 21st century.

Hmm that sounds like a conspiracy. ;)
 
This is where the analogy breaks down, because driving is an action and marriage is a relationship between individuals. Yes, "restricting marriage to only heterosexuals would not fly" - but mostly for reasons that aren't relevant to the gay marriage issue. Such a law would be irrational because it would allow anyone to marry anyone else so long as one of them didn't admit/claim to be gay. Tired of being married? Just say "You know what, honey? I think I might be gay!" and POOF! Your marriage is gone.

Because one is an 'action' and one is a 'relationship' is irrelevant... and incorrect. Marriage is both a action and a state of relation.

To marry is not the same as being married.
 
I fully understand your passion on this (SSM) issue, I do not understand how you are not basing your arguments on a tangent (or implied right) since marriage is not mentioned, at all, in the US constitution. Note that the 15th and 19th amendments were added (due to majority opinion?) to address issues which you now seem to imply were "fully covered" under the 14th amendment.

Sometimes, we need to make things clear, via constitutional amendment, what is (and is not) covered by the US constitution. It seems to have taken constitutional amendment to ban/restore the recreational use of alcohol yet no such constitutional action was needed to ban marijuana nationwide - why do suppose that was?

There is a difference in the Supreme Court using the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning and the American people passing a Constitutional amendment.

The Supreme court does not rule-in a Constitutional amendments. The Supreme court could have used the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning for former slaves and women's vote... The American people chose to codify those rights more succinctly.
 
The reasons for birth certificates are to establish a legal kinship and track that kinship. That is the main reason for birth certificates, just as the main reason for marriage licenses (after filing, nowdays) is to establish the legal kinship of spouses and track that kinship.

First, I disagree with the simplification of the need to track birth certificates. Birth Certificates are sources of a person's identity, for establishing citizenship and genealogy, all of which are valued by the state. What is the value in tracking the "kinship" of a marriage? Especially marriages that can't sprout any genealogical branches.
 
There is a difference in the Supreme Court using the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning and the American people passing a Constitutional amendment.

The Supreme court does not rule-in a Constitutional amendments. The Supreme court could have used the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning for former slaves and women's vote... The American people chose to codify those rights more succinctly.

Are you kidding me? The 14th amendment specifically omits the women's right to vote.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
 
First, I disagree with the simplification of the need to track birth certificates. Birth Certificates are sources of a person's identity, for establishing citizenship and genealogy, all of which are valued by the state. What is the value in tracking the "kinship" of a marriage? Especially marriages that can't sprout any genealogical branches.

Are you saying that adoption isn't a legal kinship as well? Plus that kinship exists for the length of the marriage (kinship ties to in laws can actually last longer than a marriage in some places).

But birth certificates mainly identify who your parents are and through that link you legally to other relatives.
 
This is where the analogy breaks down, because driving is an action and marriage is a relationship between individuals. Yes, "restricting marriage to only heterosexuals would not fly" - but mostly for reasons that aren't relevant to the gay marriage issue. Such a law would be irrational because it would allow anyone to marry anyone else so long as one of them didn't admit/claim to be gay. Tired of being married? Just say "You know what, honey? I think I might be gay!" and POOF! Your marriage is gone.

The action in marriage is the establishment of the relationship, the legal kinship. You compared the two, and yes analogy did fail, but not because of your stated difference.

As for the other part, no a marriage would not just be annulled or voided with a simple declaration of sexuality or questioning it.
 
Because one is an 'action' and one is a 'relationship' is irrelevant... and incorrect. Marriage is both a action and a state of relation.

To marry is not the same as being married.
You are confused. Marriage is a noun. It is not an action. You get it right in the last sentence.
 
It's not about marriage benefiting the "state" the government, the real question is does Civil Marriage benefit society - the people that participate in marriage.

1. Lower suicide rate when comparing single persons and married persons.
2. Married people are typically healthier.
3. Married people tend to live longer.
4. Married people tend to have better sex lives.
5. Married people tend to be happier then unmarried people.
6. Married people tend to earn more. (i.e. they are more financially stable)
7. Married people tend to have lower rates of fatal accidents.
8. Married people tend to have lower rates of chronic illnesses.
9. Married people tend to have lower rates of alcoholism.
10. Married people tend to have lower rates of depression.


Society benefits when, in general, members of the population are happier, healthier, and more finacially stable.


Marriage as a Public Issue, Princeton University


>>>>

The interesting thing is that many of these things do not have anything to do with having children, only being married. In fact, some of those things are most true when it comes to married couples without children.

Can parenthood make us miserable? How couples with children are LESS happy than those without (but only if they're married and earn over $50,000) | Daily Mail Online

The interesting thing is that these things have to do with having a partner; not a marriage license. There are a LOT of people living together that aren't married - and they get the same benefits. Marriage doesn't bring these benefits. Being a stable person capable of having a working relationship with someone else does.
 
The Supreme court could have used the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning for former slaves and women's vote... The American people chose to codify those rights more succinctly.
I suppose so... If they wanted to make a mockery of the law. When the 14th amendment was being debated, there was a strong campaign to use language that would have advanced suffrage, but it never would have passed. There was strong support for the rights of former (male) slaves... women, not so much. The language in Section 2 was devised to prevent the 14th from being used to give women the right to vote.
 
Hmm that sounds like a conspiracy. ;)

Not a conspiracy, just government tax and other policy that has passed its need and hasn't yet been adjusted for the current societal situation. And perhaps politicians are too afraid to do anything about it. But considering that the ever increasing number of people these days who choose not to marry, it's just a matter of time before they collectively have their voices heard and benefits related to a government issued piece of paper will be eliminated.
 
Last edited:
The action in marriage is the establishment of the relationship, the legal kinship. You compared the two, and yes analogy did fail, but not because of your stated difference.
No, the comparison I made was between the state of driving on public roads and the state of being married.

As for the other part, no a marriage would not just be annulled or voided with a simple declaration of sexuality or questioning it.
That's kind of a silly thing to say about a made up hypothetical, but it's worth pointing out that if the law in this hypothetical worked the same as the law in Virginia pre-Loving, you would be dead wrong.
 
The interesting thing is that these things have to do with having a partner; not a marriage license. There are a LOT of people living together that aren't married - and they get the same benefits. Marriage doesn't bring these benefits. Being a stable person capable of having a working relationship with someone else does.

And just to piggyback on that, isn't it funny that courts are quite capable of establishing rights related to common-law relationships, the financial product of those relationships, and the offspring of those relationships and yet those who support government sanction/involvement in marriage claim that without the government piece of paper, people would have no protection of their rights in law.
 
If the government wasn't providing benefit to taxpayers based on them holding a piece of paper issued by the government, gay people wouldn't be interested in "redefining" marriage. It's only the government definition that's being "redefined".

That is mostly right. I don't think it is right to argue that the only reason gay people are interested in redfining marriage is because of government benefits to taxpayers who are married. There are a lot of reasons why I think that is wrong.

1. Because "domestic partnerships" would have provided that same benefit but are rejected by homosexuals.

2. Because less than 10% of homosexuals are married in any state or country where homosexual marriage is legal.

3. Because the real goal is "normalization" of homosexuality, not "equal rights", which already exist.

All this suggests that the real truth is that homosexuals, as a group, are much more interested in arguing that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally normal than they are in actually getting married.
 
And just to piggyback on that, isn't it funny that courts are quite capable of establishing rights related to common-law relationships, the financial product of those relationships, and the offspring of those relationships and yet those who support government sanction/involvement in marriage claim that without the government piece of paper, people would have no protection of their rights in law.

That's actually quite odd. Common law marriage has been... well... "common".

I've been trying to explain throughout all this drama for months and even years that this isn't about the ability to have a long term committed relationship; it's been about trying to force the government to sanction homosexual unions for the sake of normalization of homosexuality. I'm somewhat inclined to agree that the government shouldn't be sanctioning relationships at all.
 
That is mostly right. I don't think it is right to argue that the only reason gay people are interested in redfining marriage is because of government benefits to taxpayers who are married. There are a lot of reasons why I think that is wrong.

1. Because "domestic partnerships" would have provided that same benefit but are rejected by homosexuals.

2. Because less than 10% of homosexuals are married in any state or country where homosexual marriage is legal.

3. Because the real goal is "normalization" of homosexuality, not "equal rights", which already exist.

All this suggests that the real truth is that homosexuals, as a group, are much more interested in arguing that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally normal than they are in actually getting married.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are "equally normal" and there are only two ways of having the government recognize that - a) get out of the marriage business and stop setting social policy through the tax code or b) recognize all codified relationships as equal as they relate to access to benefits under the tax code.
 
Back
Top Bottom