• 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

It has not been decided that not changing the definition of marriage violates the equal protection clause.

There is no set definition of marriage. In fact freedom of speech gives every citizen the right to define their marriages as they see fit. Legally, marriage is defined in its function and legal purpose, not in who can or cannot enter into it.
 
There is no set definition of marriage. In fact freedom of speech gives every citizen the right to define their marriages as they see fit. Legally, marriage is defined in its function and legal purpose, not in who can or cannot enter into it.

You are getting kind of out of the mainstream there.
 
You are getting kind of out of the mainstream there.

No just pointing out the legal aspects of this case. Marriage is a legal recognition/set up of kinship, the legal relationship of spouses. There is nothing religious about legal marriage and also nothing to so with children/procreation. Tradition doesn't mean jack to the legal arguments.
 
It is part of case law, which is a major part of our laws, whether you agree with it or not.

Ah, so it is not in there. In that case, it really does not exist relevant to the Supreme Court. Just some lower court ruling that means nothing to the upcoming case.
 
No just pointing out the legal aspects of this case. Marriage is a legal recognition/set up of kinship, the legal relationship of spouses. There is nothing religious about legal marriage and also nothing to so with children/procreation. Tradition doesn't mean jack to the legal arguments.
But, marriage is between a man and a woman, or this would not be going before the Supreme Court. Idiots that they may be.
 
Ah, so it is not in there. In that case, it really does not exist relevant to the Supreme Court. Just some lower court ruling that means nothing to the upcoming case.

You keep telling yourself that but it simply isn't how the SCOTUS works. Levels of scrutiny does absolutely exist to the Court and whining from those who want to use state laws to oppress others won't change that fact.
 
But, marriage is between a man and a woman, or this would not be going before the Supreme Court. Idiots that they may be.

Nope, it isn't, at least not only. Most of the US allows same sex couples to enter into the exact same marriages opposite sex couples enter into.
 
It's not. But in case you care, adult incest is already legal in New Jersey. Apparently they can't marry, but they can have sex. You [Holder] may want to get on the bandwagon to allow them to get married. Not my area of interest.
I'm not the one saying marriage should be open for everyone. I suggest you actually read your links before posting them.
 
Yes, the people, not just the states. And the 14th makes it clear that the states must show at least some state interest is furthered in treating people differently.
The 14th Amendment says no such thing. Have you even read it?

It amazes me that people can think they have a firm grasp on the issue when they don't even know what their refrences actualy say.
 
You keep telling yourself that but it simply isn't how the SCOTUS works. Levels of scrutiny does absolutely exist to the Court and whining from those who want to use state laws to oppress others won't change that fact.

Just pointing out that a lower court ruling has an insignificant impact on SC rulings compared to something written in the Constitution, which this is not. You seem to be arguing from emotion rather than fact.
 
The 14th Amendment says no such thing. Have you even read it?

It amazes me that people can think they have a firm grasp on the issue when they don't even know what their refrences actualy say.

It does guarantee equal protection of the laws for sure and the Supreme Court has ruled several times on this using scrutiny, which is what showing a legitimate (at least) state interest involves.

While it is true that the 14th doesn't state clearly how to do this, without levels of scrutiny, it would be practically impossible to make any laws that didn't treat people differently.
 
Just pointing out that a lower court ruling has an insignificant impact on SC rulings compared to something written in the Constitution, which this is not. You seem to be arguing from emotion rather than fact.

My argument with you has not had anything to do with lower court rulings, but rather the SC's view and precedent it has set pertaining to the EPC and levels of scrutiny.
 
My argument with you has not had anything to do with lower court rulings, but rather the SC's view and precedent it has set pertaining to the EPC and levels of scrutiny.

Well, the SC has had a history of finding things in the Constitution that simply are not there, so things are looking good for you, but bad for the poor old Constitution, and those it protects. Let's face it, the 14th amendment was enacted to give former slaves the rights of full fledged Americans, and had nothing to do with gay marriage.
 
Here's to hoping that the Supreme Court will do it's actual job and follow the Constitution. They've been pretty awful so far, and there is not much hope.

LOL.....you won't like the result when they do. Let me guess...it will go something like this: Blah blah blah...activist judges....blah blah.
 
Well, the SC has had a history of finding things in the Constitution that simply are not there, so things are looking good for you, but bad for the poor old Constitution, and those it protects. Let's face it, the 14th amendment was enacted to give former slaves the rights of full fledged Americans, and had nothing to do with gay marriage.

Things that have been mostly good for the people and individual rights more often than against them. And since the majority seems to support a good amount of their interpretations, then too bad for those who prefer state rights triumph over individual rights.

I always find it funny how so many antigay and/or state rights people are so opposed to an interpretation of the Constitution that grants individuals more rights. It just proves that those people want to live in tyrannies ruled by a majority, as long as they are part of the majority.
 
LOL.....you won't like the result when they do. Let me guess...it will go something like this: Blah blah blah...activist judges....blah blah.

It's always great when someone can make a reasonable, well thought out response. Maybe one day.
 
And same-sex marriage bans most definitely do not pass intermediate or strict constitutional scrutiny. Hell, even the rational basis test is sketchy at best.
Your say-so means little to nothing. Demonstrate it, as the Supreme Court will have to deminstrate it.
 
It does guarantee equal protection of the laws for sure and the Supreme Court has ruled several times on this using scrutiny, which is what showing a legitimate (at least) state interest involves.

While it is true that the 14th doesn't state clearly how to do this, without levels of scrutiny, it would be practically impossible to make any laws that didn't treat people differently.
And as long as everyone is under the same restrictions, the aplication is equal. Even Loving conceded that point.

If the state banned anyone under 30 from marrying, that's equal. If the state required everyone to take a blood test and reveal the results to their partner before the wedding, that's equal. If the state banned more than one marriage in a lifetime, that's equal. If the state required everyone to complete pre-marital counseling at their own experience, that's equal. If the state banned all marriage completely, that's equal.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea how the court would not eliminate the double standard for same sex couples. They clearly have been denied equal rights under the law. Individuals' religious beliefs should not trump fair and equitable treatment under the law. I find it extremely appalling that too many people have not even recieved a basic civics education in our country that we can have a debate about this issue using the constructs of the constitution. Don't waive the flag and talk about your love of our military men and women - when you don't understand the document that they swear to protect.
 
And as long as everyone is under the same restrictions, the aplication is equal. Even Loving conceded that point.

If the state banned anyone under 30 from marrying, that's equal. If the state required everyone to take a blood test and reveal the results to their partner before the wedding, that's equal. If the state banned more than one marriage in a lifetime, that's equal. If the state required everyone to complete pre-marital counseling at their own experience, that's equal. If the state banned all marriage completely, that's equal.

Everyone isn't under the same restrictions though. I cannot marry a woman but you can. You cannot marry a man but I can. And that is only because of our genders. That is different restrictions based on gender/sex.
 
Everyone isn't under the same restrictions though. I cannot marry a woman but you can. You cannot marry a man but I can. And that is only because of our genders. That is different restrictions based on gender/sex.
Everyone has the ability to marry the opposit sex, and no one can marry the same sex. Equal aplication to the sexes already exists.
 
Everyone has the ability to marry the opposit sex, and no one can marry the same sex. Equal aplication to the sexes already exists.

That is denial by trying to adapt the wording to make it seem that everyone has the same restrictions on them. You are wrong. I've shown you that everyone does not have the same restrictions on them. This is like saying that if only men can be doctors and women can be lawyers, then they are facing the same restrictions of the law because each is allowed to be in a profession the other can't, making it fair.
 
That is denial by trying to adapt the wording to make it seem that everyone has the same restrictions on them. You are wrong. I've shown you that everyone does not have the same restrictions on them. This is like saying that if only men can be doctors and women can be lawyers, then they are facing the same restrictions of the law because each is allowed to be in a profession the other can't, making it fair.
Both sexes have the same restrictions. Both sexes have the same allowances. Equality between the sexes already exists.

The truth is SSM isn't about the sexes, it's about sexual orientation, and there is not equality between the sexual orientations. Heteros can marry whom they are naturally attracted too but gays cannot. That's inequality, that's where the 14th Amendment comes in. Why can't pro-SSM just be honest about that for a change?
 
Back
Top Bottom