• 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

Look at historical context for *why* it excluded gender. The same congress that voted in the 13th (abolishing slavery) did so with the agreement it would not lead to votes for women. The 14th says all *citizens* and does not mention race and it can be argued section 2 deals with voting specifically and refers to "male" only because women could not as of yet vote. The 14th would never have passed if it included votes for women, sadly

Further, section 5 seems to foresee challenges to equal protection for classes not even thought of at the time by establishing authority to enforce the amendment.

I see nothing in the 14th that designates race as the only class to be granted equal protection, and that's certainly not becoming of a "free country" to withhold equal protection from people for ANY reason

I am looking at historical context it is you that "envision" future and different interpretations. As you noted, section 5 allows congress, not the SCOTUS or the states, can pass additional laws, based on the 14th amendment.
 
Hmm... like an all male draft for a unisex military? The idea that any (every?) law must treat all folks equally is great on paper but then why the need for the 15th and 19th amendment if the 14th "really" covers that ground?

In the past, I've explained to you repeatedly that the equal protection clause does not apply to any conceivable difference. Would you like me to explain this to you again?
 
I am looking at historical context it is you that "envision" future and different interpretations. As you noted, section 5 allows congress, not the SCOTUS or the states, can pass additional laws, based on the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS never needed their permission to enforce the amendment, seeing as that's the court's specific function. Why would congress need to craft legislation for equal protection? Because of widespread violations, like jim crow south
 
I am looking at historical context it is you that "envision" future and different interpretations. As you noted, section 5 allows congress, not the SCOTUS or the states, can pass additional laws, based on the 14th amendment.

Under your interpretation, Loving v. Virginia was an incorrect decision.
 
Kids?

The only victims are children. If there's no children, live and learn!

Tim-

Yes when the father pays 450 a month for child support for 4 children, while the mother is paying for food, rent, electricity, water, insurance (since despite being ordered to provide it, dad doesn't), car, clothes, school, etc. And dad was the one to file for divorce. All those things generally cost more than 900 a month when talking for 4 children.

This all assumes he actually pays when he's supposed to too.
 
Sorry, but the purpose of government recognized marriage has nothing to do with enforcing private contracts.

Without state recognition of a contract, it effectively doesn't exist as there would be no enforcement mechanism.

As people wish to enter into such a contract, the recognition, facilitation and enforcement of the contract is legitimate state business.
 
Under your interpretation, Loving v. Virginia was an incorrect decision.

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.
 
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 should read the 14th amendment again.
 
Without state recognition of a contract, it effectively doesn't exist as there would be no enforcement mechanism.

As people wish to enter into such a contract, the recognition, facilitation and enforcement of the contract is legitimate state business.

Yes, yes, so anyway, the purpose of government recognized marriage has nothing to do with enforcing private contracts because we are not dealing with a private contract. We are dealing with something that is entirely the creation of law and under the complete control of the state.
 
Yes, yes, so anyway, the purpose of government recognized marriage has nothing to do with enforcing private contracts because we are not dealing with a private contract. We are dealing with something that is entirely the creation of law and under the complete control of the state.

It's a voluntary private contract with terms according to the constituents. You've never heard of a pre-nup?

When private citizens wish to enter into a legally binding contract, it is state business to see to the facilitation and enforcement of that contract.
 
It's a voluntary private contract with terms according to the constituents. You've never heard of a pre-nup?

When private citizens wish to enter into a legally binding contract, it is state business to see to the facilitation and enforcement of that contract.

The contract we speak of is a government contract as it is crafted by the government with terms that are up to change whenever the government desires it.
 
The contract we speak of is a government contract as it is crafted by the government with terms that are up to change whenever the government desires it.

No, the terms are set by a pre-nup or one is welcome to accept default terms. No terms are forced upon anyone.
 
No, the terms are set by a pre-nup or one is welcome to accept default terms. No terms are forced upon anyone.

Really?

So can someone waive their right to alimony in a pre-up?
Can a pre-nup include child support or child custody issues?
 
Really?

So can someone waive their right to alimony in a pre-up?
Can a pre-nup include child support or child custody issues?

Yes..
 

Wrong on both accounts.

You can not waive your alimony rights with the use of a pre-nup nor can child support or child custody issues be included in a pre-nup.
 
Wrong on both accounts.

You can not waive your alimony rights with the use of a pre-nup nor can child support or child custody issues be included in a pre-nup.

Remember that your state has laws that govern who gets what in a divorce. With a prenup you can bypass a lot of these laws by agreeing yourselves on who will get what. While some states prohibit it, other states even allow you to decide whether you will be entitled to alimony or not. Check your state's law or with a family law attorney to clarify this issue when drafting the prenuptial agreement.
What Can and Cannot be Included in Prenuptial Agreements - FindLaw

Child custody is up to the court. I suggest making arrangements with ones spouse. If ones spouse turns out to be a monster and screws one over, then one has poor judgement and gets what one deserves.
 
Your link says most states don't allow people to include the issues I brought up, so I suppose its up to you to find the exception to the rule.

Some have poor judgement in choosing a partner and poor judgement in establishing a pre-nup. But hey, stupid people suffer... that's life. No one forces anyone to enter a marriage contract.
 
Some have poor judgement in choosing a partner and poor judgement in establishing a pre-nup. But hey, stupid people suffer... that's life. No one forces anyone to enter a marriage contract.

The only state that I'm aware of that allows you to waive your alimony rights is California, and well, that is the last place I want to be. Being around that many liberals would be a living hell for me. :mrgreen:
 
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".

Then it doesn't have anything to do with civil rights or any sort of discrimination. It's simply more government over-reach.
 
It's a legally binding contract and facilitating such is a legitimate government function. I don't know what else to tell you.

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?
 
Then it doesn't have anything to do with civil rights or any sort of discrimination. It's simply more government over-reach.

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.
 
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?

It serves society by providing enforcement for a desired contract. If that contract is not recognized, we have no enforcement capability. In order for us to enjoy the contract, both in the form of the legal status of the relationship and in the form of dissolution agreements, it must be recognized.

It serves the state by serving the will of the people.
 
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?


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


>>>>
 
Last edited:
That isn't answering the question. There are real reasons for wills, and powers of attorney and birth certificates, but what is the state's purpose in acknowledging a marriage?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom