• 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

But that is (currently) not recognized in most of Alabama.

The right to equal protection however is recognized by the US Constitution, and Alabama is part of the USA and bound by that Constitution.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

No one gives them to you.

The most intelligent thing I've heard all day. You should have stopped there.

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.

The whole point of the Declaration is that, no, these rights don't depend on what government you have, not at all. And they don't vary. That is what they are saying. Looks like you think the Founders were wrong.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

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-

This logic would then require all laws that are put into place and not fall under higher scrutiny automatically be constitutional. It fails because this isn't true. Just because a law is voted in does not give it automatic rational basis.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The most intelligent thing I've heard all day. You should have stopped there.

The whole point of the Declaration is that, no, these rights don't depend on what government you have, not at all. And they don't vary. That is what they are saying. Looks like you think the Founders were wrong.

Let me explain something to you, the DOI is a wonderful historical document, but it is not part of our law. And while I have a lot of respect for our founding fathers, they are not infallible. They were wrong.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

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?

So... what is the proof you want again? You keep asking for it, but I'm getting the impression that you have no idea what you are asking for.

Oh, and for maybe the fourth time, forget God in this, it works without religion, if you understand the concept.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Its very telling that the bigots in Alabama used the same argument a few decades ago. Telling but not surprising.

Alabama used the states' right argument to ban marriages before

Certain individuals and groups are so extremist, that when only they are left complaining, we can rest assured they are wrong.

When the deep south weeps for "states' rights" i just remind myself they're the moral inheritors of the plantation class and the KKK (and one day, chief justice moore). It's only astonishing that they believe anyone will be persuaded this time around.

I truly wonder what feeble attempt at denying minority rights and refusing to obey federal court orders will come next. Maybe we should actually orchestrate a "bestiality rights" movement just to watch them cry into their bibles all over again....Actually, never mind, they are quite fond of their horses i hear and would only welcome a court order to allow bestiality

Ok then, who do they hate more than gays? There must be something...

How about we start a pacifist movement? Or a secular movement?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Let me explain something to you, the DOI is a wonderful historical document, but it is not part of our law.

It's known as Organic Law.

And while I have a lot of respect for our founding fathers, they are not infallible. They were wrong.
Now there's one for the ages. Damn, and almost everyone thought they got it right with the Declaration of Independence. When I say a leader has gotten it wrong, it's usually Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc... For you, it's Thomas Jefferson.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

It's known as Organic Law.


Now there's one for the ages. Damn, and almost everyone thought they got it right with the Declaration of Independence. When I say a leader has gotten it wrong, it's usually Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc... For you, it's Thomas Jefferson.

Most of it, the most important parts, they did get right. People should be treated fairly under the law, have rights recognized. They just didn't logically come from any creator. It isn't their fault. At that time, atheism was basically unheard of. The logic of the time concluded that God gave us everything.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Its very telling that the bigots in Alabama used the same argument a few decades ago. Telling but not surprising.

Alabama used the states' right argument to ban marriages before

Remember the argument that gays aren't being deprived of their rights because they are as free to marry a person of the opposite gender as heteros? A similar argument was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws: " anti-miscegenation laws aren't discriminatory because whites are equally prohibited from marrying outside their race as blacks are."
 
Why do you feel the need to call me a bigot?

If you don't support equal rights for all adults, you are a bigot. If that is what you believe, why complain about being accurately labeled?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Most of it, the most important parts, they did get right. People should be treated fairly under the law, have rights recognized. They just didn't logically come from any creator. It isn't their fault. At that time, atheism was basically unheard of. The logic of the time concluded that God gave us everything.

I think it is noteworthy that the Declaration says "Creator" rather than "God." The Creator can be interpreted as one's parents, nature, the planet or the universe.. I take the phrase to mean that as humans we all intrinsically deserve human rights, not that a supernatural being decided to give Americans rights that are not given to everyone.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I think it is noteworthy that the Declaration says "Creator" rather than "God." The Creator can be interpreted as one's parents, nature, the planet or the universe.. I take the phrase to mean that we are all intrinsically entitled to human rights, not that a supernatural being decided to give Americans rights that are not given to everyone.

The entire point though was that people do take that to mean "God" and that this makes the basis for rights religious in nature.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

So... what is the proof you want again? You keep asking for it, but I'm getting the impression that you have no idea what you are asking for.

Oh, and for maybe the fourth time, forget God in this, it works without religion, if you understand the concept.

How do you know that the rights are from god? No recorded instance of god making the decree. Just mankind speaking for their god.

So, if we forget about god, then we have no god given rights, right?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

So... what is the proof you want again? You keep asking for it, but I'm getting the impression that you have no idea what you are asking for.

Oh, and for maybe the fourth time, forget God in this, it works without religion, if you understand the concept.

Tell us ONE RIGHT that you get "organically" for being a living creature on this planet, and tell us how you get it.

There is no right. Nature doesn't give a frack about rights.

Rights come from forming together in a civilization and deciding what rights we will grant one another.

Before civilization? nada. nothing. Nature's a bitch.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The entire point though was that people do take that to mean "God" and that this makes the basis for rights religious in nature.

I suspect that some of the founders believed that and some didn't, and the word Creator was chosen as compromise.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I suspect that some of the founders believed that and some didn't, and the word Creator was chosen as compromise.

It is more about what people are using the DOI for now though, not what the Founders did or didn't think at that time. Others are interpreting it to mean "God" then using that to justify that rights are based in religion and that this should be represented in our laws or that this is why certain rights, such as being able to marry someone of the same sex, aren't really rights because they believe their God would never endorse such a right.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Moderator's Warning:
Any more baiting, flaming, trolling, personal attacks, off-topic posts or repetitive nonsense such as "facts win again" will be met with an infraction and a thread ban.
 
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!
I've tried multiple times to explain this, but you still don't get it. Nothing is playing out as if "any judge or state legislator violating that law is doing so illegally and will be held accountable," but you still don't get it. Even most of the media is now starting to explain this correctly, but you still don't get it.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The right to equal protection however is recognized by the US Constitution, and Alabama is part of the USA and bound by that Constitution.
It's not been recognized yet in all parts of the country... in some it is not recognized by the US Constitution - that is the authoritative interpretation, so are you of the view that no such right truly exists in those parts of the country? Just trying to square your view of rights with that of gay marriage.
 
I've tried multiple times to explain this, but you still don't get it. Nothing is playing out as if "any judge or state legislator violating that law is doing so illegally and will be held accountable," but you still don't get it. Even most of the media is now starting to explain this correctly, but you still don't get it.

Trying to explain something that directly contradicts what i just quoted from the judge's ruling, no i will not get that.
 
Trying to explain something that directly contradicts what i just quoted from the judge's ruling, no i will not get that.
Nobody is trying to contradict the judge's ruling, just your interpretation of who it applies to. And yes, we know you don't get it, no need to remind us.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

It's not been recognized yet in all parts of the country... in some it is not recognized by the US Constitution - that is the authoritative interpretation, so are you of the view that no such right truly exists in those parts of the country? Just trying to square your view of rights with that of gay marriage.

In a few months...likely June, it'll all be academic - as SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of legal same sex marriage nationwide.

In the words of Supreme Court Justice Scalia: "Argle-bargle...it's inevitable"!
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

It's not been recognized yet in all parts of the country... in some it is not recognized by the US Constitution - that is the authoritative interpretation, so are you of the view that no such right truly exists in those parts of the country? Just trying to square your view of rights with that of gay marriage.

The "right" exists, even if it isn't recognized yet by everyone to apply in this situation. Even after the SCOTUS rules on this, almost certainly recognizing the right to same sex marriage throughout the country, there will be people who do not agree.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The "right" exists, even if it isn't recognized yet by everyone to apply in this situation. Even after the SCOTUS rules on this, almost certainly recognizing the right to same sex marriage throughout the country, there will be people who do not agree.
Therefore it's not true that "rights do not truly exist unless they are recognized" - unless you're of the opinion that so long as someone, somewhere recognizes the right it exists (a very strange position).
 
Back
Top Bottom