• 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

Hatuey said:
This is why the 'government should get out marriage' nonsense needs to stop. That. Is. Not. Going. To Happen. Constitutional or unconstitutional, there isn't a single federal/state government that would even consider doing away with civil marriage. Not only would the political ramifications leave a giant black hole in civil law (as well a child adoption, custody and property laws) it would also mean that the government isn't in the business of recognizing and enforcing social contracts between individuals. Do you people think of this before you try and steer the conversation away from what is actually in question here? Again, your imaginary world where marriage can be done away with, isn't real.
Click to expand...

Would it not be workable for some reason?
 
American said:
You see this is why many believe it should be left to the states. Some states allow it and some don't. You can go where it's allowed and live. On the Left they believe that all aspects of life should be decided at the federal level.
Click to expand...

How about *you* leave if you don't like it
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually, taxes that are too low means there are entire rural communities that would have no access to clean water, food, electricity, and transportation. In almost all states, the tax bases in the cities float the rural areas. For example, in Kansas if it were not for the tax base on the Kansas side of Kansas City, they would be lucky to have a flush toilet, much less a paved road, in western Kansas. Most wealth transfers are not between rich and poor, but rather from urban areas to rural areas and from young to old.
Click to expand...

Those don't exist in rural areas anyway lol. I come from a town of under 800. Unless the amish had their horse and buggy funded by city taxes, i don't know what transportation or paved road you refer to. Didn't even have a grocery store.
 
roguenuke said:
Those cases, especially Loving, Turner, and Zablocki, were all about having their marriages recognized by the state, which has been upheld by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

The courts never said people have a right to have their marriages recognized by the state.
 
Henrin said:
Would it not be workable for some reason?
Click to expand...
Hatuey already answered your question. See underlined.

This is why the 'government should get out marriage' nonsense needs to stop. That. Is. Not. Going. To Happen. Constitutional or unconstitutional, there isn't a single federal/state government that would even consider doing away with civil marriage. Not only would the political ramifications leave a giant black hole in civil law (as well a child adoption, custody and property laws) it would also mean that the government isn't in the business of recognizing and enforcing social contracts between individuals. Do you people think of this before you try and steer the conversation away from what is actually in question here? Again, your imaginary world where marriage can be done away with, isn't real.
 
Deuce said:
I have to wonder about something pointed out in the dissent for this decision: the ruling seems so poorly thought out and supported that it almost seems like these judges wanted to create a circuit split so SCOTUS would be forced to take the case.

And that leads me to wonder whether or not this is the cover SCOTUS wanted in the first place. "Oh, well, looks like we HAVE to take the case now. Well, we tried to keep our hands off, but now we have to decide!"
Click to expand...

I doubt SCOTUS wanted it since if just a few more circuits had struck down the bans, there's 50 states. SCOTUS doesn't need cover either. As for this circuit, it has quite the record of horrible decisions being struck down by SCOTUS, so i doubt it was intentional. What appeals court *wants* to be overturned either? They should be impeached, given their record of unconstitutional rulings.
 
brothern said:
Hatuey already answered your question. See underlined.

This is why the 'government should get out marriage' nonsense needs to stop. That. Is. Not. Going. To Happen. Constitutional or unconstitutional, there isn't a single federal/state government that would even consider doing away with civil marriage. Not only would the political ramifications leave a giant black hole in civil law (as well a child adoption, custody and property laws) it would also mean that the government isn't in the business of recognizing and enforcing social contracts between individuals. Do you people think of this before you try and steer the conversation away from what is actually in question here? Again, your imaginary world where marriage can be done away with, isn't real.
Click to expand...

Actually the utah governor publicly suggested it, but i'm sure only to demonstrate to his bigoted base that he's on their side. It's a completely hollow threat and SCOTUS already ruled multiple times that marriage is a constitutional right.
 
chromium said:
I doubt SCOTUS wanted it since if just a few more circuits had struck down the bans, there's 50 states. SCOTUS doesn't need cover either. As for this circuit, it has quite the record of horrible decisions being struck down by SCOTUS, so i doubt it was intentional. What appeals court *wants* to be overturned either? They should be impeached, given their record of unconstitutional rulings.
Click to expand...

It's not like SCOTUS has a great track record themselves. Just sayin'.
 
Henrin said:
It's not like SCOTUS has a great track record themselves. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

of what, being overturned? Good luck proving that one
 
Henrin said:
Would it not be workable for some reason?
Click to expand...

Marriage recognition is related to property ownership, child custody, insurance law, banking law, inheritance law etc. Unless you plan on rewriting most of the laws which depend on marriage, a state (at any level) not recognizing marriage is not 'workable' or for that matter realistic.
 
chromium said:
of what, being overturned? Good luck proving that one
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has a long history of making unconstitutional rulings. If you are going to start impeaching justices for failing to uphold the Constitution you have to impeach every last person on the bench in SCOTUS.
 
Hatuey said:
Marriage recognition is related to property ownership, child custody, insurance law, banking law, inheritance law etc. Unless you plan on rewriting most of the laws which depend on marriage, a state (at any level) not recognizing marriage is not 'workable' or for that matter realistic.
Click to expand...

So how do people manage all of that stuff when they aren't married? I'm pretty sure people do fine without it.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Those are equal protection cases that allowed access to the legal mechanism in place. They do not assert that the existence of the mechanism itself is a constitutional right.

I don't understand the resistence to this - people talk all the time on this forum about "government getting out of the marriage business" and though many (myself included) have provided reasons for why this is a bad idea, I've never come across claims that it would be illegal or unconstitutional.

As you allude to in that last sentence, there are a myriad of vehicles that could be used to accomplish this, the concept of "civil marriage" is convenient, but hardly necessary, much less constitutionally required.
Click to expand...

Some people say the government should get out of marriage, not all or even most. Many of us argue that the government protects us by recognizing our legal relationships, protects our rights, such as with the FMLA and inheritance, medical decision making laws, and so many other laws regarding spouses, marriage, and legal kin in general. The government should merely just not be arbitrarily deciding to prevent people from getting married based on certain groups' feelings about those people getting married.

There is nothing that is currently provided or that could be provided to the same degree of efficiency (that we know of now) like marriage. Until that happens, marriage must be protected as a right.
 
roguenuke said:
So you keep filing until you find a judge that recognizes your standing if it is really an issue. That is the best you can do. There are certainly some flaws, but that doesn't mean the system should be completely thrown out, particularly when there is no other way being given for how to handle this. Unless you want to just throw out the Constitution altogether and just trust the government to ensure everyone's rights are upheld.

Also, you seem to continue to be going off on tangents here. None of this has anything to do with the specific case we are discussing, which is same sex marriage and whether those who are challenging the same sex marriage bans are having their rights violated by these specific laws. They have standing, evidenced by the fact that their case has been heard and ruled on multiple times now (for each one, at least twice). The fact that other groups who feel that laws are violating their rights have not been found to have standing (or have, but have not had it ruled on in their favor) doesn't matter in any way to this particular case/issue.
Click to expand...

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?
 
roguenuke said:
There is nothing that is currently provided or that could be provided to the same degree of efficiency (that we know of now) like marriage. Until that happens, marriage must be protected as a right.
Click to expand...

Marriage being a right has nothing to do with government contract towards marriage.
 
Henrin said:
The courts never said people have a right to have their marriages recognized by the state.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. They struck down laws that did not recognize these marriages, while saying that they had a right to marriage. How else is that to be taken other than there is a right to marriage?
 
roguenuke said:
There is nothing "sound" or "brilliant" about his argument at all. Striking down the bans to same sex couples getting married does not "fundamentally change" marriage at all, nor does it change any legal definition of marriage itself, unless you consider the legal definition of marriage to be based in how it is restricted, which means you could not legitimately use such a definition as a legal argument for why that restriction should not be in place since the argument itself relies on the restriction being in place for the definition not to be changed. It is circular reasoning, and not legally legitimate.
Click to expand...


We shall see, but I bet dollars to donuts that the USSC chooses to punt this again, and again until some brilliant lawyer finds a way to show the court, that a federal court has the jurisdiction to tell a state how to define its marriage laws. The USSC ruling on Prop 8 never even got close to that elephant, and Sutton points out just how slippery that would become if they even sniffed it. Like I said, he double dog dared the USSC to take up the issue. There was no circular reasoning nor logic involved. Rather, Sutton simply placed the issue and warring parties on full display and explained why, one, the case did not warrant a 14th and due process challenge, two, that states have the right and responsibility to decide important civil liberties for themselves, and three, that homosexuality as a suspect class only met one criterion, and left the other three untarnished. He also took great pains in righting the general misinterpretations of the often used court precedents used by both sides of the debate. Instructing on what was really being decided in Loving, Windsor, Lawrence etc..


The fact you found this opinion circular and found Walkers opinion brilliant doesn't surprise me much.

Tim-
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, they did. They struck down laws that did not recognize these marriages, while saying that they had a right to marriage. How else is that to be taken other than there is a right to marriage?
Click to expand...

Sigh. A right to marriage only implies that people have a right to marry, not that they have a right to government recognition of their marriage.
 
Henrin said:
Marriage being a right has nothing to do with government contract towards marriage.
Click to expand...

It has to do with the government recognizing a relationship existing between two people making those people legal kin, in this case spouses, just as they recognize legal relationships established by birth certificates and adoption records.
 
roguenuke said:
It has to do with the government recognizing a relationship existing between two people making those people legal kin, in this case spouses, just as they recognize legal relationships established by birth certificates and adoption records.
Click to expand...

No, the words "right to marriage" only imply that people have a right to marry. It doesn't deal with any legal protections that come about because of government contract.
 
Hatuey said:
Marriage recognition is related to property ownership, child custody, insurance law, banking law, inheritance law etc. Unless you plan on rewriting most of the laws which depend on marriage, a state (at any level) not recognizing marriage is not 'workable' or for that matter realistic.
Click to expand...

If one obtains a right only by state recognition of a relationship (or by state license) was that ever a right at all? ;)
 
Henrin said:
Sigh, a right to marriage only implies that people have a right to marry, not that they have a right to government recognition of marriage.
Click to expand...

No. If that was it, then the Lovings could have merely lived in the state of Virginia without being prosecuted for claiming they were married and antimiscegenation laws would still be in place, legally enforceable.
 
Hicup said:
We shall see, but I bet dollars to donuts that the USSC chooses to punt this again, and again until some brilliant lawyer finds a way to show the court, that a federal court has the jurisdiction to tell a state how to define its marriage laws. The USSC ruling on Prop 8 never even got close to that elephant, and Sutton points out just how slippery that would become if they even sniffed it. Like I said, he double dog dared the USSC to take up the issue. There was no circular reasoning nor logic involved. Rather, Sutton simply placed the issue and warring parties on full display and explained why, one, the case did not warrant a 14th and due process challenge, two, that states have the right and responsibility to decide important civil liberties for themselves, and three, that homosexuality as a suspect class only met one criterion, and left the other three untarnished. He also took great pains in righting the general misinterpretations of the often used court precedents used by both sides of the debate. Instructing on what was really being decided in Loving, Windsor, Lawrence etc..


The fact you found this opinion circular and found Walkers opinion brilliant doesn't surprise me much.

Tim-
Click to expand...

I highly doubt they can legitimately "punt" this issue now, since the decision made by this court and the others are so opposite.

Sutton uses the same stupid slippery slope fallacy that others try, which is far from brilliant, that striking down restrictions based on sex/gender means that the state couldn't legitimately restrict marriage in any way, which is wrong, and as a Federal Circuit Court judge he should know that.
 
roguenuke said:
No. If that was it, then the Lovings could have merely lived in the state of Virginia without being prosecuted for claiming they were married and antimiscegenation laws would still be in place, legally enforceable.
Click to expand...

What was the wording they used? "Right to marriage". Can people get married and not be legally married? Yes. The wording they used only talks of the act of getting married.

To claim that the government is obligated to be involved in marriage because of the words "right to marriage" has no basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom