• 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

There is other evidence about Obama and SSM beside Axelrod's book.
Do I really need to present it to you?
You really find it hard to believe seeing what you've seen these past 6 years?

Trying to scavenge for what a career politician really believes is rather pointless

What matters is there is *no way* obama could afford, at the time, to nominate a SCOTUS judge solely based on their position on SSM. That he has never pushed for a bill in the legislature, even when the vast majority of voters believes he should, indicates it's not a priority. I mean hell, he won't even push for ENDA, which passed the senate but not the house and is arguably a much bigger deal for gay rights

5 years after his most recent nominee, 36 states at minimum have legal SSM before SCOTUS even takes up the case. You're crediting/blaming the wrong person, whether axelrod is correct or not
 
Last edited:
Take it up with Zyph and Lursa ... they believe they're on to a winning argument.

i didn't care to read their epic long legalise that dehumanizes the orientation aspect that is central to both the opposition and movement the past 20 years

I could tell from your own replies the gist of what they were saying so i replied to you instead

god forbid i make known to u i agree with something, or that others might see it
 
Wait, what? The rules of marriage were applied equally to all when it came to race and interracial marriage bans according to your logic since all persons were allowed to marry someone of the same race. Everyone treated equally under those laws, according to the same logic that would say everyone is treated equally by the laws if they are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

My logic is that marriage complies with the Constitution because all are treated equally as far as marriage is concerned. Thus, bans based on race were not Constitutional. But I just said that in my prior post. Your assertion that race based marriage is included in this is false, and is not Constitutional.

I realize that you need to equate race with SSM, but anyone being honest with themselves know that they are not the same.
 
I believe it's an important state's interest because it can reduce costs custody hearings, child support questions, adoptions, inheritance, foster care (for ex. currently if not married, only one person in the couple can be the legal adoptor. If the couple breaks up, the other person has no legal right to the child). In general it saves overall because if the couple is legally married, all the questions resolving these issues, and more, are settled.

If it was truly that important, than why would the restrictions in place via laws be so absolutely narrowly defined. This is kind of like saying one's health is important and thus you won't drink soda; but you will eat fast food, smoke cigerettes, never exercise, and chug massive amounts of alcohol. While you could make an argument that health SHOULD be important, there's clear evidence that the person doesn't actually TREAT it like it's important and thus...to them...it is not important.

Similarly, when the government allows for all sorts of marriages that would NOT reduce the cost of custody hearings, child support questions, adoptions, inheritance, foster care, etc then the question becomes are those things truly an IMPORTANT State interest? Because they clearly are not treating it as such.

It also serve to further protect the children of gay couples which I also believe is in the state's and children's best interests.

Actually scienitific evidence shows your absolutely wrong here. Additionally, this goes back to the problem with trying to claim this is an "important" state interest. It's important to protect children from abusive parents; I'd argue FAR more important, considering there's actual verifiable evidence to show that an abused child is more likely to be an abuser themselves. And yet, the state has seemingly no interest in disallowing those who came from an abusive family from getting married and having kids despite the fact they're more likely to abuse their child.

Know who else can be legally married? Convicted pedophiles. For such a supposedly "important" state interest, it seems the state has no real "interest" in protecting children from such couples.

You're not actually showing any "important" state interests; not in any way that actually shows the state could legitimately claim it to be important given the fact that they routinely allow for a multitude of marriages that don't actually support that interest and in some ways conflict with it. This clearly then shows that the discrimination on the basis of gender isn't substantially related to a state interest, but rather substantially related to some other desire for discrimination.
 
There is no such thing in the Constitution.

There is nothing in the constitution stating that seperate but equal is equal treatment either. There is no possible way to adjudicate on a law that attempts to treat citizens as "seperate but equal" with a 100% literalistic interpritation of the constitution because the constitution gives zero definitions for what "equal means". That kind of thing is part of the reason that the constitution established the court systems.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. It does not define "equal". Therefore there must be some arbiter to determine whether or not something is actually equal.

This arbiter has been established as the court system, which has since defined "equal" in such a way that seperate laws allowing for SIMILAR, but not the same, actions by various groups is not actually "equal".

Since you're seemingly desiring to ignorantly go with an absolute 100% literalistic reading of the constitution....please highlight to me where in the constitution it defines what "equal" is regarding the law.

It does not separate people by sex. All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Which is seperating people by sex.

Saying "All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex" and claiming that is "equal" is akin to saying "All persons are allowed to eat at a resturant designated for their race" and claiming THAT is "equal". They are inherently NOT equal, they are seperate and similar, but they are not EQUAL under the law.

There is no way you can get around the fact that a Man, under the law, can marry a woman. And under the law, a woman is not allowed to do that. That is fact. It is absolutely impossible to suggest otherwise, lest you can provide me some evidenec of the law allowing a woman to marry a woman.

The law allows for a man to do something that it bars a woman from doing. That is not equal protection under the law for those of different genders.
 
I've known what your argument has been but if no one has been arguing against SSM bans using your gender argument, why do you think that is?

I explained my thoughts on this in the very post you quoted. If you don't bother to read my posts why should I bother to retype what I've already stated.

And you claim that I haven't given a reason why your argument is wrong while at the same time dismissing its' resulting slippery slope byproduct kind of ties my hands a bit, don't you think?

1. You haven't actually stated the "slippery slope byproduct". Perhaps if you actually made an argument as to what you think MIGHT occur then I could actually address the substance of what you're saying, as a slippery slope in and of itself is not an automatic disqualification of an argument that has additional factors surrounding it. The problem is that you've actually given zero argument. The ONLY thing you've offered is a slippery slope "Think of what it could lead to" statement without ANY actual argument or explanation of what the hell you're talking about. When you don't actually provide any useful information beyond the slippery slope it's hard to address anything BUT the slippery slope.

2. The slippery slope isn't, in and of itself, an argument against the constitutionality of something. Someone stating we must allow the KKK to protest because of freedom of speech isn't countered on a constitutional basis by going "But if we let them speak, think of what that could lead to!". That is all you're doing. Pointing out your slippery slope doesn't tie your hands from actually offering up a counter to my point regarding the constitutionality of my argument; all it does is tie your hands from attempting to counter it simply by going "But think what could happen....!" and offering up no other intelligent argument.
 
I've known what your argument has been but if no one has been arguing against SSM bans using your gender argument, why do you think that is?
And you claim that I haven't given a reason why your argument is wrong while at the same time dismissing its' resulting slippery slope byproduct kind of ties my hands a bit, don't you think?
To that you'd say "The slippery slope is not a legal argument" and to that I'd say "When you think about it, the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom."

Really, no one? I wonder what google thinks about that....Wow, turns out they have been arguing that, and in court. And the courts are split on the topic. Here, let's look at one of the top returns...

Same-sex marriage bans: Courts should strike them down as sex discrimination.

But the courts disagreed about a different question: whether the state anti-gay marriage laws discriminate based on sex. The New Mexico Supreme Court and the federal court in Oklahoma both ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not discriminate based on sex, while the federal court in Utah held that it did

Well...

Here is the ruling in the Utah case: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf

Starting on page 34, you will see that not only was it argued in front of the court, but the court agreed with the argument that it would be sex based discrimination.
 
My logic is that marriage complies with the Constitution because all are treated equally as far as marriage is concerned. Thus, bans based on race were not Constitutional. But I just said that in my prior post. Your assertion that race based marriage is included in this is false, and is not Constitutional.

I realize that you need to equate race with SSM, but anyone being honest with themselves know that they are not the same.

No, that is not your logic, that is your thinking, your attempt to justify the difference between how you feel about same sex couples and how you feel about interracial couples and the laws that affect/affected each of them. Logically, everyone is not treated the same because men cannot marry men, but women can marry men, just as a white person could not marry a black person, but a black person could marry a black person. In both cases, people are prevented from doing something based on a characteristic such as race or sex (note, that is sex, not sexuality). Or, according to your logic, everyone is treated equally because everyone is restricted from marrying someone based on that characteristic of either race or sex. It was your misuse of logic that is the problem, the same logic that was attempted to justify interracial marriage bans, you are using to attempt to justify same sex marriage bans.

I am making a comparison between race and sex, since it is same sex marriage, and same sex couples that are being prevented.
 
"Homosexuals are being discriminated against by not being offered the same protections as heterosexual marriages!"

Insert either polygamy/incest in place of homosexual. Now I do agree that they haven't been examined as much, and part of that lies in the fact that so long as there is a state that bans SSM, then we're not ever going to examines these instances. It's like trying to legalize cocaine before everyone has a chance to see that legalizing marijuana won't make the sky fall. In truth, I think it all should be legal as long as the same caveats that are in place for straight couples apply.

Now that I think of it, the same reasons for maintaining a SSM ban are the same as would be for incest/polygamy, i.e. it's disgusting or think of the kids sort of stuff.

What the hell is up with the polygamy/incest track lately? Do you even support these?

Here are some reasons for you:

incest leads to at minimum 20% of offspring having early death or major disability
coercion/lack of consent is very likely when it involves direct family (similar to employer/worker marriage)

polygamy would lead to multitudes of legal entanglements related to divorce/custody/inheritance/blackmail/testimony

no one to my knowledge can only fall in love with multiple wives or their sister but that is not the case for homosexuals-same sex

i don't know of any studies on genetically healthy offspring or even adoptions of incestuous/polygamous couples so the book is out on those

hetero marriage has a lot more in common with SSM than SSM does with polygamy/incest. Gender of one partner is a rather trivial difference

you have no evidence either slippery slope would come to pass, and indeed it has not in any country the past 15 years. Search gallup to see about 5% in *all* age groups support polygamy. Support for SSM hasn't been that low since 1960, so i'll get back to you in half a century. I can't even find a poll on incest. It's a nonstarter, the "universal taboo"
 
"Homosexuals are being discriminated against by not being offered the same protections as heterosexual marriages!"

Insert either polygamy/incest in place of homosexual. Now I do agree that they haven't been examined as much, and part of that lies in the fact that so long as there is a state that bans SSM, then we're not ever going to examines these instances. It's like trying to legalize cocaine before everyone has a chance to see that legalizing marijuana won't make the sky fall. In truth, I think it all should be legal as long as the same caveats that are in place for straight couples apply.

Now that I think of it, the same reasons for maintaining a SSM ban are the same as would be for incest/polygamy, i.e. it's disgusting or think of the kids sort of stuff.

Actually, both polygamy and incest have been "examined" and in fact challenged more often in the past (as in greater than about 15 years ago) and in the case of incest succeeded more at least in gaining changes in the laws (although not from court cases) before same sex marriage started to get challenged. First cousins, which is still incest, are legally able to get married in about 25 states, and this was true before any states allowed same sex couples to legally marry.

We look into these things based on the reasoning the states have/can show for restricting/banning them, not on the reasons that they should be allowed or the fact alone that they are restricted, such relationships are not protected.
 
Trying to scavenge for what a career politician really believes is rather pointless

What matters is there is *no way* obama could afford, at the time, to nominate a SCOTUS judge solely based on their position on SSM. That he has never pushed for a bill in the legislature, even when the vast majority of voters believes he should, indicates it's not a priority. I mean hell, he won't even push for ENDA, which passed the senate but not the house and is arguably a much bigger deal for gay rights

5 years after his most recent nominee, 36 states at minimum have legal SSM before SCOTUS even takes up the case. You're crediting/blaming the wrong person, whether axelrod is correct or not
Okay ... lemme say this one more time.
A POTUS won't quiz a potential Judicial nominee about their position on particular issues likely to come before them and if he did the honest Judge wouldn't answer.
He/she doesn't have to ask anything that specific.
The Judges' backgrounds and decisions are known and thoroughly reviewed by a POTUS' staff before ever being suggested as a nominee.
Obama would never think to nominate a Scalia, for instance.
Now, can a nominee unpleasantly surprise his/her nominating POTUS after they take the Bench? Sure. I can think of a couple off-hand. But far and away a POTUS will get what they expected.

As far as Obama evolving on SSM, you can believe he's been sincere but sincerity has never been one of his strengths.
 
It would not only fail, but we hardly need to detract from the real issue, which is it's about gay rights, not gender rights.

This idea that a hetero man is deprived of the right to marry another hetero man, or for 2 hetero females to marry, not only undermines the struggle of gay couples but is obviously absurd. Heterosexuals being unable to marry the same sex, where is the harm done? How would they even be granted standing in a court?

It can win on gay rights alone, but it is still gender discrimination being used to restrict marriage when it comes to same sex marriage bans, hence the "sex" part. This restriction however affects homosexuals mainly because they are the ones most likely to enter into a same sex marriage.

It is the same as with interracial marriage bans going down. Very few people, even today (although the amount are slowly increasing), exercise their right to enter into an interracial marriage, but everyone has the legal right to do so and everyone was restricted from doing so based on their race, not their attractions in the past. Now, everyone is restricted from entering into a same sex marriage, not just homosexuals. Homosexuals are just the most likely to do so. Homosexuals enter into opposite sex marriages all time, many as cover or for money (such as in the military to gain benefits). Removing restrictions on same sex marriages removes them for all, not just homosexuals.

Logically, the argument that same sex marriage restrictions are gender discrimination is absolutely sound. The problem is that people don't want to admit that marriages take place for reasons other than love or some fairy tale belief. Even our courts try this. In reality though, sexuality should not really matter when it comes to standing, what should matter is that if two people of the same sex are prevented from marrying each other when they want to make each other their legal spouses, it shouldn't matter what each of their sexualities are. If my divorced mother and her best friend (a recently widowed woman she has known for about 20 years) decided that getting married would benefit them, what difference is that from my grandmother and grandfather who were divorced and considering getting remarried only because it would benefit them (not because they were actually in love)?
 
i didn't care to read their epic long legalise that dehumanizes the orientation aspect that is central to both the opposition and movement the past 20 years

I could tell from your own replies the gist of what they were saying so i replied to you instead

god forbid i make known to u i agree with something, or that others might see it

Boy, epic is right.
It's like some people can't accept that you understand what they're saying but that you simply don't agree because you see it as an end-around play run to provide deniability about the obvious.
But who the hell knows...in the end they could win the decision with it.
 
Boy, epic is right.
It's like some people can't accept that you understand what they're saying but that you simply don't agree because you see it as an end-around play run to provide deniability about the obvious.
But who the hell knows...in the end they could win the decision with it.

It is more like people don't want to hear anything past "marry for love". That is not reality. Marriage occurs even in the US for many reasons.
 
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?

Same 'logic' can be used for interracial marriage leading to men marrying goats...

A fail then, a fail now.

You can 'what if' any legal topic... the bottomline is the law can't deny a citizen equal access.
 
My logic is that marriage complies with the Constitution because all are treated equally as far as marriage is concerned. Thus, bans based on race were not Constitutional. But I just said that in my prior post. Your assertion that race based marriage is included in this is false, and is not Constitutional.

I realize that you need to equate race with SSM, but anyone being honest with themselves know that they are not the same.

Sex-based marriage is similarly unconstitutional.
 
I explained my thoughts on this in the very post you quoted. If you don't bother to read my posts why should I bother to retype what I've already stated.



1. You haven't actually stated the "slippery slope byproduct". Perhaps if you actually made an argument as to what you think MIGHT occur then I could actually address the substance of what you're saying, as a slippery slope in and of itself is not an automatic disqualification of an argument that has additional factors surrounding it. The problem is that you've actually given zero argument. The ONLY thing you've offered is a slippery slope "Think of what it could lead to" statement without ANY actual argument or explanation of what the hell you're talking about. When you don't actually provide any useful information beyond the slippery slope it's hard to address anything BUT the slippery slope.

2. The slippery slope isn't, in and of itself, an argument against the constitutionality of something. Someone stating we must allow the KKK to protest because of freedom of speech isn't countered on a constitutional basis by going "But if we let them speak, think of what that could lead to!". That is all you're doing.
Pointing out your slippery slope doesn't tie your hands from actually offering up a counter to my point regarding the constitutionality of my argument; all it does is tie your hands from attempting to counter it simply by going "But think what could happen....!" and offering up no other intelligent argument

You mean you can't envision any examples without my help? Would any example matter to you if you could?
I get to ask some questions too so, again, is this true or not ... "the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom." .
And if it's not true, give me examples.
 
You mean you can't envision any examples without my help? Would any example matter to you if you could?
I get to ask some questions too so, again, is this true or not ... "the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom." .
And if it's not true, give me examples.

Slippery slope isn't how our system works though. Slippery slope is an argument that says that, without regard to any other arguments, if one thing happens, it means this similar thing must also happen, even if there are some other, bigger differences in these things from a legal standpoint.
 
There is nothing in the constitution stating that seperate but equal is equal treatment either.

I don't think they wanted anything like that in there.

There is no possible way to adjudicate on a law that attempts to treat citizens as "seperate but equal" with a 100% literalistic interpritation of the constitution because the constitution gives zero definitions for what "equal means". That kind of thing is part of the reason that the constitution established the court systems.

The Constitution does not establish the court system, just the Supreme Court. Congress established the court system.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. It does not define "equal". Therefore there must be some arbiter to determine whether or not something is actually equal.

Well, that's a pretty basic word, well defined, no need to define it in the Constitution.

This arbiter has been established as the court system, which has since defined "equal" in such a way that seperate laws allowing for SIMILAR, but not the same, actions by various groups is not actually "equal".

Of course it's not equal if it only qualifies as similar. We don't need a court system to tell us that. But, it was, in fact, the Supreme Court that said "separate but equal" was Constitutional, when it was not. They have made many blunders, and continue to do so.

Since you're seemingly desiring to ignorantly go with an absolute 100% literalistic reading of the constitution....please highlight to me where in the constitution it defines what "equal" is regarding the law.

Like I said, we know what equal means. What are you for, a 75% reading of the Constitution?

Saying "All persons are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex" and claiming that is "equal" is akin to saying "All persons are allowed to eat at a resturant designated for their race" and claiming THAT is "equal". They are inherently NOT equal, they are seperate and similar, but they are not EQUAL under the law.

Well, no, it's not. One has a racial component, and was does not. You are comparing one thing that includes all people, and another that separates them by race. Doesn't work.

There is no way you can get around the fact that a Man, under the law, can marry a woman. And under the law, a woman is not allowed to do that. That is fact. It is absolutely impossible to suggest otherwise, lest you can provide me some evidenec of the law allowing a woman to marry a woman.

Well, now you are separating people based on sex.

And to be clear, my point is that the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that is something for the States to decide. Whatever they decide, that's cool.
 
It can win on gay rights alone, but it is still gender discrimination being used to restrict marriage when it comes to same sex marriage bans, hence the "sex" part. This restriction however affects homosexuals mainly because they are the ones most likely to enter into a same sex marriage.

It is the same as with interracial marriage bans going down. Very few people, even today (although the amount are slowly increasing), exercise their right to enter into an interracial marriage, but everyone has the legal right to do so and everyone was restricted from doing so based on their race, not their attractions in the past. Now, everyone is restricted from entering into a same sex marriage, not just homosexuals. Homosexuals are just the most likely to do so. Homosexuals enter into opposite sex marriages all time, many as cover or for money (such as in the military to gain benefits). Removing restrictions on same sex marriages removes them for all, not just homosexuals.

Logically, the argument that same sex marriage restrictions are gender discrimination is absolutely sound. The problem is that people don't want to admit that marriages take place for reasons other than love or some fairy tale belief. Even our courts try this. In reality though, sexuality should not really matter when it comes to standing, what should matter is that if two people of the same sex are prevented from marrying each other when they want to make each other their legal spouses, it shouldn't matter what each of their sexualities are. If my divorced mother and her best friend (a recently widowed woman she has known for about 20 years) decided that getting married would benefit them, what difference is that from my grandmother and grandfather who were divorced and considering getting remarried only because it would benefit them (not because they were actually in love)?

It isn't diff if they're not in love, but who is gonna live together permanently in something resembling a family unit, unless they're in love and not even prospect of falling in love? This is pretty damn rare

Two heterosexuals of the same sex marrying because they're "best friends" or just for tax benefits like in "jerry maguire" really could be the death knell for marriage, if it would be common enough to be worth any federal court's time.

What i mean by that is single and unmarried people will really try to "get the government out of marriage" because they are denied said benefits. There would also be attacks by religious groups against the 'sham' nature of it all. If there is not even love and they don't even live together - yet insist on immigration, court testimony, and custody rights - you're just asking for marriage to die, because there is no logical connection between "best friend who doesn't live with me" and child custody and i'm sure many other marriage rights i'm forgetting

Thus a challenge like that will fail under "compelling governmental interest"

Anyway, the whole SSM movement took off because of gay couples and the focus must end that way, not be hijacked at the last minute by other parties
 
It is more like people don't want to hear anything past "marry for love". That is not reality. Marriage occurs even in the US for many reasons.
Rogue, I'm just looking for a decision based on merits, an honest focus on the real issue.
Some arguments are much too broadly drawn and open to unintended (or intended) consequences if successful.
About that argument, the term "Pandora's box" comes to mind. Overused, yeah, but sometimes relevant anyway.
 
Slippery slope isn't how our system works though.
Slippery slope is an argument that says that, without regard to any other arguments, if one thing happens, it means this similar thing must also happen, even if there are some other, bigger differences in these things from a legal standpoint.
That what Laws do.
As a Country we start with the Constitution that guarantees personal freedom and then begin to place limitations on that personal freedom for reasons that should be obvious.
Don't call it slippery slope if you don't want to, but that's what Laws are intended to guard against.
 
It isn't diff if they're not in love, but who is gonna live together permanently in something resembling a family unit, unless they're in love and not even prospect of falling in love? This is pretty damn rare

Two heterosexuals of the same sex marrying because they're "best friends" or just for tax benefits like in "jerry maguire" really could be the death knell for marriage, if it would be common enough to be worth any federal court's time.

What i mean by that is single and unmarried people will really try to "get the government out of marriage" because they are denied said benefits. There would also be attacks by religious groups against the 'sham' nature of it all. If there is not even love and they don't even live together - yet insist on immigration, court testimony, and custody rights - you're just asking for marriage to die, because there is no logical connection between "best friend who doesn't live with me" and child custody and i'm sure many other marriage rights i'm forgetting

Thus a challenge like that will fail under "compelling governmental interest"

Anyway, the whole SSM movement took off because of gay couples and the focus must end that way, not be hijacked at the last minute by other parties

Single people wouldn't have a standing because they could get the same "benefits" by simply getting married, which also comes with responsibilities.

And you are mistaken on how "compelling government interest" works. It is based on a "compelling government interest" to prevent something, not to have something happen. This means the government would have to show why two people should not be allowed to marry even if they say "I'm not attracted to this person". It isn't any of their business if the people aren't attracted to each other. Court testimony, so long as it still only applies while the people are in a relationship, wouldn't change. Custody rights work or should work the same whether the people are married or not. The only difference should be if married, this shows that someone who is not a parent to the children is willing to take on the responsibility of those children.

We don't actually require married people to live together now. We don't require a love or attraction test for married couples now. Marriages for reasons other than love or attraction happen all the time.
 
It isn't diff if they're not in love, but who is gonna live together permanently in something resembling a family unit, unless they're in love and not even prospect of falling in love? This is pretty damn rare

Two heterosexuals of the same sex marrying because they're "best friends" or just for tax benefits like in "jerry maguire" really could be the death knell for marriage, if it would be common enough to be worth any federal court's time.

What i mean by that is single and unmarried people will really try to "get the government out of marriage" because they are denied said benefits. There would also be attacks by religious groups against the 'sham' nature of it all. If there is not even love and they don't even live together - yet insist on immigration, court testimony, and custody rights - you're just asking for marriage to die, because there is no logical connection between "best friend who doesn't live with me" and child custody and i'm sure many other marriage rights i'm forgetting

Thus a challenge like that will fail under "compelling governmental interest"

Anyway, the whole SSM movement took off because of gay couples and the focus must end that way, not be hijacked at the last minute by other parties

Precisely ... rise and fall on it's own merits.
 
That what Laws do.
As a Country we start with the Constitution that guarantees personal freedom and then begin to place limitations on that personal freedom for reasons that should be obvious.
Don't call it slippery slope if you don't want to, but that's what Laws are intended to guard against.

No, it isn't. We take into account all the arguments that come with laws, from both sides, why the law is in place and how and why a person is being prevented from doing something others can do. Slippery slope doesn't take into account arguments that are solely related to the law that is being claimed as similar enough to another that it would be taken down by such a ruling.

Example: If same sex marriage becomes legal across the country, some claim that the slippery slope this causes means that incest restrictions or polygamy restrictions must also follow because they assume that the logic being used to take down same sex marriage bans is simply same sex couples aren't allowed to marry and that treats them differently than opposite sex couples. But this isn't true. The case and rulings are and will be much more complicated than this. The states' arguments for why same sex couples shouldn't marry is not the same as the states' arguments for why incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to marry or for why a person shouldn't be allowed to have multiple spouses.
 
Back
Top Bottom