• 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!

Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

Hopefully the SCOTUS will intelligently realize that a same-sex couple can no more rightly get themselves a marriage license than a man can get a dog license for his own self.

A man isn't a "dog".

A same-sex couple isn't "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

Hopefully the SCOTUS won't succumb to the three-generational brainwashing by gay activists utilizing the liberal media repeating the oxymoronic mantra chants over and over of "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage".

Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule that there is no constitutional right for a same-sex couple to "marry" by definition.

Hopefully they will rule that, by a different name, say "homarriage" or appropriate whatever, that the will of the majority of Americans (70%) to allow public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships will be granted by virtue of requiring states to create such a domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex couples, while still respecting the will of the majority of Americans (63%) that such a statute not be called "marriage", obviously.

But if they rule that on a state by state basis that each state can decide if "marriage" applies to same-sex couples, that would be both as definitive propriety wrong as it can be to let any state "define" erroneously that marriage could include same-sex couples while at the same time allowing same-sex couples to lose their right to recognition in states that don't make that definitive propriety mistake.

Better is for the SCOTUS to recognize that "marriage" is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", but that same-sex couples have an equal right of recognition .. and that a new name, other than marriage, must be coined to associate that recognition for same-sex couples.
 
Redress said:
SOmething important to understand about this: SCOTUS is going to look at 2 issues, based on their scheduling of it. Court will rule on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog



The court has scheduled 90 minutes for the first part, and one hour for the second. This is important since it leaves open a compromise possibility, of saying that states have to recognize marriages from another state, but that they do not have to allow people in their state to get married if they are the same sex. It would still be a victory for SSM, but not as large a victory.
Click to expand...

in order to do the 2nd they would have to upend state sovereignty. even if they do that they basically legalize gay marriage.
 
disneydude said:
I don't see that happening. The SCOTUS is not going to want to muddy the water. The Supreme Court is not going to want to create a situation where people are driving across state laws to get married in one state to have it recognized in their own.
As Scallia pointed out, the court is just waiting for it to be more accepted across the nation, their intentions are clear....the writing is on the wall.
Click to expand...

the question is that it wasn't accepted across the nation in fact most states defined marriage between 1 man and 1 women.
so please tell me how that is being accepted across the nation?

it wasn't accepted across the nation the courts struck them down. if it was accepted across the nation when did the vote happen?
 
Ontologuy said:
Hopefully the SCOTUS will intelligently realize that a same-sex couple can no more rightly get themselves a marriage license than a man can get a dog license for his own self.

A man isn't a "dog".

A same-sex couple isn't "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

Hopefully the SCOTUS won't succumb to the three-generational brainwashing by gay activists utilizing the liberal media repeating the oxymoronic mantra chants over and over of "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage".

Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule that there is no constitutional right for a same-sex couple to "marry" by definition.

Hopefully they will rule that, by a different name, say "homarriage" or appropriate whatever, that the will of the majority of Americans (70%) to allow public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships will be granted by virtue of requiring states to create such a domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex couples, while still respecting the will of the majority of Americans (63%) that such a statute not be called "marriage", obviously.

But if they rule that on a state by state basis that each state can decide if "marriage" applies to same-sex couples, that would be both as definitive propriety wrong as it can be to let any state "define" erroneously that marriage could include same-sex couples while at the same time allowing same-sex couples to lose their right to recognition in states that don't make that definitive propriety mistake.

Better is for the SCOTUS to recognize that "marriage" is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", but that same-sex couples have an equal right of recognition .. and that a new name, other than marriage, must be coined to associate that recognition for same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

Same argument over and over.

The government does not have the constitutional authority to make this distinction of gender in a private contract. Your semantic argument lacks any actual substance, gender is a protected classification and thus any distinction of gender is subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny.

"Definitive propriety" is a nonsensical concept. It implies that definitions of words are immutable, which is obviously false.

The simplest way to put this:
This isn't about "defining marriage." This is about whether or not the United States government has the authority to restrict a legal contract on the basis of gender.

The answer is clearly "no."
 
While some pundits have been asserting that marriage is not an "equal protection" issue, a more authoritative source, the Constitution Annotated, reveals that the equal protection clause is one area in which litigation related to marriage can be addressed. The Constitution Annotated can be found at: https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated
 
ludin said:
the question is that it wasn't accepted across the nation in fact most states defined marriage between 1 man and 1 women.
so please tell me how that is being accepted across the nation?

it wasn't accepted across the nation the courts struck them down. if it was accepted across the nation when did the vote happen?
Click to expand...

Opinions have been changing exponentially across the country for the last five years
 
Redress said:
SOmething important to understand about this: SCOTUS is going to look at 2 issues, based on their scheduling of it. Court will rule on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog

The court has scheduled 90 minutes for the first part, and one hour for the second. This is important since it leaves open a compromise possibility, of saying that states have to recognize marriages from another state, but that they do not have to allow people in their state to get married if they are the same sex. It would still be a victory for SSM, but not as large a victory.
Click to expand...

That was my first thought as well, as soon as I saw this. I wonder if they decided to wait until they had some kind of opportunity to do something like that?
 
disneydude said:
Opinions have been changing exponentially across the country for the last five years
Click to expand...

Well then SSM advocates shouldn't have any problem following the proper way to get reform done in this country and going through the Legislative process state by state, should they?
 
cpwill said:
Well then SSM advocates shouldn't have any problem following the proper way to get reform done in this country and going through the Legislative process state by state, should they?
Click to expand...

LOL....the "proper way" as if the legislative process is the only way? Get real. Study your civics if you want to intelligently participate in a debate.
 
cpwill said:
That was my first thought as well, as soon as I saw this. I wonder if they decided to wait until they had some kind of opportunity to do something like that?
Click to expand...

The fact that they consolidate all of these cases even though not all of them ask both questions suggests to me that this will not be a decision of compromises. They're fishing and I think they're doing it because if same-sex marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment then these bans are going to be fodder for strict scrutiny.

Its-a-trap-what-happens-when-advertisers-dont-meet-twitters-spending-quotas.jpg
 
ludin said:
then put it back on the ballot.
Click to expand...

If you knew anything about the Constitution, you would know that certain things do not need to be put to a popular vote, nor should they.
 
Deuce said:
Same argument over and over.

The government does not have the constitutional authority to make this distinction of gender in a private contract. Your semantic argument lacks any actual substance, gender is a protected classification and thus any distinction of gender is subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny.

"Definitive propriety" is a nonsensical concept. It implies that definitions of words are immutable, which is obviously false.

The simplest way to put this:
This isn't about "defining marriage." This is about whether or not the United States government has the authority to restrict a legal contract on the basis of gender.

The answer is clearly "no."
Click to expand...
As always, the same old same old missing the foundational point is what you succumb to.

The government most certainly has the authority to restrict a legal contract on the basis of failure to quality for the contractual terms.

If the very contract is defined as "a man and a woman as husband and wife", then, absolutely, the government can verify to see if the contract terms are fulfilled before awarding it .. and disallow awarding the contract to two people of the same sex.

Marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", always has, always will, no matter what teeny, tiny pocketed erroneously based anomalies may occur from time to time.

The marriage contract requires two people, and, of opposite sex, and, to be husband and wife.

That's what marriage is; anything else isn't marriage.

The SCOTUS, sadly, will be deciding on who, the people of a state or the federal government, gets the opportunity to "redefine" marriage.

There is no constitutional right to marry.

Thus the SCOTUS simply isn't going to Roe-v-Wade "legislate" one a la "right to privacy" .. and thus put religious organizations in a position to conflict with a U.S. government regulation. Not a chance.

The likely outcome will be that it's back to the states to decide .. not a great decision .. but the lesser of the two evils.
 
Ontologuy said:
There is no constitutional right to marry.
Click to expand...

Note the legal questions the Supreme Court set forth. They didn't ask whether marriage is a Constitutional right. SCOTUS decided that question decades ago so stop pretending it hasn't.

Ontologuy said:
Thus the SCOTUS simply isn't going to Roe-v-Wade "legislate" one a la "right to privacy" .. and thus put religious organizations in a position to conflict with a U.S. government regulation. Not a chance.
Click to expand...

These cases have nothing to do with religious organizations.
 
disneydude said:
If you knew anything about the Constitution, you would know that certain things do not need to be put to a popular vote, nor should they.
Click to expand...

so you are saying that you still can't say that it is widely accepted then which is what you made the claim for.
 
ludin said:
so you are saying that you still can't say that it is widely accepted then which is what you made the claim for.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is now supported by a wide majority of the population. It still doesn't mean that it should ever have to be put to a popular vote. You obviously do not understand the purpose of the US Constitution.
 
disneydude said:
Gay marriage is now supported by a wide majority of the population. It still doesn't mean that it should ever have to be put to a popular vote. You obviously do not understand the purpose of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

so put it up for a vote.
ol I understand it perfectly.

you made that claim that it is widely accepted yet you refuse to test that in a real test. why?
you obviously do not feel that strongly about it then.
 
ludin said:
so put it up for a vote.
ol I understand it perfectly.

you made that claim that it is widely accepted yet you refuse to test that in a real test. why?
you obviously do not feel that strongly about it then.
Click to expand...


Sorry....I'm not going to engage in your juvenile games. Pick up a book and learn something before you attempt to engage in an intelligent conversation. Buh-bye.
 
Redress said:
The court has scheduled 90 minutes for the first part, and one hour for the second. This is important since it leaves open a compromise possibility, of saying that states have to recognize marriages from another state, but that they do not have to allow people in their state to get married if they are the same sex. It would still be a victory for SSM, but not as large a victory.
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if this happened. There's a lot of precedent to protect SSM and no good argument to distinguish the protection of SSM from the protection of interracial marriage. Meanwhile, there is precedent to keep states from recognizing each other's actions, sometimes. So, if there is a halfway result, it'll be the other way around. But that'll effectively mean they just ruled to protect nationwide SSM.

JANFU said:
It appears time and again that the SCOTUS splits along political lines. When splits should be along legal interpretation of the case. Am I off the mark here?
Click to expand...

It's always been political. Why would you expect part of the political organization of this country not to be political? Everything to do with law is political. Where do you think laws come from? However, there's not much politics left do when it comes to same sex rights. I honestly wouldn't be that surprised if it's a 9-0 decision. Pretty much the only dissent left is personal religious objection, and even a loon like Scalia (who has stated that he thinks the devil is real) would see that this sort of argument isn't going to fly. He's going to want to be on the right side of this.

ludin said:
so put it up for a vote.
ol I understand it perfectly.

you made that claim that it is widely accepted yet you refuse to test that in a real test. why?
you obviously do not feel that strongly about it then.
Click to expand...

The vote was done a long time ago. It was done when the 14th amendment was ratified.
 
Napoleon said:
Note the legal questions the Supreme Court set forth. They didn't ask whether marriage is a Constitutional right. SCOTUS decided that question decades ago so stop pretending it hasn't.
Click to expand...
No, the SCOTUS did not decide that "decades ago".

There simply is no constitutional right to marry in violation of marriage's fundamental terms of between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

If you're implying civil rights movements and color of skin, race, etc., that's not the implication of a constitutional right to marry.

Eliminating discrimination on account of race and color in no way violated what marriage is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

And with respect to gender, there currently is no ERA amendment in the constitution, nor is there any gender discrimination in marriage: a male and a female are both allowed to participate.


Napoleon said:
These cases have nothing to do with religious organizations.
Click to expand...
You're missing one of the obvious SCOTUS concerns.

The SCOTUS can't be doing a judicial activist thing on this issue and in any way explicitly/implicitly make marriage between any two people a constitutional right.

If they do so, they'll be in conflict with the majority of Americans .. including some religious institutions.

If then these religious institutions then refuse to marry two people of the same sex, thus making the religious institution itself in violation of federal "law", that would mean that the government could step in and force that church to marry those same-sex people.

The SCOTUS is quite aware of the ramifications of such an erroneous judicial activist mistake.

They'll never go in that direction.
 
Redress said:
Think of it like another license, the drivers license. You can absolutely go to another state and if you meet their requirements get a drivers license that all states will recognize. Then just go back. This is already in place and widely accepted. For SSM it would be largely the same. The states decide who they will marry and under what conditions, but once you meet those conditions and get your marriage license, the other states are required to honor that contract. The potential is there, and yes it would cause some real problems especially at first, but it is entirely possible. I would not say it is the most likely outcome, but it could very well happen.
Click to expand...

Except a marriage license is much more akin to a birth certificate than a drivers license, particularly after it is signed.
 
ludin said:
the question is that it wasn't accepted across the nation in fact most states defined marriage between 1 man and 1 women.
so please tell me how that is being accepted across the nation?

it wasn't accepted across the nation the courts struck them down. if it was accepted across the nation when did the vote happen?
Click to expand...

It wasn't acceptable to larger percentages of voters about a decade ago for most states. Now the majority of the overall population of the US plus majority of voters in many states support same sex couples getting married and oppose the bans. However the legislative process takes much longer to achieve in these situations than using the court system, which is a very valid method of getting rid of laws that violate peoples rights. The livings could have waited too for the vote to favor their relationship type, since it appeared to be heading in that direction. But not being able to get married affects people in the hear and now. There is no evidence that not being able to restrict marriage to just opposite sex couples affects anyone's life measurably at all, let alone in a way that requires them to take time to change opinion.

And national polls, while not perfect, do give us a pretty good view of how the majority feel about a particular issue. Denying this is living in a fantasy.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry....I'm not going to engage in your juvenile games. Pick up a book and learn something before you attempt to engage in an intelligent conversation. Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

talk about childish.

You made the claim that the court was waiting for it to be widely accepted.
I showed that it wasn't widely accepted at all. the only reason it is accepted is that courts have overturned what was the widely accepted decision by the state.

I then said if it was widely accepted then put it on the ballot to allow it.

you refuse. which means you don't think it will pass or that it is widely accepted. if you did then you should have no problem putting it to a vote.
you can't even support your own assertion. when challenged you take your bat and ball and go home.
that is childish.
 
roguenuke said:
It wasn't acceptable to larger percentages of voters about a decade ago for most states. Now the majority of the overall population of the US plus majority of voters in many states support same sex couples getting married and oppose the bans. However the legislative process takes much longer to achieve in these situations than using the court system, which is a very valid method of getting rid of laws that violate peoples rights. The livings could have waited too for the vote to favor their relationship type, since it appeared to be heading in that direction. But not being able to get married affects people in the hear and now. There is no evidence that not being able to restrict marriage to just opposite sex couples affects anyone's life measurably at all, let alone in a way that requires them to take time to change opinion.

And national polls, while not perfect, do give us a pretty good view of how the majority feel about a particular issue. Denying this is living in a fantasy.
Click to expand...

then put it to a vote.
 
ludin said:
talk about childish.

You made the claim that the court was waiting for it to be widely accepted.
I showed that it wasn't widely accepted at all. the only reason it is accepted is that courts have overturned what was the widely accepted decision by the state.

I then said if it was widely accepted then put it on the ballot to allow it.

you refuse. which means you don't think it will pass or that it is widely accepted. if you did then you should have no problem putting it to a vote.
you can't even support your own assertion. when challenged you take your bat and ball and go home.
that is childish.
Click to expand...

The Court is basing it off of current polls about this issue, not past votes, which would not account for many changing factors, most of which favor same sex marriage. No one said the SCOTUS was basing it off of just one thing. Heck likely they are taking into account the reactions, or lack of, of those within states that did have their bans struck down by courts, which would show them what kind of reaction a decision they made to strike down the bans would bring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom