• 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

bubbabgone said:
You've summed up what I've been saying except with your last line you've leaped past the USSC ruling.
I, too, suggested that they will rule that way but it's still up to them and it's not quite a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not at all what you have been saying. Quite the opposite.
 
bubbabgone said:
You've summed up what I've been saying except with your last line you've leaped past the USSC ruling.
I, too, suggested that they will rule that way but it's still up to them and it's not quite a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

Should've made it clearer I guess...

The last line was not a statement of fact or suggesting what the USSC WILL rule, but rather my opinion regarding the issue. I've yet to find anyone who has been able to accurately put forth an explanation to me how the current marriage laws in this country provide equal protection under the law for both genders, taking into consideration judicial precedence regarding the EPC and the legitimacy of "separate but equal" laws.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually it absolutely does. The problem is that people have so desperately wanted to take the word "bigot" and make it a universally insulting term, specifically so they can make themselves feel superior by having a special term to attack those they dislike, that they simply want to redefine the word to exclude themselves.

Yes, being intolerant of bigotry is being bigoted towards bigotry. Trying to suggest it doesn't make one a bigot it laughable. The far more reasonable and practical argument is to simply state that being a bigot is not inherently a "bad" thing, but rather it's a question of WHAT one is being bigoted against that is the problem. The issue for people, and why they don't do that, is because that indicates that "bigot" as a BAD thing is a "subjective" notion not an "objective" one, and they often badly want it to be OBJECTIVE to suit their elitist attitudes.

Yes, it's absolutely possible to be a "bigot" towards "bigotry". And the reality is often times what is portrayed as simply "bigotry towards bigotry" is actually "bigotry towards a wide variety of things, including benign things, but presented in a way as to make it appear that it's only really being done towards Bigotry".
Click to expand...


This is similar to the popular talking point that liberals somehow are supposed to be tolerant of everything, which I know of no liberal actually claiming it. Liberals tend to talk about tolerance in terms of what people are, racially, orientationwise, religiously, and so on. I know of no liberal that thinks we need to be tolerant of every action or belief of any one. And so I m frequently called intolerant when I complain about actions people have taken, which I embrace. I am intolerant of my actions and beliefs, and make no claims otherwise.
 
Zyphlin said:
Should've made it clearer I guess...

The last line was not a statement of fact or suggesting what the USSC WILL rule, but rather my opinion regarding the issue. I've yet to find anyone who has been able to accurately put forth an explanation to me how the current marriage laws in this country provide equal protection under the law for both genders, taking into consideration judicial precedence regarding the EPC and the legitimacy of "separate but equal" laws.
Click to expand...

I am still not convinced SCOTUS will buy into the gender argument. I have a feeling they will look at it from an orientation view, determine rational basis review for it, and then rule from that starting point. I have a feeling though that I may sit and watch a feed of the transcript of the arguments, as I really do think the justices are going to have some fascinating questions in both parts of the oral arguments, whether SSM bans are constitutional, and whether states can not recognize other states marriages. No matter how they rule on this, there are going to be some fascinating precedents set that could go well beyond the realm of marriage.
 
Zyphlin said:
Should've made it clearer I guess...

The last line was not a statement of fact or suggesting what the USSC WILL rule, but rather my opinion regarding the issue.
I've yet to find anyone who has been able to accurately put forth an explanation to me how the current marriage laws in this country provide equal protection under the law for both genders, taking into consideration judicial precedence regarding the EPC and the legitimacy of "separate but equal" laws
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

In the Louisiana case, plaintiffs argued that barring same-sex couples from marriage discriminates based on sexual orientation. Judge Feldman disagreed, writing in his decision to uphold the gay marriage ban that “neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has ever before defined sexual orientation as a protected class, despite opportunities to do so.”

The 3 Arguments Against Gay Marriage That May Decide It Once and for All | TakePart

So from that, it appears the argument in favor of the bans and their conflict with the EPC will be that while gender has been ruled to be a protected class relative to marriage, orientation hasn't ... yet.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, it is not true that a new law would immediately become enforceable until it went back up to the Court. For instance, a state could not make a law reenacting segregation or punishing interracial couples for getting married, banning interfaith couples from getting married and legitimately believe that such laws would be enforceable. People will likely try to enforce them, but that doesn't mean they couldn't face legal penalties/punishment of some kind for doing so since we already have Court decisions dealing with these issues.
Click to expand...

If lets say New York passed a segregation law, it would immediately become enforceable when the ink dries on the Governor's signature. However, you can bet that there would be a court injunction that go into effect at that same moment blocking enforcement.

That's how our system works: Legislation becomes enforceable law when the Executive signs it, until such a time as the Judiciary invalidates it.
 
Redress said:
I know of no liberal that thinks we need to be tolerant of every action or belief of any one.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I've known plenty of liberals that try to act or flat out claim they're not intolerant, because intolerance towards things they believe shouldn't be tolerated is somehow not intolerance in their view. Thankfully you generally aren't one of those, as indicated by...

I am intolerant of my actions and beliefs, and make no claims otherwise.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
I am still not convinced SCOTUS will buy into the gender argument.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agre. I don't think the SCOTUS will likely address the issue in this view. As I've said for some time...this issue, to me, isn't really ABOUT marriage. Marriage is simply the vehicle to get to the destination. What this really about is whether or not Sexual Orientation is some kind of designation that should be on par with things like race, religion, gender. If this gets ruled on from a gender perspective I think it'll likely not really solve anything from a legal stand point beyond this narrow question...and I think the SCOTUS understands this. So I think rather than addressing it in that fashion, especially since the people bringing it forward aren't addressing it in that fashion, they'll likely focus on it from an orientation fashion only.

That doesn't change the fact that I personally think the clearest means of deciding this SPECIFIC issue is one of gender discrimination. In my mind there's legitimate questions as to whether or not marriage laws violate the lowest tier criteria of the EPC as I discussed earlier in this thread. There is NO question in my mind however that it doesn't violate the middle tier requirement. So that's why I tend to think of it, when talking about my personal views, in that fashion. But Yeah...I have no illusions that the SCOTUS is going to take it in that fashion.

Agree 100% though, there's a lot of potential for interesting ramifications regarding precedence from this case.
 
bubbabgone said:
In the Louisiana case, plaintiffs argued that barring same-sex couples from marriage discriminates based on sexual orientation. Judge Feldman disagreed, writing in his decision to uphold the gay marriage ban that “neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has ever before defined sexual orientation as a protected class, despite opportunities to do so.”

The 3 Arguments Against Gay Marriage That May Decide It Once and for All | TakePart

So from that, it appears the argument in favor of the bans and their conflict with the EPC will be that while gender has been ruled to be a protected class relative to marriage, orientation hasn't ... yet.
Click to expand...

Read my post again, because your response makes it clear you didn't grasp it.

I personally view this issue as not one of sexual orientation, but of GENDER. This is why I speak of it as "same sex marriage" not "homosexual marriage". To me, there IS a question as to whether or not it's constitutional to discriminate against sexual orientation with regards to marriage. Which is what your link addresses.

What I DON'T believe there's a legitimate question on is whether or not it's constitutional to discriminate against gender with regards to marriage. Your links don't address that at all.

Sexual orientation currently is viewed under the law as a lowest tier group in the EPC, though essentially one of the highest of that lowest tier (thus second basis rational test applying to it).

Gender is currently viewed under the law as a middle their group in the EPC, and that requires a significantly higher criteria than does the sexual orientation argument.

For Gender discrimination, you must show that it's substantially related to an important state interest.

The reason I suggest it's gender discrimination is as such...

A man can marry a woman. A woman can not marry a woman. Thus a man can do something under the law a woman cannot legally do.

A woman can marry a man. A man can not marry a man. Thus a woman can do something under the law a man cannot legally do.

Therefore, the law is discriminating on the basis of gender. To do that it must be substantially related to serving an important state interest; and I've simply not seen an argument that reaches that criteria in my opinion.
 
Samhain said:
If lets say New York passed a segregation law, it would immediately become enforceable when the ink dries on the Governor's signature. However, you can bet that there would be a court injunction that go into effect at that same moment blocking enforcement.

That's how our system works: Legislation becomes enforceable law when the Executive signs it, until such a time as the Judiciary invalidates it.
Click to expand...

And they would be subject to legal penalties for enforcing such a law.
 
Zyphlin said:
Read my post again, because your response makes it clear you didn't grasp it.

I personally view this issue as not one of sexual orientation, but of GENDER. This is why I speak of it as "same sex marriage" not "homosexual marriage". To me, there IS a question as to whether or not it's constitutional to discriminate against sexual orientation with regards to marriage. Which is what your link addresses.

What I DON'T believe there's a legitimate question on is whether or not it's constitutional to discriminate against gender with regards to marriage. Your links don't address that at all.

Sexual orientation currently is viewed under the law as a lowest tier group in the EPC, though essentially one of the highest of that lowest tier (thus second basis rational test applying to it).

Gender is currently viewed under the law as a middle their group in the EPC, and that requires a significantly higher criteria than does the sexual orientation argument.

For Gender discrimination, you must show that it's substantially related to an important state interest.

The reason I suggest it's gender discrimination is as such...

A man can marry a woman. A woman can not marry a woman. Thus a man can do something under the law a woman cannot legally do.

A woman can marry a man. A man can not marry a man. Thus a woman can do something under the law a man cannot legally do.

Therefore, the law is discriminating on the basis of gender. To do that it must be substantially related to serving an important state interest; and I've simply not seen an argument that reaches that criteria in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Believe me ... I understand your point.

It's not complex, it's been said before, and I'm sure it's going to be part of what's presented for USSC review.

However, you said "I've yet to find anyone who has been able to accurately put forth an explanation to me how the current marriage laws in this country provide equal protection under the law for both genders, taking into consideration judicial precedence regarding the EPC and the legitimacy of "separate but equal" laws "

So all I was doing was giving you an example of analysis by someone who follows this who has seen such an example being presented.
They're suggesting it's not gender discrimination but rather orientation that's at issue.
You may not buy it and I'm not saying I buy it, but there it is and we don't matter.
That's all.
 
bubbabgone said:
So all I was doing was giving you an example of analysis by someone who follows this who has seen such an example being presented.
Click to expand...

No you weren't, because the links you provided didn't speak about the issue from a gender stand point but from an oreintation standpoint. Those are two different things with two different arguments and two different standards.
 
Zyphlin said:
No you weren't,
because the links you provided didn't speak about the issue from a gender stand point
Click to expand...
but from an oreintation standpoint. Those are two different things with two different arguments and two different standards.
Click to expand...
Gender is protected
That's already been decided.
Why would you want anyone to show how current marriage laws protect gender?
Yes. They are different. Gender & orientation are different. Obviously.
I believe it was the end of the piece that I was referring to.
The point was that the argument would be that the Court should not be deciding the case in terms of gender but rather orientation.
That gender should not be considered above orientation.
The argument would be that orientation is not protected (and the piece claimed it has never been given that protection) regardless of the fact that every person also possesses a gender.

Now what?
 
bubbabgone said:
This whole notion about Presidents not having a good sense how their Judicial appointments would decide is almost too bizarre to entertain.
When your argument starts with and stays on the granular level (e.g. SSM) then there's never any common ground in sight.
Obama and every President looks at how their potential nominees have decided cases and then decides if they can get them through the process since the political opposition is doing the same thing.
That's all I'm saying and it's so obvious I get the feeling we're talking past each other.

In the case of Obama, his appointees have not disappointed him so far and likely won't with SSM.
And if you want to stay granular as with SSM itself, Obama has favored it before he was elected the 1st time and it's reasonable to assume he'd make appointments that he believed would decide that way.

You disagree with any of that?
Click to expand...

The public should pay more attention and there should be more grilling of the candidates based on their standards for appointing federal judges, because it's one of the most significant decisions the president makes. That being said, obama has appointed a whopping 2 of 9 judges so blaming him for the inevitable outcome is nonsense, particularly in light of comments like these:

"I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example." - interview with a *gay newspaper* as illinois senator

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - 2008 presidential race, sounding a lot like ted cruz or any other bigot

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage" - also 2008

"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage" - October 2010, after nominating the 2 judges to SCOTUS who will vote in this year's case

"I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” - May 9, 2012, earliest public statement of his i can find that supports SSM

So are you saying that by 2010, when he appointed these 2 judges, he demanded voting to strike down ALL bans on SSM as some kind of litmus test? Where is your evidence for THAT?
 
bubbabgone said:
Gender is protected
That's already been decided.
Why would you want anyone to show how current marriage laws protect gender?
Yes. They are different. Gender & orientation are different. Obviously.
I believe it was the end of the piece that I was referring to.
The point was that the argument would be that the Court should not be deciding the case in terms of gender but rather orientation.
That gender should not be considered above orientation.
The argument would be that orientation is not protected (and the piece claimed it has never been given that protection) regardless of the fact that every person also possesses a gender.

Now what?
Click to expand...


You srill do not understand the point Zyphlin is making. He is saying that anti-SSM laws are a form of gender discrimination, not discrimination based on orientation. The logic goes thus: there is no current laws stating a gay person cannot marry, nor am I familiar with any such laws. There are no test for orientation when you get married. What anti-SSM laws do he is arguing is discriminate on the basis of gender. There is something a woman can do a man cannot, namely marry a man. And likewise vice versa. As such anti-SSM laws are a form of gender discrimination which would fall under Intermediate Scrutiny, which such laws would clearly not be able to pass. The only chance for anti-SSM laws is if Rational Basis Review is used, and even then anti-SSM laws could very well be ruled to violate EPC. Whether homosexuals are a protected class is mostly irrelevant.

Oh, and your source is a good example why some one with a film studies degree who writes fluff pieces should not write their opinions about complex issues.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
So let me help you here, from one person whose been on both sides of the fence. What you don't get is the fact that most of the people that oppose SSM are conservative. And more than anything, conservatives value individual choice. Now keep in mind that those same conservatives are also the ones that believe that being gay is just a choice
Click to expand...

I grew up around that mentality. It was so suffocating that you could not have an actual discussion. It was just "screw the homos" and any disagreement would be social death. So i've listened enough for a lifetime. It's not that i don't get it, but that i fundamentally reject their position at all levels. Now...

Well, although i do know a fair number don't care either way and will despise gay couples regardless, i always disagree with those who say it being a choice or not makes no diff. If it were a choice, the response from just about everyone would simply be "So stop being gay and get a hetero marriage," and that's the end of it. The paradox here is that removes any real choice from the matter.


Hamster Buddha said:
That's why I can be so sure that the vast majority of those who oppose SSM wouldn't lock someone up for being gay today, because all they'd be doing is locking them up for a choice. It's antithetical to the conservative way, after all.
Click to expand...

Was there a choice to blacks under jim crow? Could they stop being black in order to enter the restaurant? Did that stop them from arresting rosa parks? You just don't get that many are so hateful they DO NOT CARE to see things from another human's perspective. It is about hate of the 'other' and refusal to conform, *not* conservatism. That's why many liberals opposed gay rights until recently, and many conservatives are now supporting it. The ones who do not are merely hiding their hate behind conservative label


Hamster Buddha said:
We saw this when there was such an uproar over those two gay gentlemen kissed during the NFL draft. The backlash had nothing to do with either of them being gay, but everything to do with it being on TV. As many would go to say, "I'm fine with them being gay as long as it's not shoved in my face."
Click to expand...

That would be seriously off topic but yes, in plenty of online comments there were "kill the fags" and so on. You seem really in denial about the depth hatred can sink to and why, because your grandma (what we call anecdotal evidence) told you otherwise?

But anyway, i'm no more sympathetic to "keep it out of my face" whining. It's the same idiocy. I can post here dozens of pics of hetero athletes in make out sessions with their girlfriends, right in front of tv camera. For christ sakes, Sam was kissing his bf right in his own house!

So yes, it had everything to do with them being gay


Hamster Buddha said:
The funniest thing about this whole issue is that you have become what you hate most: a bigot. Someone who is completely intolerable to view other than your own that you'll go nuclear at the first sign of someone offering a contrarian viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I'm under no obligation to put up with neanderthals (if you prefer that word more) who insist i am a 2nd class citizen and inferior to them, just because my brain tells me to like dick. Intolerance of intolerance etc


Hamster Buddha said:
The real #1 enemy of the movement, is people like you that get on here and become so hostile with anyone that disagrees. Because that prevents people like myself, from connecting with those on the other side and showing them that there are alternatives to a complete dismantling of everything they know and hold dear.
Click to expand...

i called ted cruz a bigot, not you, because he is one. You take it personally because of your grandma? Well that is not my problem. My problem is that she can and probably has voted to deny my rights.

Find me an argument against SSM that i can't paraphrase as "i'm better than you" and perhaps i will change my mind that opposing SSM is bigotry. I conclude this because i've yet to hear any such argument.

Hamster Buddha said:
Compromise isn't what is important with this issue, Understanding is. Once both sides understand what's important to each other, then it's all about making sure that the priorities of each side are met. At that point, no compromise is necessary.
Click to expand...

Know what the #1 cause of changing opinions on SSM? Befriending a gay person. Finding out they aren't all pedophiles, in collusion with the devil to destroy the family, and all the other sordid insults i have heard. In 2015, that should not be difficult. That's really on the opposition for refusing to be too afraid to even be in a position to understand.
 
Redress said:
You srill do not understand the point Zyphlin is making. He is saying that anti-SSM laws are a form of gender discrimination, not discrimination based on orientation. The logic goes thus: there is no current laws stating a gay person cannot marry, nor am I familiar with any such laws. There are no test for orientation when you get married. What anti-SSM laws do he is arguing is discriminate on the basis of gender. There is something a woman can do a man cannot, namely marry a man. And likewise vice versa. As such anti-SSM laws are a form of gender discrimination which would fall under Intermediate Scrutiny, which such laws would clearly not be able to pass. The only chance for anti-SSM laws is if Rational Basis Review is used, and even then anti-SSM laws could very well be ruled to violate EPC. Whether homosexuals are a protected class is mostly irrelevant.

Oh, and your source is a good example why some one with a film studies degree who writes fluff pieces should not write their opinions about complex issues.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest problem that the laws/states face even at the rational basis review level is that animus toward homosexuals can be shown in these laws because of the fact that many of them specifically deny all rights and privileges that come with legal marriage to same sex couples. That, coupled with the recent spat of laws that some states with these bans are trying to pass that show even further animus, only add to the validity of the animus claim, something the Court has looked down upon in laws at least a few times.
 
chromium said:
The public should pay more attention and there should be more grilling of the candidates based on their standards for appointing federal judges,
Click to expand...
because it's one of the most significant decisions the president makes. That being said,
obama has appointed a whopping 2 of 9 judges so blaming him for the inevitable outcome is nonsense
Click to expand...
, particularly in light of comments like these:

"I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example." - interview with a *gay newspaper* as illinois senator

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - 2008 presidential race, sounding a lot like ted cruz or any other bigot

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage" - also 2008

"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage" - October 2010, after nominating the 2 judges to SCOTUS who will vote in this year's case

"I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” - May 9, 2012, earliest public statement of his i can find that supports SSM

So are you saying that by 2010, when he appointed these 2 judges, he demanded voting to strike down ALL bans on SSM as some kind of litmus test? Where is your evidence for THAT?
Click to expand...

1) You can grill a candidate until you both pass out but every candidate's answers will be the same. Doesn't hurt to ask, though ... maybe one of them will slip up and tell the truth.

2) As for his 2 appointments, curious you suggest there'd be "blame" if SSM bans are ruled unconstitutional. The point is that Obama and every President has a very comfortable sense of their nominees "temperament" before they nominate them. In Obama's case, his 2 Liberal nominees replace 2 somewhat centrist Justices so, yes, he made a ban on the ban more likely.

3)Those Obama quotes that are meant to indicate how he had been opposed to SSM before he was for it were identified as bullcrap by no less than David Axelrod who spilled the beans on Obama in his book.
This may be a shock to some people, but Obama lied.
He does that a lot, you know.
 
nota bene said:
It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It was the sincere belief of many people, esp. in the South, that marriage between the races was wrong.

This is about equal treatment under the law. Personal beliefs should not permit harm to others for no good reason (the states have not been able to prove that there any harm to state interests).

Politicians should be aware of this, dont you think? Such willful waste of taxpayer $ is irresponsible....just obvious pandering.
 
bubbabgone said:
Gender is protected
That's already been decided.
Why would you want anyone to show how current marriage laws protect gender?
Click to expand...

Because I don't believe that current marriage laws protect based on gender. As I've already highlighted in this thread, current marriage laws prohibit women from doing something that men can do. Similarly, current marriage laws prohibit men from doing something that women can do.

The point was that the argument would be that the Court should not be deciding the case in terms of gender but rather orientation.
Click to expand...

That's not really an argument. Going "I don't think that it should be done on that basis" isn't actually offering a counter to any of the points I've made, it's just saying "I disagree because I disagree".

It is UNQUESTIONABLE that the law discriminates on the basis of gender. It is unquestionable that the law allows a man to do something a woman can't do, and allows a woman to do something a man can't do. So the question is whether or not there is an argument that such discrimination is substantially related to an important state interest. Going "Well, I don't think it should be judged on that factor" isn't actually an argument against anything I'm saying nor counters my earlier claim that I personally have not seen a legitimate argument justifying the discrimination based on gender....rather, it's simply an attempt to ignore the issue.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I've yet to hear an argument for allowing SSM that couldn't be applied to polygamy or incest.
Click to expand...

While I dont really care if either of those was legal, I have yet to hear any arguments why they should not. Some may exist, but they havent been examined to the extent that SSM has (that I've seen).
 
Why do we accept the state's ability to say who can and can't marry who? All for a damn tax write off. Ridiculous. But of course...taxation doesn't take any power away from you.
 
Zyphlin said:
So the question is whether or not there is an argument that such discrimination is substantially related to an important state interest. Going "Well, I don't think it should be judged on that factor" isn't actually an argument against anything I'm saying nor counters my earlier claim that I personally have not seen a legitimate argument justifying the discrimination based on gender....rather, it's simply an attempt to ignore the issue.
Click to expand...

IMO however, there is definitely such state interest. The benefits of marriage extend to more protections for the children in these families, regarding things like custody, adoption rights for both parents, additional stability for the family unit, etc.
 
Blue_State said:
Why do we accept the state's ability to say who can and can't marry who? All for a damn tax write off. Ridiculous. But of course...taxation doesn't take any power away from you.
Click to expand...

Here's another reason (besides that fact that some of us find fighting discrimination important):

Lursa said:
IMO however, there is definitely such state interest. The benefits of marriage extend to more protections for the children in these families, regarding things like custody, adoption rights for both parents, additional stability for the family unit, etc.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom