• 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!

Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

beefheart said:
If you don't have proof from god, that he has granted us our rights, how do you know that our rights come from god?

Makes perfect sense.
Does god only grant rights to Americans?

Not being irreverent, but where is the proof that our rights come from a supreme being?

Very simple question.
Click to expand...

Well, let's cut to the chase. Why do you need proof, and what would this proof be?

And why don't you try and support your position, in some small way, by clarifying where my rights come from? Who is giving me my rights, why do they have them, and do I get to give them rights too?

I guess you disagree with this quote...

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Is that familiar to you? Please go ahead and tell us why these people were wrong.
 
Anthony60 said:
LOL! Gee, what case was she talking about? Nah, no specific case. Please, don't insult us.



It's about as obvious as the nose on her face. Really, then what is she doing?



Wait, Scalia's comment is no different? Then you say it was part of a dissent, which is completely different. He wasn't out doing interviews trying to get support for an unconstitutional action. Furthermore, he describes the current makeup of the court may continue to ignore the Constitution. Excuse me, but that is perfectly permissible.



I guess you haven't been listening. First of all, it's not really a fact, they haven't made a ruling yet. And Scalia, and every American should be stomping their feet when the court ignores their responsibilities and the Constitution.



You know why that set him off? Because Kennedy, a Supreme Court Justice, either is ignorant, just plain stupid, or has decided that he doesn't care what the Constitution says, he's going to ignore his responsibility and just make and ends-justifies-the-means decision.
Click to expand...

LOL...seriously? Kennedy is ignorant or stupid because he points out that State laws are not absolute and must comport with guarantees of the US Constitution? Wow....that's a new one I haven't heard.
As far as the rest of your "contentions"... I have been listening quite well, thank you. The reality is that the Justices who will rule in the majority will do so because they ARE following and enforcing the Constitution, much to the chagrin of the bigots who want to keep state sponsored discrimination alive and well.

Oh...and it pretty much IS over. This decision will most likely be a 6-3 decision, maybe even a 7-2 after the last action of the court signaled that possibility (albeit unlikely). Be prepared, no amount of foot stomping and whining is going to stop it.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Hicup said:
Interesting, and I agree, however, who gets to recognize them, and why do they get to do so? It's hard, given your position on gay rights, to deny that in every state that has voted on gay rights specifically, they have been denied the privilege of equal marriage. Yet, it puzzles me how you reconcile the decision of one, or maybe a three person panel of other opinions, over that of an entire collective people? What we have here in Alabama, and in every other state where SSM is now recognized, when it all comes down to it, is a small percentage of people deciding the fate of a very large number of people that oppose their opinions. Doesn't sound like compromise to me, does it to you? Some say, well the will of the majority should not oppress the will of the minority, however, we both know that this really is a play-on-words for the mostly uneducated among us. We have a foundation ingrained in our society we call the constitution which affords states the right, and responsibility to govern themselves. We have a challenge by a small minority to attain special, otherwise previously unrealized rights that are not specifically enumerated within the context of the constitution. It appears we have contradicting amendments, and a disagreement about the kind of rights being sought and how they apply.

Seems one Federal judge is telling everyone what their rights now are.

Again, how do YOU, Rogue reconcile what you just said quoted above, with this current brush up?

Tim-
Click to expand...

In our country the US Constitution is the. Main law of the land. It limits government from being able to limit what we can do by requiring that laws that are challenged claiming a violation of our rights for the most part have to be shown by the government to further some state interest.

Plus, you need to recheck your information. Four states voted on same sex marriage with different results, three voting it in, and the fourth voting down a state amendment, which allowed the states legislature to enact it.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Taylor said:
So in your view, most gay people in Alabama don't truly have a right to get married, because they're not being recognized?
Click to expand...

They should have the right to get married recognized because they have a right to equal protection of the laws.
 
Thought everyone might be interested in this
NRO Forgets Its Defense Of Scalia Speeches As It Continues To Attack Ginsburg | Blog | Media Matters for America

National Review Online's foremost legal analyst is continuing his colleagues' attacks on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by criticizing her for "speaking publicly on abortion policy," despite previously defending Justice Antonin Scalia's penchant for similar public comments and interviews.

Whelan's condemnation of Ginsburg and her discussion of general "abortion policy" appears inconsistent with his defense of his former boss, Justice Antonin Scalia, who also frequently speaks on contentious public policy. For example, in 2011, when Scalia spoke at a "closed-door session with a group of conservative lawmakers," Whelan balked at the suggestion that Scalia's attendance at a Tea Party function was inappropriate

And Whelan registered no objections to Scalia's "long and interesting" interview with New York magazine in 2013, where Scalia discussed his judicial philosophy and how he would decide a constitutional challenge to a hypothetical "flogging" statute, among other ruminations. When asked about his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas where he wrote that Americans had a right to "protect themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive," Scalia said, "I would write that again. ... Maybe the world is spinning toward a wider acceptance of homosexual rights, and here's Scalia, standing athwart it. At least standing athwart it as a constitutional entitlement." Scalia also addressed his opinion on equal protection and marriage equality, both public policy topics of past and current interest to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Anthony60 said:
I don't see it that way at all. Recognize my rights or not, I still have them, no one can truly take them away. They can oppress them, stifle them, and abridge them, but you can't ever take them. Because you didn't give them to me.
Click to expand...

No one gives them to you. They are a concept humans invented based mainly on what we as a collective view as fair. This is why they are recognized and can be different for different groups of people depending on what governs those people.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
They should have the right to get married recognized because they have a right to equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
But that is (currently) not recognized in most of Alabama.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Gaius46 said:
Actually the reason libertarians like states' rights is because it pushes the decision making closer to those who have to live with the consequences of those decisions and allows people to set up communities that accord with their beliefs and desires - within the bounds of the Constitution.

Additionally we like states rights because it allows for variability and allows us to "vote with our feet" if we happen to not like the society that the laws of the state we're living in create. It essentially fosters competition.
Click to expand...

states rights/powers are awesome by me as long as they stay in that bolded part . . . .
when it comes to banning gay rights they overstepped and now the fed is fixing it, protecting the constitution and individual rights
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Anthony60 said:
Well, let's cut to the chase. Why do you need proof, and what would this proof be?

And why don't you try and support your position, in some small way, by clarifying where my rights come from? Who is giving me my rights, why do they have them, and do I get to give them rights too?

I guess you disagree with this quote...

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Is that familiar to you? Please go ahead and tell us why these people were wrong.
Click to expand...

Why? Because guys like Roy Moore seem to want to structure the government around the so called god given rights.

You really can't address this can you? How do you know that we have rights granted to us by god?

Yeah, it is in the Declaration of Independence. But......proof. It is so easy to say that we have god given rights....but that is just a person saying it.

Get the big guy upstairs to clarify, otherwise it is just words.

BTW, when that was written, were slaves part of that "all men created equal" language?
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
In our country the US Constitution is the. Main law of the land. It limits government from being able to limit what we can do by requiring that laws that are challenged claiming a violation of our rights for the most part have to be shown by the government to further some state interest.

Plus, you need to recheck your information. Four states voted on same sex marriage with different results, three voting it in, and the fourth voting down a state amendment, which allowed the states legislature to enact it.
Click to expand...

Ok, but here's where you run into trouble for your statement. The 14th isn't just some one size fits all amendment, there are degrees of what the government must show. In this case, it has been established, even by Walker that SSM requires rational basis, and it has been shown, regardless of whether you agree, that by states amending their constitutions to place limits on marriage, they are by definition rational on their face. Walker didn't like that, even though he knew it, so what he did was invent gender as the basis for SSM, not sexuality. The lawyers in opposition, and since in many court cases have followed the Prop 8 guide and have argued rational basis. How this reflects upon your statement that people are afforded rights by collective compromise seems to be inconsistent with the way this is all playing out. It doesn't seem like there's any compromising going on, instead we have judges changing laws, laws voted on by the people, not because of tyranny of the will of the people, but because they simply don't like them.

Judges are writing law in America today, and to do so, they're changing the perception of the argument, by ignoring that the petitioners are petitioning not based on their gender, but on the basis of their sexual orientation. By invoking gender (Of which those against Prop 8 did not even argue in any of their briefs but Walker gifted them) Walker created a distinction without a distinction for the sake of raising the level of scrutiny to be considered by the court. That is NOT compromise, it isn't a collective, in fact, what Walker and seemingly every single judge thereafter has done, is effectively ignore the process by which rights are afforded, and or limited in the US, by manipulating the level of review. The real question that needs to be answered is: What is the nature of the SSM debate, and how should it be reviewed, and viewed by not only our judges, but by its citizens, and leaders?


Tim-
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

what Walker found was the state had no compelling interest to ban same sex marriage. There was no argument against it that held up. And thus, equal protection kicks in.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Taylor said:
I wasn't asking about equality as a principle, I asked specifically about the issue at hand, state recognition of marriage.
Click to expand...

One follows from the other
 
Taylor said:
What does an order forcing a single judge working in an executive role in issuing a marriage license to a single couple have to do with showing that "federal court rulings are not binding on state courts?"
Click to expand...

It's what he said. Stop pretending that he didn't say that the federal judge and indeed the supreme court has no authority over the state's marriage laws
 
Taylor said:
My bad, the order only forces a single judge to issue marriage licenses to four couples.
Click to expand...

Could you possibly be more dense

"It is ORDERED and DECLARED that ALA CONST ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA . CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "

Yes, the law is unconstitutional, therefore any judge or state legislator violating that law is doing so illegally and will be held accountable. That's it!
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Hicup said:
Interesting, and I agree, however, who gets to recognize them, and why do they get to do so? It's hard, given your position on gay rights, to deny that in every state that has voted on gay rights specifically, they have been denied the privilege of equal marriage. Yet, it puzzles me how you reconcile the decision of one, or maybe a three person panel of other opinions, over that of an entire collective people? What we have here in Alabama, and in every other state where SSM is now recognized, when it all comes down to it, is a small percentage of people deciding the fate of a very large number of people that oppose their opinions. Doesn't sound like compromise to me, does it to you? Some say, well the will of the majority should not oppress the will of the minority, however, we both know that this really is a play-on-words for the mostly uneducated among us. We have a foundation ingrained in our society we call the constitution which affords states the right, and responsibility to govern themselves. We have a challenge by a small minority to attain special, otherwise previously unrealized rights that are not specifically enumerated within the context of the constitution. It appears we have contradicting amendments, and a disagreement about the kind of rights being sought and how they apply.

Seems one Federal judge is telling everyone what their rights now are.

Again, how do YOU, Rogue reconcile what you just said quoted above, with this current brush up?

Tim-
Click to expand...

Dude like 60% of the country now approves of SSM being legal *nationwide*. Stop hiding behind voter ballots from 2008 or pretending that alabama has more in common with NY than it does with russia. It may be a part of the US, but this is the land of "segregation forever", after all. Jumping to their defense, especially when they violate that constitution, does not impress anyone worth impressing
 
Taylor said:
I think she's reached an age where she no longer gives a shot what others think of her, and no longer feels the need to follow unwritten rules. Case in point - today she admitted and even laughed about being drunk and passing out at Obama's State of the Union speech:

Ginsburg: ‘I Wasn’t 100 Percent Sober’ For State Of The Union Address « CBS DC
Click to expand...

obama is just a politician reading from a teleprompter. I would have to get drunk to sit thru that too.

And scalia whined in "Windsor" that gay marriage is inevitable. How is that any diff?

Ginsburg did all she could to avoid taking these cases, until a split in the 6th forced it. I was highly critical of her for that. But now that it has been forced, the outcome is indeed inevitable, and THAT is what you object to, not that she speaks of it (as scalia also did)
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

clownboy said:
That simply translates out to, "I want my way and I don't care how I get it". Thankfully, we don't govern ourselves like that.
Click to expand...

I actually have a hard time deciding which i would enjoy more is all - the voters state by state overturning the very bans they created and your side desperately holds on a pedestal as a legitimizing force for bigotry, or the "activist judges" telling all the bigots to go **** themselves. Whichever enrages them more, that is what i want, so you tell me
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Hard Truth said:
To paraphrase Ataturk, rights are taken, not given.

To be more clear, the reality is that people give up rights in exchange for the safety and convenience of being part of a community. An individual alone in the wild has all of his/her rights, and most of us could choose to leave society and regain that freedom. Once you join a community you have to give up some freedoms. To regain that freedom requires a struggle.
Click to expand...

Unless you're taken in chains from another continent and brought against your will, if lucky enough to even survive the trip. That doesn't strike me as a deliberate act of joining a community and giving up freedoms. It's a cherished tradition in alabama though

With very few exceptions, today we're all born into a community, a large function of which is to *create* and preserve rights that facilitate cooperative living. Many of the rights taken for granted by hetero couples are not available, without being part of a community. You won't find them in the wild. You could go live out in the michigan wilderness, sure. Cross the border into canada, fall in love with a same sex partner, and try to return to your wilderness...he will be an illegal immigrant just the same

We shouldn't have to go live in the sticks anyway
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

chromium said:
Dude like 60% of the country now approves of SSM being legal *nationwide*. Stop hiding behind voter ballots from 2008 or pretending that alabama has more in common with NY than it does with russia. It may be a part of the US, but this is the land of "segregation forever", after all. Jumping to their defense, especially when they violate that constitution, does not impress anyone worth impressing
Click to expand...

Yeah people keep saying that, but yet other than the 4 states where it was voted on, that never seems to come to fruition. ;)

Tim-
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Deuce said:
Clarification:
The issue is settled. What ain't over is the temper tantrum.
Click to expand...

I know it was long, but did you read it? Let me know I'll check back later, playing BF4 ATM. :)

Tim-
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Hicup said:
Yeah people keep saying that, but yet other than the 4 states where it was voted on, that never seems to come to fruition. ;)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Because there is no push to do so. How stupid would it be to attack bigot voters and tyranny of the majority and then turn to the very source of the oppression as a solution? So we use the courts instead to correct this injustice. That certainly does not mean that ballots in 2016 would turn out anywhere near the same as in 2008.

I'll admit though i do revel in seeing the hysterics over "activist judges", so if you want to indulge me by willfully ignoring the clear majority support of SSM, go right ahead
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom