• 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!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

They are free to oppose same sex marriage in their personal lives and even be upset that same sex couples can legally marry, but to attempt to prevent others from getting legal recognition for their relationships simply based on "I don't approve of such relationships" without being able to show any actual legitimate societal concern beyond "morality concerns" for them goes against the Constitution to maintain restrictions on those marriages in the law.

It is not absurd at all. And if it were just a few people in support of this, then it would not have been an issue at all because an Amendment would have been passed back in the early 2000s to stop it. Now, we have majority support for same sex marriage. I'm not gay but have supported same sex couples getting married since I was old enough to understand that they couldn't get married but opposite sex couples could and that this was because of laws in our country.

Yes they are free to do so. They should be respected in their beliefs, just as those who support same sex marriage should be respected in theirs.

Like you, I have no problem at all with same sex marriage. I base it on the law. Whether due process, or equal protection. In the end, I don't see how the government could oppose it. I do see a massive slippery slope, which is always a concern of mine.

Perhaps I'm not articulating it well. To me, the greatest catalyst for the acrimony contained in the issue is the use of gay marriage as a vehicle for a much greater agenda. I think that is where the opposition to the concept is coming from, as opposed to actual rejection of the right.
 
And just to be clear, if you think all marriages provide "stable, self-sufficient, productive households", particularly in the 21st century, you've got the wrong idea about who's the "whackjob".
Did you notice that the gay movement isn't concerned with the relationship actually suceeding at all?
 
President Lincoln followed Presidents Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson in refusing to accept the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. He said this in his First Inaugural address, with the 1857 Dred Scott decision in mind:

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all paralel [sic] cases, by all other departments of the government. … At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made … the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that worthy tribunal.

The decision in Obergefell flagrantly ignores the Constitution, and it deserves no respect. I hope the states and their people will feel free to ignore it as the lawless dictate it is.

Thats a real gem coming from the Tyrant who later removed his belt... dropped his trousers, and took a giant wet leaky **** all over the Constitution with the way he amassed power despite other branches of the government and the people themselves telling him he can't do it.
 
Poor Goshin is very, very upset that anyone would dare question his words on a debate forum. Bye dude.

He has a point.... you were being awfully nitpicky.
 
Sorry.....didn't miss the point at all. Your claim that gays are trying to radically change the social/culture of America is ludicrous. Gay people would be happy to live their lives without incident. It is the vocal minority of the radical right wing that is pushing a social agenda that is causing all the ruckus.

Sorry, but yes you did. I never suggested Gays are trying to radically change the social/culture of America. Same sex marriage is something a very small percentage of the population will ever benefit from, and the percentage of Gays in the population is what 5%? How could they possibly change the entirety of society?

No, the point your animosity for others has blinded you from is that this specific issue is just a carrier for a much larger objective. That, in my opinion, is the reason for the opposition, not the actual principle behind same sex marriage.
 
Kinda closing thoughts after I have had some time to digest this: I really wish Kennedy would have written the opinion differently. He spent almost the whole time explaining why it was the right thing to do, and almost no time explaining why it was the legal thing to do, and this despite the fact that the legal arguments where definitely there. There where multiple paths that could have explained the legal reasoning that would have been consistent with precedent, but he chose not to explain the reasoning used. This made Roberts job with his dissent very easy, and that dissent is what will be remembered(he has a very vivid writing style) along with the outcome. It is like Kennedy tailored the ruling to avoid making is usable as any kind of possible precedent, and to do that he really did not talk about the law or the constitution.

I kinda expected that I would like the outcome, but not like the ruling, but the level of my discontent with the ruling is really high. That I suspect it was intentionally done that way does not change my dislike for it.

Basically my own opinion as well... Roberts was completely right.

And he was right that this opens us up for plural marriages in fact.
 
The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.

A power grab that gave power back to the people, where it belonged.
 
No, but I don't see why that is nessarcy now. You just stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone and when those people die or get divorced the government is done with marriage. Gays can't complain about unequal treatment nor can straight couples, so all should be good.

Not going to happen because people want to be recognized in the legal kinship of "spouses". It doesn't matter how much you and a few others may not like that, but the majority wants it and it does not harm you at all. It does however help protect married people and it benefits society.
 
From what I hear from people like Roguenuke(I think that is right) it's all about the benefits. Apparently, it's just too much of a bother to be so shallow without government. Who knew?

Why? The fourteenth amendment can't be invoked and no one is losing their benefits. I don't see why my plan wouldn't work.

No. You are reading what you want to read. I have said very often that it is about the protections marriage offers, alone with the rights and benefits, due to the nature of marriage, of agreeing to being together in a committed relationship where the people see themselves as family. Legal marriage recognition recognizes as legal family members. The benefits are simply something people want to go along with it, and most of them make complete sense. It is also beneficial to society and the most efficient way to set up these family connections.
 
Not going to happen because people want to be recognized in the legal kinship of "spouses". It doesn't matter how much you and a few others may not like that, but the majority wants it and it does not harm you at all. It does however help protect married people and it benefits society.

It doesn't appear the society that is being pushed today is moving in a direction that supports your conclusion. Never in the history of the United States has marriage been less important, and that trend is growing.

Just a generation or so ago, the idea of starting a family, or joining for life without getting married, was almost unheard of. It was socially unusual, and even unacceptable, to have children outside of marriage. Today, that is becoming the norm. If the trend continues, marriage will be the exception to the rule.
 
Yes they are free to do so. They should be respected in their beliefs, just as those who support same sex marriage should be respected in theirs.

Like you, I have no problem at all with same sex marriage. I base it on the law. Whether due process, or equal protection. In the end, I don't see how the government could oppose it. I do see a massive slippery slope, which is always a concern of mine.

Perhaps I'm not articulating it well. To me, the greatest catalyst for the acrimony contained in the issue is the use of gay marriage as a vehicle for a much greater agenda. I think that is where the opposition to the concept is coming from, as opposed to actual rejection of the right.

Then you are the one choosing to see it that way. There are separate issues. It isn't that hard to recognize either if you just look at the first case that homosexuals won in the SCOTUS. It wasn't same sex marriage and was even before they got laws struck that got them thrown in jail, even put on sex offender lists for just being in their consensual relationships. It was to be able to be recognized under local anti-discrimination laws without the state interfering to make such recognition illegal. Then there is the fact that those cake cases involved incidents where marriage wasn't even legal at the time in those states for same sex couples, the same as for the photography case. Their weddings was personal weddings, having little to do with legal marriage (eventhough at least one was getting legally married in another state and having the reception in their home state).

The other issues are anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws, and adoption laws. Adoption laws are actually easier with same sex marriage bans struck down because that was how so many of them worked, only make adoption legal for those who were legally married. Now, same sex couples are legally married. I have no doubt though that there will likely be a last ditch effort on this one to try to prevent same sex adoptions, even with them now able to get married. As for anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws, this would just be adding sexuality as a reason to not discriminate, either in housing or in doing business. It applies to using any sexuality, not just homosexuality. Homosexuality, same sex relationships are not the only things that people have strong religious beliefs against, even of those protected by such laws. What exactly is your issue with people pushing for such things under the law? Other similar protections already exist within our laws, for race, religion, sex, etc.

What else is there that is the problem, that you are talking about?
 
Contract law does not cover the same things that marriage does because marriage deals with legal kinship, establishing a very specific legal kinship, the same as birth certificates and adoption paperwork does. That is not just a contract because that recognized legal kinship comes with certain legal rights and benefits, but also responsibilities that are so numerous that it would take massive paperwork for people to make individual contracts dealing with it. Instead, the government simplifies the process, having a general set of laws for the recognition of the kinship that applies to all people, and then people can choose to change certain parts through individual contracts if their situations require it (most don't).

It doesn't matter how you believe or what you think you are or are not "beholden" to the government to pertaining to marriage. It really has very little to do with you unless you are married.

You're quite funny. Government "simplifies the process" of marriage? Indeed - we've just seen decades of legal wrangling over same sex marriage that has been very simple. There's virtually nothing that government simplifies and absolutely nothing that government simplifies when it comes to the private lives of individuals. It's remarkable that your courts created a "right to privacy" under the constitution to legalize abortion and yet no similar right to privacy exists for personal relationships.
 
It doesn't appear the society that is being pushed today is moving in a direction that supports your conclusion. Never in the history of the United States has marriage been less important, and that trend is growing.

Just a generation or so ago, the idea of starting a family, or joining for life without getting married, was almost unheard of. It was socially unusual, and even unacceptable, to have children outside of marriage. Today, that is becoming the norm. If the trend continues, marriage will be the exception to the rule.

We still have laws in some places (Utah) that prevent people from cohabiting without being legally married. That is why such things were unheard of. In the far past, marriage didn't require any paperwork to protect people, now it does. Some don't feel the need for those protections, others do. I doubt it will drop to really low numbers of people ever married legally anytime in the near future. The low numbers now are mainly not taking into consideration that young people are actually waiting til they are older to marry, and other factors. The waiting thing is something most people consider a positive. I waited til I was 27, which is higher than the national average for women. My husband was actually under it.

Median Age at First Marriage, 1890–2010

Notice the period around the 50s, 60s, how the average age of marriage dropped for both men and women. It is because there was a change in society, their beliefs on marriage and family.

Also, we don't really have much information on marriage rates prior to 1920, but it actually wasn't that high, considering it was higher in 1960.

Census: Marriage rate at 93-year low, even including same-sex couples | WashingtonExaminer.com

Basically, people are simply comparing now to 1950s, 1960s, and assuming that those times represent the majority of US history for such things. It doesn't. Those times were changes themselves to society, changes that led to more stringent laws concerning marriage and relationships. In the past, if people wanted to divorce, even when against the law technically, they simply left the person. If you moved to a different state or territory in the 19th Century, who would know if you were leaving a spouse behind? Who kept track of who was married? How was it communicated to others? How did people know who was who unless they told you? How did you know they were telling the truth?
 
Did you notice that the gay movement isn't concerned with the relationship actually suceeding at all?

The fight for same sex marriage and the fight against same sex marriage, both, have had zero to do with "stable, self-sufficient, productive households". It has to do with government bestowed benefits and who should be allowed to have their hand in the taxpayer's pocket. It's the whole basis of the Supreme Court ruling - individuals with a same sex marriage in a State that doesn't recognize same sex marriage should not be punished and prohibited from accessing federal subsidies in those States that heterosexual married couples enjoy.
 
You're quite funny. Government "simplifies the process" of marriage? Indeed - we've just seen decades of legal wrangling over same sex marriage that has been very simple. There's virtually nothing that government simplifies and absolutely nothing that government simplifies when it comes to the private lives of individuals. It's remarkable that your courts created a "right to privacy" under the constitution to legalize abortion and yet no similar right to privacy exists for personal relationships.

Actually, it is much simpler to have that government recognition than to get spurious recognition of your relationship, as we have seen in some companies waiting for full recognition. Same sex couples had to look for a company that was willing to grant them recognition for their relationship (getting medical/dental coverage for your spouse), while opposite sex couples who are legally married get those things from companies without having to look for them. They are recognized as married. The company can't say "I recognize your marriage, but not yours", unlike if there was no legal marriage recognition.
 
Basically my own opinion as well... Roberts was completely right.

And he was right that this opens us up for plural marriages in fact.

No, he wasn't, and no it doesn't, unless he is planning on being one of those to rule as such concerning plural marriages, which would be pretty dumb of him wouldn't it?
 
Actually, it is much simpler to have that government recognition than to get spurious recognition of your relationship, as we have seen in some companies waiting for full recognition. Same sex couples had to look for a company that was willing to grant them recognition for their relationship (getting medical/dental coverage for your spouse), while opposite sex couples who are legally married get those things from companies without having to look for them. They are recognized as married. The company can't say "I recognize your marriage, but not yours", unlike if there was no legal marriage recognition.

And if the government piece of paper didn't exist, companies wouldn't be relying on it to avoid their responsibilities. And it's funny that you don't see that as a complication rather than a simplification. But then in your ideology, government control of your personal life comforts you - I'm much more independent and self-sufficient.

Your circular argument really is tiring. Your argument boils down to government must issue and sanction marriages and licenses because everyone expects and depends on government to issue and sanction marriages and licenses.
 
Then you are the one choosing to see it that way. There are separate issues. It isn't that hard to recognize either if you just look at the first case that homosexuals won in the SCOTUS. It wasn't same sex marriage and was even before they got laws struck that got them thrown in jail, even put on sex offender lists for just being in their consensual relationships. It was to be able to be recognized under local anti-discrimination laws without the state interfering to make such recognition illegal. Then there is the fact that those cake cases involved incidents where marriage wasn't even legal at the time in those states for same sex couples, the same as for the photography case. Their weddings was personal weddings, having little to do with legal marriage (eventhough at least one was getting legally married in another state and having the reception in their home state).

The other issues are anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws, and adoption laws. Adoption laws are actually easier with same sex marriage bans struck down because that was how so many of them worked, only make adoption legal for those who were legally married. Now, same sex couples are legally married. I have no doubt though that there will likely be a last ditch effort on this one to try to prevent same sex adoptions, even with them now able to get married. As for anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws, this would just be adding sexuality as a reason to not discriminate, either in housing or in doing business. It applies to using any sexuality, not just homosexuality. Homosexuality, same sex relationships are not the only things that people have strong religious beliefs against, even of those protected by such laws. What exactly is your issue with people pushing for such things under the law? Other similar protections already exist within our laws, for race, religion, sex, etc.

What else is there that is the problem, that you are talking about?

This is how these issues have been played out by those pushing them.

"I have an issue with same sex marriage in terms of my faith". Response - That is because you are a bigoted scum sucking homophobe.

"I have problems with the Presidents agenda" Response - That is because you are a racist cesspool dwelling jackass.

"I think people need to take responsibility for the lives" Response - That is because you are a POS radical right wing zealot


The list goes on and on, as does the methodology being used to address opposition to these demands. It seems to me this method is going to increase the acrimony, rather than lessen it.

I think failure to recognize that is going to be a big mistake.
 
We still have laws in some places (Utah) that prevent people from cohabiting without being legally married. That is why such things were unheard of. In the far past, marriage didn't require any paperwork to protect people, now it does. Some don't feel the need for those protections, others do. I doubt it will drop to really low numbers of people ever married legally anytime in the near future. The low numbers now are mainly not taking into consideration that young people are actually waiting til they are older to marry, and other factors. The waiting thing is something most people consider a positive. I waited til I was 27, which is higher than the national average for women. My husband was actually under it.

Median Age at First Marriage, 1890–2010

Notice the period around the 50s, 60s, how the average age of marriage dropped for both men and women. It is because there was a change in society, their beliefs on marriage and family.

Also, we don't really have much information on marriage rates prior to 1920, but it actually wasn't that high, considering it was higher in 1960.

Census: Marriage rate at 93-year low, even including same-sex couples | WashingtonExaminer.com

Basically, people are simply comparing now to 1950s, 1960s, and assuming that those times represent the majority of US history for such things. It doesn't. Those times were changes themselves to society, changes that led to more stringent laws concerning marriage and relationships. In the past, if people wanted to divorce, even when against the law technically, they simply left the person. If you moved to a different state or territory in the 19th Century, who would know if you were leaving a spouse behind? Who kept track of who was married? How was it communicated to others? How did people know who was who unless they told you? How did you know they were telling the truth?

I have no idea how a comparison to the 1800's has any relationship to society today.

The fact is, marriage today is becoming passé. Yet, same sex marriage has been a hill to die on for liberal/progressives who at the forefront of rejecting the idea of it. So what was the point really? It doesn't seem to be the right, but the right to the right to do so.
 
You can toss up all the idiotic scenarios you want - they're meaningless. Try "one citizen is more equal than another citizen under the law" and "one tax exempt charity is more equal than another tax exempt charity under the law". Perhaps next some smart liberal will determine that Democrats are more beneficial to society than Republicans so people get tax breaks for donating to Democrats but not donating to Republicans. Maybe you'd like that, but you wouldn't like the reverse.

How are two couples, one married, one not, living together and making a home together different simply by virtue of their government piece of paper? How is one unmarried couple with four children less a benefit to society than a married couple with no children and no interest in children?

Because one couple has agreed to take on legal responsibilities for each other, the other has not. The other is willing to agree that they are married on legal paperwork, which affects them when applying for certain benefits, generally negatively, because both people are expected to be counted on that paperwork. They also agree to take on an indirect legal connection to the family of that person they are in a relationship with, the other couple doesn't. Just living with someone, even in a committed, longterm relationship, does not connect them legally to you.

For instance, if you work for the lottery commission, your family cannot win the lottery legally, this includes legal spouses or children living with you, and parents. Your parents and children are connected to you via birth certificates or adoption records. But your legal spouse is connected to you via the marriage license. This is one example of how legal marriage might be a burden to couples, but cohabitation with your significant other might benefit you. And it isn't just lottery workers either. Many employers have similar rules pertaining to legal spouses, and even inlaws, if there is any potential benefit or conflict of interest there. I work for the same company as my mother in law. I can't work in the same store as her though. My sister has worked in the same store as her though because there is no legal connection between my sister and my mother in law. The legal connections are between me and my sister and me and my mother in law.
 
I have no idea how a comparison to the 1800's has any relationship to society today.

The fact is, marriage today is becoming passé. Yet, same sex marriage has been a hill to die on for liberal/progressives who at the forefront of rejecting the idea of it. So what was the point really? It doesn't seem to be the right, but the right to the right to do so.

"Become" indicates that you are comparing marriage to some time in the past. Yet that is an arbitrary point in the past. Why is it a problem that it has become "passe"? In reality, it is just that people are changing their priorities, putting marriage at least, and even in many cases children (which is good) after establishing a career, some financial security.

It doesn't matter if only a small percent of that small percent of same sex couples want to get married. They should still have the right to do so, just as opposite sex couples do.
 
This is how these issues have been played out by those pushing them.

"I have an issue with same sex marriage in terms of my faith". Response - That is because you are a bigoted scum sucking homophobe.

"I have problems with the Presidents agenda" Response - That is because you are a racist cesspool dwelling jackass.

"I think people need to take responsibility for the lives" Response - That is because you are a POS radical right wing zealot


The list goes on and on, as does the methodology being used to address opposition to these demands. It seems to me this method is going to increase the acrimony, rather than lessen it.

I think failure to recognize that is going to be a big mistake.

That is how you are seeing it. In reality, the majority are saying "if you have an issue with same sex marriage in terms of your faith, then you need to understand that your faith applies to you, not to others. You cannot force others to live by your faith. That violates our rights and freedoms as Americans." Only a minority accuses people of being bigots.

I haven't called anyone racist, nor have I seen very many others do so, at least not debating here. (Unless there is someone who is not putting it nearly as rationally as you are, which does happen.)

Again, very few actually insult others about their stance on taking responsibility. What I have seen much of the time is people saying that it is more republican based policies that lead to others having financial problems, or simply greed, and then they are told to take responsibility when they struggle to survive in such a situation where they are dependent on others.

You are exaggerating the negative reactions and completely overlooking the negative beginning statements to those things. There is very little times when the debates ever operate with one side (in your examples, all of them, the right) being completely rational, and then the other side (again, in your examples being the left) being completely irrational and just plain jackasses in their responses. That simply isn't reality. There are rational people and jackasses on both sides.
 
And if the government piece of paper didn't exist, companies wouldn't be relying on it to avoid their responsibilities. And it's funny that you don't see that as a complication rather than a simplification. But then in your ideology, government control of your personal life comforts you - I'm much more independent and self-sufficient.

Your circular argument really is tiring. Your argument boils down to government must issue and sanction marriages and licenses because everyone expects and depends on government to issue and sanction marriages and licenses.

No, those companies would be picking and choosing which couples they wanted to recognize as married, leaving others to fend for themselves, treating them unfairly just because they felt it was okay to do so. Legal marriage provides a set standard that they must follow. If they offer benefits to married people, then it must be to all married people, not just those they like or agree with.

There are many reasons for the marriage licenses to exist. That is just one of them.
 
No, those companies would be picking and choosing which couples they wanted to recognize as married, leaving others to fend for themselves, treating them unfairly just because they felt it was okay to do so. Legal marriage provides a set standard that they must follow. If they offer benefits to married people, then it must be to all married people, not just those they like or agree with.

There are many reasons for the marriage licenses to exist. That is just one of them.
Why should a company have to recegnise any relationship? What contract does your spouse sign with your employer which then obligates the employer? What service does your non-employee spouce provide to the buisness which then entitles your spouse to compinsation?
 
Because one couple has agreed to take on legal responsibilities for each other, the other has not. The other is willing to agree that they are married on legal paperwork, which affects them when applying for certain benefits, generally negatively, because both people are expected to be counted on that paperwork. They also agree to take on an indirect legal connection to the family of that person they are in a relationship with, the other couple doesn't. Just living with someone, even in a committed, longterm relationship, does not connect them legally to you.

For instance, if you work for the lottery commission, your family cannot win the lottery legally, this includes legal spouses or children living with you, and parents. Your parents and children are connected to you via birth certificates or adoption records. But your legal spouse is connected to you via the marriage license. This is one example of how legal marriage might be a burden to couples, but cohabitation with your significant other might benefit you. And it isn't just lottery workers either. Many employers have similar rules pertaining to legal spouses, and even inlaws, if there is any potential benefit or conflict of interest there. I work for the same company as my mother in law. I can't work in the same store as her though. My sister has worked in the same store as her though because there is no legal connection between my sister and my mother in law. The legal connections are between me and my sister and me and my mother in law.

Well, clearly we disagree, and you continuously throw up this nonsense that has zero to do with the need for a government issued marriage license as opposed to a civilly created personal relationship contact that any two people enter into at any given time in their lives. Your faith in government is adorable but misguided, in my view, and that's not going to change no matter how many red herrings and strawmen you toss in the way.

Take care and have a good day.
 
Back
Top Bottom