• 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

Take a conlaw course. Of just pick up "Equal Protection for dummies", its available at most major bookstores or amazon.com
You did not answer Ethereal's question.

Incidentally, what is the ISBN # of "Equal Protection for dummies"?
 
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:

It would be my pleasure.

First, your SCOTUS reference will be summarily dismissed unless you want to discuss the merits of Roe v Wade and abortion. I trust you're intelligent enough to extrapolate my meaning.

Secondly, and more importantly, a positive obligation is not a right. I am under no obligation to legitimize your lifestyle choices, nor am I obligated to confer special privileges upon you because of those lifestyle choices. If you wish to enter into a legal agreement with another person that is your right, but do not presume to oblige my participation via government proxy.
 
It would be my pleasure.

First, your SCOTUS reference will be summarily dismissed unless you want to discuss the merits of Roe v Wade and abortion. I trust you're intelligent enough to extrapolate my meaning.

Secondly, and more importantly, a positive obligation is not a right. I am under no obligation to legitimize your lifestyle choices, nor am I obligated to confer special privileges upon you because of those lifestyle choices. If you wish to enter into a legal agreement with another person that is your right, but do not presume to oblige my participation via government proxy.

Then why are we required to legitimize YOUR lifestyle choice via a governmental proxy?
 
Only if you think driving is a civil rights issue.

Drinking would be a civil rights issue if a law were passed that said only asians are allowed to drink or only heterosexuals can drink.
Absolutely.

It simply wouldn't trigger the same level of scrutiny as if it involved a fundamental right, such as "Only blacks are allowed to own guns".
 
Last edited:
Only if you think driving is a civil rights issue.

If women were denied the right to drive a car, then it would be.
 
Sorry. I know you guys like your edumacation to be basic. But Constitutional Law is a college level course that requires more that I can post in a 4 word sentence.

I don't have the info for you. Just google or go to Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more
You still didn't answer Ethereal's question. You can use more than four words; I am reasonably certain Ethereal won't hold it against you.

As for my question.....you used considerably more than four words just to say you did not know the answer.
 
You still didn't answer Ethereal's question. You can use more than four words; I am reasonably certain Ethereal won't hold it against you.

As for my question.....you used considerably more than four words just to say you did not know the answer.

I provided the link. Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through it as well?

Just take your mouse and move the arrow over the underlined part. Now double click.
 
Drinking would be a civil rights issue if a law were passed that said only asians are allowed to drink or only heterosexuals can drink.
Absolutely

Substitute "people over 21" for "asians" and "heterosexuals" in the above sentence:

"Drinking would be a civil rights issue if a law were passed that said only people over 21 are allowed to drink or only people over 21 can drink."

So the drinking age is now a civil rights issue.....

(from GLADD to MADD)
 
Take a conlaw course.

I learned how to read when I was five years old. Unlike you, I don't need someone else to interpret a simple sentence for me. However, in the event I do require clarification I simply reference the Founding Fathers; you know, the guys who created our system of governance.

Of just pick up "Equal Protection for dummies", its available at most major bookstores or amazon.com.

Oh, I remember that one! If memory serves me right, it was written by Thomas Jefferson...or was it Benjamin Franklin? I can never remember. Anyway, it's obvious you have nothing to contribute besides ad hominem, so until you're willing to discuss the actual text of the Constitution I will simply bid you adieu.
 
Substitute "people over 21" for "asians" and "heterosexuals" in the above sentence:

"Drinking would be a civil rights issue if a law were passed that said only people over 21 are allowed to drink or only people over 21 can drink."

So the drinking age is now a civil rights issue.....

(from GLADD to MADD)

It absolutely is. And there is a "legitimate" governmental interest in requiring an age limitation. But you are absolutely right. It raises an equal protection is. Good for you.
 
Last edited:
Then why are we required to legitimize YOUR lifestyle choice via a governmental proxy?

I don't believe you should be. The government has no business legitimizing the institution of marriage.
 
I don't believe you should be. The government has no business legitimizing the institution of marriage.

Then we agree. The government should simply get out of the marriage business altogether and let churches marry whomever they choose. Some churches can choose to marry only heteros. Others will marry straight and gays. Sounds perfect.
 
I provided the link. Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through it as well?

Just take your mouse and move the arrow over the underlined part. Now double click.

  1. Only a single click is needed to jump to a hyperlink
  2. There is no such book "Equal Protection for Dummies" for sale on Amazon.
  3. Product Search - For Dummies There is no such book published in the "For Dummies" series.
  4. It would have been simpler to just admit you were making the title up, would it not? Alternatively, if you are thinking of a different title, why not simply post the ISBN # as I requested? Amazon has a number of books on the Constitution and specifically on the 14th Amendment.
 
Back
Top Bottom