• 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!

Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

No, actually in context he is wrong.

well only he can answer that so youll have to wait for him but right now you are GUESSING, as was i admit, but im guessing my guess was right

in context he isnt wrong at all

which part?
let me guess again

you dont like his wording of discrimination? under the assumption he logically and possibly meant ANY/ALL discrimination and wasnt just referring to illegal discrimination which i bet he was? am i right?

hey maybe you are right, maybe he meant any and all, maybe im 100% wrong, it is possible

but again he'll have to answer that
 
well only he can answer that so youll have to wait for him but right now you are GUESSING, as was i admit, but im guessing my guess was right

in context he isnt wrong at all

which part?
let me guess again

you dont like his wording of discrimination? under the assumption he logically and possibly meant ANY/ALL discrimination and wasnt just referring to illegal discrimination which i bet he was? am i right?

hey maybe you are right, maybe he meant any and all, maybe im 100% wrong, it is possible

but again he'll have to answer that

No, he is in fact wrong. Period. The government can and does discriminate. In marriage. It could discriminate against gays if they have a reason that holds up to the appropriate level of scrutiny.
 
No, he is in fact wrong. Period. The government can and does discriminate. In marriage. It could discriminate against gays if they have a reason that holds up to the appropriate level of scrutiny.

just like i said you are assuming he means any and all discrimination and wasn't talking about illegal discrimination which was the context
sorry thats not a fact until he confirms your assumption which i dont think will be case
 
to expand on that, the govt can not only discriminate, it can limit people's rights. However, in order to do so, it must show that the govt has a legitimate interest in doing so and that the discrimination (or limiting of rights) serves that interest

I can't think of a legitimate governmental interest that is served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples.

I can't think of one that I've ever heard an argument that convinced me it could arguably be substantially related to serving an important state interest...as would be the case with gender.

However...

Even though I may not fully agree with them, I at least think there are some reasonable arguments that I've seen in suggesting that its rationally related to serving a legitimate interest.

While I may not always share a persons views or stances, it is possible to objectively put myeslf into the shoes of someone else and attempt to view a situation honestly from a different position than mine.

Given the pyramid scheme system we have implace in this country in terms of welfare benefits, specifically speaking of social security, I think a legitimately plausible argument could be made that "adding to the amount of children born in this country" is a "legitimate" interest of the state. New tax payers are absolutely necessary to continue the current system. I aslo think it could reasonably be argued that providing marriage benefits is rationally related to that since married couples are more likely to have children, and because a same-sex couple is significantly less likely to CREATE a child (as opposed to adopt) due to the simple realities (either logistically, or financially) in doing it there is not a similar rational relationship between providing them marriage benefits.

Ultimately, I think there are some flaws and issues in the argument based on my personal opinions and views, but I also recognize my opinions are views are not objective truth and fact. Stepping outside of my own biases, I can see the argument as one worthy of actual thought and consideration.

An example that actually IS going into my own biases and thoughts is the notion of upholding tradition. I think one can actually argue a legitimate state interest, but absolutely not an "important" one, in upholding and maintaining a foundational "tradition" regarding various things within the country. I believe it's beneficial to a nation for the majority of it's citizenry to have various ideals and traditions that are widely held that help to establish a baseline "oneness" that enhances the tribalism of said citizens which is an absolute benefit to the state. And I do see how disallowing the change of same sex marriage, when being viewed rom a lower teir standard, could be rationally related to serve that. However, what muddies it is that sexual orientation is technically a lower teir classification, but judicial precedence suggests that a bit of extra weight can be required on the part of the state interest in cases involving it...not to the level of needing to be an "important" interest, but needing to be slightly more than simply "legitimate". I personally don't know if I believe that this interest reaches that level, but I do think it's inaccurate to act like the state does not have a legitimate interest at all in facilitating a tribalisic/patriotic mentality within it's populatoin through the maintenance of "traditions".

That's two off the top of my head. I can think of some definitely reasonable arguments regarding legitimate state interest and/or how disallowing same sex marriage rationally relates to it. I generally don't agree with most of them, but I don't think they're generally wholely unreasonable to make.
 
Last edited:
I can't think of one that I've ever heard an argument that convinced me it could arguably be substantially related to serving an important state interest...as would be the case with gender.

However...

Even though I may not fully agree with them, I at least think there are some reasonable arguments that I've seen in suggesting that its rationally related to serving a legitimate interest.

While I may not always share a persons views or stances, it is possible to objectively put myeslf into the shoes of someone else and attempt to view a situation honestly from a different position than mine.

Given the pyramid scheme system we have implace in this country in terms of welfare benefits, specifically speaking of social security, I think a legitimately plausible argument could be made that "adding to the amount of children born in this country" is a "legitimate" interest of the state. New tax payers are absolutely necessary to continue the current system. I aslo think it could reasonably be argued that providing marriage benefits is rationally related to that since married couples are more likely to have children, and because a same-sex couple is significantly less likely to CREATE a child (as opposed to adopt) due to the simple realities (either logistically, or financially) in doing it there is not a similar rational relationship between providing them marriage benefits.

Ultimately, I think there are some flaws and issues in the argument based on my personal opinions and views, but I also recognize my opinions are views are not objective truth and fact. Stepping outside of my own biases, I can see the argument as one worthy of actual thought and consideration.

An example that actually IS going into my own biases and thoughts is the notion of upholding tradition. I think one can actually argue a legitimate state interest, but absolutely not an "important" one, in upholding and maintaining a foundational "tradition" regarding various things within the country. I believe it's beneficial to a nation for the majority of it's citizenry to have various ideals and traditions that are widely held that help to establish a baseline "oneness" that enhances the tribalism of said citizens which is an absolute benefit to the state. And I do see how disallowing the change of same sex marriage, when being viewed rom a lower teir standard, could be rationally related to serve that. However, what muddies it is that sexual orientation is technically a lower teir classification, but judicial precedence suggests that a bit of extra weight can be required on the part of the state interest in cases involving it...not to the level of needing to be an "important" interest, but needing to be slightly more than simply "legitimate". I personally don't know if I believe that this interest reaches that level, but I do think it's inaccurate to act like the state does not have a legitimate interest at all in facilitating a tribalisic/patriotic mentality within it's populatoin through the maintenance of "traditions".

That's two off the top of my head. I can think of some definitely reasonable arguments regarding legitimate state interest and/or how disallowing same sex marriage rationally relates to it. I generally don't agree with most of them, but I don't think they're generally wholely unreasonable to make.

I agree that an argument could be made that the govt has a legitimate interest in ensuring that people have babies. However, limiting marriage does not in any way affect the birth rate of heterosexual couples and I could make the argument that not allowing homosexuals to marry decreases their birth rate (note that homosexuals can and do have children of their own) because it denies them the legal protections marriage offers and some homosexuals may be discouraged from having children in the absence of such protections.

As far as traditions promoting unity, that's a trickier one but I don't see the promotion of tradition as being a legitimate interest seeing as how it goes right up against freedom of belief, etc. It places the govt in the role of enforcing a certain level of conformity which, as far as I know, has no basis in the law. IOW, I do see a certain amount of philosophical coherence there, but it seems to be in contradiction of our legal traditions and practices.
 
just like i said you are assuming he means any and all discrimination and wasn't talking about illegal discrimination which was the context
sorry thats not a fact until he confirms your assumption which i dont think will be case

I am assuming nothing, though you certainly are. I am reading his words, which you certainly do not appear to be doing.
 
I am assuming nothing, though you certainly are. I am reading his words, which you certainly do not appear to be doing.

if you say so but you are ignoring content, like i said until he confirms you are assuming

and yes i am assuming also

the content was about marriage and equal protection which is stopping ILLEGAL discrimination so its logical to assume thats what he mean
IMO its very illogical to assume he mean any and all discrimination when he knows fully well discrimination in general happens all the time
fact remains untill he confirms what he mean all you have is an assumption
 
States do have the ability to apply local regulations to gun ownership, as the licensing laws in New York. I'm not claiming that the Feds can't do anything they want, certainly they can and they prove that daily. I am saying that they are exceeding the constitutional limits, not only in marriage but in many other areas of governance.

In addition, It's my opinion that SCOTUS shouldn't have standing in the upcoming challenge. My opinion won't stop them but I believe that the only way the Federal government should be involved is by amendment.

This isn't "the federal government" getting involved. It is the US constitution, which is binding for the states. SCOTUS has standing because the conflict here is with the US constitution.

Alabama is the entity here that exceeded their constitutional authority.
 
another dodge, thats what i thought
fact remains:
action is NOT needed to be gay
there are no protected minority groups

Take a ****ing hint. I don't deal with jerks.
 
Take a ****ing hint. I don't deal with jerks.

i get it you cant defend you proven wrong claims but that wont stop me from pointing that fact out :shrug:
 
It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

A personal religious belief that they want to impose upon everyone use through the force of law...
 
LMAO you HAVE to be joking . . . .

Ben Carson has ZERO chance of winning, he is in the group with Palin, Bachmann, and Cain as far as changes in the white house

walker has a better chance if he can keep social issues out of his platform, thats just the way its going to be in 2016

He's going to have to include social issues if he wants the Evangelical Christian vote, and he probably will since he is a Baptist. That will bring in the Evangelicals, who refused to vote for a Mormon so stayed home from the polls.
 
:lamo

It's not Adam and Steve, it's Adam and STEVEN.

I used to work with a guy named Bill, but he preferred everyone address him as William. Everybody called him Bill, instead.
 
It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Do you feel all your personal beliefs and convictions should be written into the Constitution?
 
Do you feel all your personal beliefs and convictions should be written into the Constitution?

From what I gather Cruz's bill is focused on states rights. If states stop issuing marriage licenses, what then?
 
God defined marriage when he made Adam and Eve. He sure didn't make Adam and Steve.

Same books that told you this also told you it was a crime to wear clothing made of two different materials, and a crime to plant two different crops next to each other.

As for Adam and Eve, ok, so that first marriage was between a man and a woman. They had some kids. Sweet. Now, about those grandchildren...

Have you checked the tags on your clothes lately?
 
From what I gather Cruz's bill is focused on states rights. If states stop issuing marriage licenses, what then?

A state can refuse to issue marriage licenses to anyone, this satisfies the 14th amendment.

I highly encourage any of these backwards-ass states to try that out and see how the "will of the people" responds.
 
No, that's what I'm saying. SSM is an issue, must like drugs incidentally, that the nation has been softening on for about a decade. And there are serious legal issues raises when you try to extend the 14th amendment to protect legal agreements (which is really what SSM is all about). It opens up the doors for all sorts of other issues like incest and polygamy. I'm not saying that loving someone of the same sex is a choice, but to enter into a legal agreement that says such is. See the difference?

Marriage is more than a legal agreement though. And slippery slope is still a logical fallacy. If it is opened by allowing same sex couples to marry, then it was already opened by allowing opposite sex couples to marry and taking on any marriage case to determine constitutionality of state laws, including Loving, Redhail, and Turner.
 
You're not listening to what I'm saying. The reason it wouldn't apply to women or race is because you are judging them based solely on who they, not what their doing. You feel, and I think many on our side erroneously think so as well, that many of those who oppose SSM do so because they simply hate gays. This isn't some backwater African government that wants to ban any expression or support for homosexuality. What they fear most is what will happen when you start assigning equal rights to legal arrangements and that's all that marriage (straight or gay) is. Once you start assigning those protections to legal arrangements, then you start to move into the territory where stuff like polygamy can be recognized under the law and offered the same treatment as other marriages.

This is actually wrong. Interracial couples, the Lovings specifically, were being judged on their choosing to be with someone of a different race, not on their actual individual races. It is just as much a choice to want a person of a different race to be considered your legal spouse as it is to want someone of the same sex to be your legal spouse.
 
SSM has never been about making sure homosexuals weren't discriminated, but about allowing them access to the same legal protections and goodies that heterosexual couples have. And that's what any marriage, whether it be straight or gay is: a legal agreement between two people that you have to take to the courthouse. And there's no argument that you can give that wouldn't also apply to polygamy, which is why many oppose them. Because really, the only reason we don't allow Polygamy today is because it's a social taboo, as was SSM for the longest time. Once you remove the taboo, you realize there's nothing to stop extending legal protections to them.

And the reason it didn't exist for women or minorities is obvious; you don't go to a courthouse to become black or a woman.

Again, this is wrong. Legally, making more than one person another person's legal spouse causes major legal issues, including which spouse would be the legally "closest" relative? How much legal entitlement does each spouse have to shared assets? How much legal responsibility/rights does each spouse have to any children within the marriage? These are questions that have already been handled with single spouse a piece marriages.
 
Let me sum this up because I'm not going to go over the same points again:

You have a right to be Gay in the US, you do not have the right to Gay Marriage.

There is really no such thing as "gay marriage" legally. There is only "marriage" And so long as two people of the opposite sex can legally make each other spouses, then it violates equal protection guaranteed by the 14th to not allow two people of the same sex to make each other spouses legally. And since marriage is the only method available in the US to make people legal spouses, that means there is a right to same sex couples to marry so long as opposite sex couples can marry.
 
Back
Top Bottom