• 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

ludin said:
you have yet to rebuttal mine. you and Disney both made the claim that it is such widely accepted, but when put to the challenge up if you refuse to accept it.
and go off on some other tangent that has nothing to do with your original argument.

if it is widely accepted then put it to a vote period end of story.
back up your claim with something other than I say so.

if you think it is so widely accept then this shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Everyone has answered you appropriately. Same sex marriage is widely accepted; however, in states like Texas, it isn't. How long should gay/lesbian couples who live in Texas have to wait to get their constitutional rights by ballot?

Constitutional rights are decided by courts, not by ballot. Even if 100% Of the people in the US voted for - or against - SSM, it's meaningless except as a measure of acceptance. The SCOTUS, while considering the current climate around the issue, should be guided by the constitution. They have declared marriage a right in the case of prisoners; the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection; ergo SSM should be legal throughout the US, regardless of what voters in one area think about it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Unless done by passing an amendment to it. ;)
Click to expand...


Many attempts were made to amend the United States Constitution to make Civil Marriage only a man and a woman...


...They all failed.



>>>>
 
Deuce said:
I don't think SCOTUS really has an avenue to say same-sex marriage bans are constitutional in specific cases but not in others. Declaring that equal protection only applies to specific people or regions would be...odd.
Click to expand...
It's a bit more complicated than that. While some states banned SSM with a mere bill, others have a constitutional amendment. This is less about SSM and more about the conditions in which the Fed can audit a state's very constitution.
 
Jerry said:
5/4 split granting SSM nation wide.

or

6/3 giving an isolated ruling in favor of ssm that only apples to the specific cases before the court.
Click to expand...

Nah....6-3 for a number of reasons....two of which are these:

Kennedy has been a strong advocate for the expansion of the recognition of gay rights. He is soon to retire and will not want to tarnish his record.

And Roberts....is very protective of his legacy. He will not want to be remembered as being on the wrong side of history. The only hold-outs with me the unholy trinty of Scalia, Thomas and Alito. I guarantee this one. The writing is on the wall.
 
disneydude said:
Nah....6-3 for a number of reasons....two of which are these:

Kennedy has been a strong advocate for the expansion of the recognition of gay rights. He is soon to retire and will not want to tarnish his record.

And Roberts....is very protective of his legacy. He will not want to be remembered as being on the wrong side of history. The only hold-outs with me the unholy trinty of Scalia, Thomas and Alito. I guarantee this one. The writing is on the wall.
Click to expand...
Politics trumps ideology every time.
 
Jerry said:
Politics trumps ideology every time.
Click to expand...

True to a certain degree....but this time the law is on the right side. Even the staunchest of anti-gay marriage advocates recognize that they have a difficult argument trying to explain a legitimate governmental interest in denying gays to marry. This is why they have reverted back to their procreation argument which is not a very strong one....but it is all they really have.
 
disneydude said:
Nah....6-3 for a number of reasons....two of which are these:

Kennedy has been a strong advocate for the expansion of the recognition of gay rights. He is soon to retire and will not want to tarnish his record.

And Roberts....is very protective of his legacy. He will not want to be remembered as being on the wrong side of history. The only hold-outs with me the unholy trinty of Scalia, Thomas and Alito. I guarantee this one. The writing is on the wall.
Click to expand...

Even Scalia knows he's going to lose; thus his comments over the last couple years about how every related decision was moving us closer to SSM.

Would be nice to get a 9-0 decision for SSM though. Ok, in my dreams!
 
paddymcdougall said:
Even Scalia knows he's going to lose; thus his comments over the last couple years about how every related decision was moving us closer to SSM.

Would be nice to get a 9-0 decision for SSM though. Ok, in my dreams!
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. 9-0 would be nice but with the unholy trinity.....that is never going to happen. It will however be a strong 6-3. Roberts cares too much about his legacy.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Everyone has answered you appropriately. Same sex marriage is widely accepted; however, in states like Texas, it isn't. How long should gay/lesbian couples who live in Texas have to wait to get their constitutional rights by ballot?
Click to expand...
Your implied perspective is that the majority of Americans favor the oxymoronic SSM.

They don't -- that's a fact.

Check the facts here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/184311-vote-here-gay-same-sex-unions.html#post1062823882.
 
Jerry said:
It's a bit more complicated than that. While some states banned SSM with a mere bill, others have a constitutional amendment. This is less about SSM and more about the conditions in which the Fed can audit a state's very constitution.
Click to expand...

If a state constitution conflicts with the US constitution, it gets overturned. Ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment means any state constitution banning same-sex marriage will be overturned.
 
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...

This would be the most pointless thing ever and for what, so the states can claim independence, even though anyone can drive 100 miles out of state to get a SSM and force the state they live in to honor it? Talk about a phony compromise. I get that bigots are dense but who within a year would still believe this is not a total victory?
 
Ontologuy said:
The government most certainly has the authority to restrict a legal contract on the basis of failure to quality for the contractual terms.
Click to expand...
Except that in this case there are none. The qualifying factors are being of age and acting on free will.

If the very contract is defined as "a man and a woman as husband and wife"
Click to expand...
Provide the evidence that it is so from a legal perspective.

There is no constitutional right to marry.
Click to expand...
This is the same stupid argument used by those ignorant of what constitutional rights are or how they work. I bet that you would be up in arms if your state decided that you required a special pass or permission to travel anywhere, because traveling is not a constitutional right either is we are to follow your failed logic.

Thus the SCOTUS simply isn't going to Roe-v-Wade "legislate"
Click to expand...
More ignorant talking points, as SCOTUS has not "legislated" anything in Row but protected rights.
 
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...
If you actually understood the real issue you would not be insisting to your meaningless test. By that failed line of thinking we should also subject a whole host of issues to popular vote and as a result see our rights evaporate. Interracial marriage was not popular either yet no one gives it a second thoughts today, well other than remaining bigots and some will always exist. Fact is that at times mob rule is not what is best for society, history more than amply documents that, but freedom is always good.
 
Ontologuy said:
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.
Click to expand...


oh, so you'd rather a homosexual would marry the opposite sex, perhaps your daughter? Got it



Ontologuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounding just like the mormon propaganda leading up to prop 8. SSM is legal in 36 states and i defy you to name a single case where a church was forced to marry gay couples. In MA, it's been almost a decade.

Ontologuy said:
They'll never go in that direction.
Click to expand...

gonna sig this when it happens, just heads up
 
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...

Kenny was a Reagan appointee (much to dismay of neo cons everywhere), Roberts was a Bush II (tried to amend constitution to *ban* SSM), Ginsburg and Breyer under Clinton (despite being dem, signed in "DOMA" and "DADT"), and they will all almost certainly vote to establish SSM as a definite right. Does that sound political? These are lifetime appointments, so therein lies the diff from standard politics.
 
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...

You want us to turn for a solution to the same cesspool of uneducated theocrats who put us in this position in the first place? Not on your life
 
Jerry said:
It's a bit more complicated than that. While some states banned SSM with a mere bill, others have a constitutional amendment. This is less about SSM and more about the conditions in which the Fed can audit a state's very constitution.
Click to expand...

The condition is simple: when the state constitutions violate the federal constitution. If they don't like it, they can stop passing unconstitutional laws. This shouldn't have been hard to foresee, even in 2004. That's why if it were up to me, these states would have to pay massive reparations
 
chromium said:
Kenny was a Reagan appointee (much to dismay of neo cons everywhere), Roberts was a Bush II (tried to amend constitution to *ban* SSM), Ginsburg and Breyer under Clinton (despite being dem, signed in "DOMA" and "DADT"), and they will all almost certainly vote to establish SSM as a definite right. Does that sound political? These are lifetime appointments, so therein lies the diff from standard politics.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information on who appointed who.
We have some crazy rulings as well. Lifetime appts here as well.
They do not go thru the meat grinder that the Senate puts them thru in the US though.
Court is not as activist as it once was in some cases.
But SSM legalization is a slam dunk - If you believe in equal rights for all US citizens, then it is.
If you support desperation of Church and State, then it is again.
People on this should eave their religious beliefs at the door.
Me I am just a plain old Christian. Never did find where Jesus condemned Homosexuality.
 
wolfsgirl said:
You might want to recheck those polls. A lot has changed since 2012.

Civil Rights
Click to expand...
The correct question isn't the polemic dualism Y/N on the oxymoronic "gay marriage".

The correct question is about legal recognition under 1) "marriage", 2) a term OTHER THAN "marriage", and 3) no recognition.

That's the correct polling question to get an accurate take on where Americans stand.

When this correct polling is done, the most recent one in your link is found on page two of your link (go to the bottom of page one, click on page two, then scan for the word "civil" until you come to the first poll, dated May 11-13 of 2012.

There isn't a more current poll on this correct polling question than this one.

The results: 38% recognition under the term "marriage", 24% recognition under a term OTHER THAN marriage, and 33% no legal recognition (regardless of term). 5% were unsure, essentially whether to vote with the 24% or the 33%.

Regardless, by this poll, and I've seen other current polls where it's 37%, 33%, and 30%, the great majority -- 62-63 percent, closing in on almost two thirds of the country -- DO NOT favor "recognition under the term marriage".

That's the most current on the proper polling question.

So unless you can present a more current poll on the proper polling question, your response is erroneous.
 
chromium said:
The condition is simple: when the state constitutions violate the federal constitution.
Click to expand...
The federal constitution says marriage is left to the state to regulate, per the 10th amendment. So no its not as easy as you think, not at sll, otherwise it would never have made it to SCOTUS.
 
Ontologuy said:
The correct question isn't the polemic dualism Y/N on the oxymoronic "gay marriage".

The correct question is about legal recognition under 1) "marriage", 2) a term OTHER THAN "marriage", and 3) no recognition.

That's the correct polling question to get an accurate take on where Americans stand.

When this correct polling is done, the most recent one in your link is found on page two of your link (go to the bottom of page one, click on page two, then scan for the word "civil" until you come to the first poll, dated May 11-13 of 2012.

There isn't a more current poll on this correct polling question than this one.

The results: 38% recognition under the term "marriage", 24% recognition under a term OTHER THAN marriage, and 33% no legal recognition (regardless of term). 5% were unsure, essentially whether to vote with the 24% or the 33%.

Regardless, by this poll, and I've seen other current polls where it's 37%, 33%, and 30%, the great majority -- 62-63 percent, closing in on almost two thirds of the country -- DO NOT favor "recognition under the term marriage".

That's the most current on the proper polling question.

So unless you can present a more current poll on the proper polling question, your response is erroneous.
Click to expand...

You can talk up the "correct" question all you like, but SCOTUS is discussing different questions than you.

Polls are irrelevant. The constitution supersedes opinion polls.
 
Ontologuy said:
The correct question isn't the polemic dualism Y/N on the oxymoronic "gay marriage".

The correct question is about legal recognition under 1) "marriage", 2) a term OTHER THAN "marriage", and 3) no recognition.

That's the correct polling question to get an accurate take on where Americans stand.

When this correct polling is done, the most recent one in your link is found on page two of your link (go to the bottom of page one, click on page two, then scan for the word "civil" until you come to the first poll, dated May 11-13 of 2012.

There isn't a more current poll on this correct polling question than this one.

The results: 38% recognition under the term "marriage", 24% recognition under a term OTHER THAN marriage, and 33% no legal recognition (regardless of term). 5% were unsure, essentially whether to vote with the 24% or the 33%.

Regardless, by this poll, and I've seen other current polls where it's 37%, 33%, and 30%, the great majority -- 62-63 percent, closing in on almost two thirds of the country -- DO NOT favor "recognition under the term marriage".

That's the most current on the proper polling question.

So unless you can present a more current poll on the proper polling question, your response is erroneous.
Click to expand...

No one polls with those questions anymore, since the majority of states already have SSM. It is now a yes or no question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom