• 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!

Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Last edited:
This would be the same Supreme Court that handed down such triumphs of justice as Dred Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson (overturned in Brown v Board of Education, and Buck v Bell (largely overturned in Skinner v Oklahoma), correct?

Absolutely. Cases are overturned all the time. That's why the court is the final arbiter. Sometimes, they realize that they got it wrong.
 
Its because you don't understand jurisprudence.

Prove it.

There are a lot of links on the internet if you search around. I posted some a while back.

I prefer legal and historical texts, but thanks anyway.
 
Absolutely. Cases are overturned all the time. That's why the court is the final arbiter. Sometimes, they realize that they got it wrong.

And sometimes they never realize they got it wrong and sometimes the people realize they got it wrong before they do.
 
But would you advocate for that?

When SD had a gay-marriage ban on the ballot a couple years ago, I did not support it, so why would I support any ban like what you present?

I have not made any argument on this thread against gay-marriage.

I'm pointing out that gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue, and that is not an anti-gm argument.

***
Driving is not a civil right's issue, and saying so does not automatically mean I support all sorts of restrictions on driving.

Any restrictions I would support stand on their own and do not exist simply because they are legal to enact.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Cases are overturned all the time. That's why the court is the final arbiter. Sometimes, they realize that they got it wrong.
Like the Iowa Supreme Court got its gay marriage ruling wrong.;)
 
When SD had a gay-marriage ban on the ballot a couple years ago, I did not support it, so why would I support any ban like what you present?

I have not made any argument on this thread against gay-marriage.

I'm pointing out that gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue, and that is not an anti-gm argument.

gay marriage is absolutely a civil rights issue. How can you possibly argue it isn't?

The courts have recognized marriage as being a fundamental right. An infringement on that right is by its very definition a civil rights issue.
 
gay marriage is absolutely a civil rights issue. How can you possibly argue it isn't?
Because it isn't, and because no substantive argument has been advanced that it is.
 
Read your posts

The problem is...you are reading them and interpreting them according to YOUR view of the words. Part of being American is that others may disagree.

Show me where the Constitution affirms your legal premise; or are you incapable of this?
 
Because it isn't, and because no substantive argument has been advanced that it is.

Hello! Anybody home? It has already been recognized as such on numerous ocassions. Just because you argue it isn't doesn't make it so.
 
Show me where the Constitution affirms your legal premise; or are you incapable of this?

I can't be any more clear. Its called "THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATE CONSTITUTION".

It goes a little something like this..."no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
 
Last edited:
gay marriage is absolutely a civil rights issue. How can you possibly argue it isn't?

The courts have recognized marriage as being a fundamental right. An infringement on that right is by its very definition a civil rights issue.

Go back to post 202, and when you get to this post, go back to post 202 again and keep reading...repeat this cycle for all eternity or until you choose to stop arguing in circles.
 
Hello! Anybody home? It has already been recognized as such on numerous ocassions. Just because you argue it isn't doesn't make it so.
Nor does your blessing upon such argument render it substantive--particularly when you are unable to state with clarity how various facets of the Constitution, such as the 14th Amendment (that "equal protection" "clause" you throw about haphazardly).

The argument line of "I want what I want and denying me what I want is unequal" doesn't work, just to clarify.
 
I can't be any more clear. Its called "THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATE CONSTITUTION".

Then you are left with only two options:

1. Abolish any government program which violates this clause.

2. Give me a minority housing grant and a social security check.
 
Nor does your blessing upon such argument render it substantive--particularly when you are unable to state with clarity how various facets of the Constitution, such as the 14th Amendment (that "equal protection" "clause" you throw about haphazardly).

The argument line of "I want what I want and denying me what I want is unequal" doesn't work, just to clarify.

Total cop-out. Show me anywhere I have argued what you are claiming? I guess when you have no argument you jump to fabrications....niiiiiice.
 
Then you are left with only two options:

1. Abolish any government program which violates this clause.

2. Give me a minority housing grant and a social security check.

No. Again, you have to understand that not everything is treated the same under Equal protection analysis. People who don't understand it make that misconception all the time.

There are 3 levels of analysis: Strict Scrutiny being the highest, Intermediate and Standard Scrutiny.

Each triggers a different burden on the government to justify its infringement.
Strict requires a compelling governmental interest
Intermediate an important one
and Standard...a legitimate one.
 
Jerry, are you going to submit a different argument or should I proceed to cut your previous one to shreds?
 
Jerry, are you going to submit a different argument or should I proceed to cut your previous one to shreds?

I'm hoping you can rip it to sheds in a civil and intelligent way so that I can put you on the list for a new social group for higher debate :2wave:
 
Go back to post 202, and when you get to this post, go back to post 202 again and keep reading...repeat this cycle for all eternity or until you choose to stop arguing in circles.

Thanks for wasting my time....you refer me back to a mindless post that says absolutely nothing....:doh
 
Total cop-out. Show me anywhere I have argued what you are claiming? I guess when you have no argument you jump to fabrications....niiiiiice.
Pray tell, what exactly is my claim?

Nor does your blessing upon such argument render it substantive--particularly when you are unable to state with clarity how various facets of the Constitution, such as the 14th Amendment (that "equal protection" "clause" you throw about haphazardly).

The argument line of "I want what I want and denying me what I want is unequal" doesn't work, just to clarify.
Within these sentences, what claim is made?
 
No. Again, you have to understand that not everything is treated the same under Equal protection analysis. People who don't understand it make that misconception all the time.

There are 3 levels of analysis: Strict Scrutiny being the highest, Intermediate and Standard Scrutiny.

Each triggers a different burden on the government to justify its infringement.
Strict requires a compelling governmental interest
Intermediate an important one
and Standard...a legitimate one.

"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-Fourteenth Amendment.


I still can't find the part where it says a "legitimate public interest" is sufficient cause to violate the Constitution. Did they write it in magic marker or something?
 
"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-Fourteenth Amendment.


I still can't find the part where it says a "legitimate public interest" is sufficient cause to violate the Constitution. Did they write it in magic marker or something?


Take a conlaw course. Of just pick up "Equal Protection for dummies", its available at most major bookstores or amazon.com
 
Back
Top Bottom