• 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

Then we agree.
Click to expand...

No, we obviously don't agree because you've been disagreeing with me for the entire thread, or have I missed something?

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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, HOWEVER, if we are going to permit the government to establish an unconstitutional institution it makes no sense to cry afoul when it runs amiss of the Constitution. A gay couple has as much of a "right" to a state-sanctioned marriage as I do to a minority housing grant.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is not the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court.

Edited to add: Wasn't this the position of mine you dismissed as not being very persuasive?
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Captain, need I remind you that the position of "no religion" is itself a religious position, and thus, paradoxically, "'NO' religion" is still religion?

You can disclaim the need for a sacred text -- that is a religious statement.

You can deny the existence of a Deity -- that is a religious statement.

You can deny that anything beyond the empirical world of the senses exists -- that is a religious statement.

When you make religious statements, you are practicing religion.

What unites the Atheist with the Fundamentalist is their fervent faith in their own beliefs; one is neither more nor less religious than the other.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that lack of religion is religion; I think what you are talking about is belief, which is not identical to religion. Your argument is interesting, though, and since I am not an atheist, I would prefer to leave it to someone who is to address it further.
 
celticlord said:
This is not the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court.

Edited to add: Wasn't this the position of mine you dismissed as not being very persuasive?
Click to expand...

I never said it WAS the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court, I was simply agreeing with Etheral that Government should be out of the marriage business.

As for your second point, let me clarify. I agree with that position. However, when I said it was unpersuasive, I was saying that it is unpersuasive as an argument for arguing that bans on gay marriage are constitutional. As an argument for that it fails sadly. However, as a policy matter, it makes absolute sense.
 
Jerry said:
Neither can 2 related people. You're point?
Click to expand...
You mean it's against the law to marry your sister? Maybe gays should be fighting for that too.
 
American said:
You mean it's against the law to marry your sister? Maybe gays should be fighting for that too.
Click to expand...

gays wouldn't be marrying their sister :doh...that's more of a red neck right-wing thing to do.
 
Ethereal said:
Absolutely, HOWEVER, if we are going to permit the government to establish an unconstitutional institution it makes no sense to cry afoul when it runs amiss of the Constitution. A gay couple has as much of a "right" to a state-sanctioned marriage as I do to a minority housing grant.
Click to expand...
That's where we disagree. We agree that the government should get out of the marriage business. However, my position is that if we are going to allow the government to stay in the marriage business, they should be required to comply with the Constitutional safeguard of equal protection. Your "minority housing grant" argument fails because it would undergo a different analysis under equal protection than gay marriage would. One involves a Constitutionally recognized fundamental right, the other does not.
 
American said:
You mean it's against the law to marry your sister? Maybe gays should be fighting for that too.
Click to expand...

Familial Relation is a protected class, after all...AND I'm already living with her, helping to rais her kids, sharing bills, etc.

Why shouldn't 2 consenting adults be allowed to enter into the strictly legal contract of marriage when we can enter into any other kind of contract? I mean we're only talking about like 2% of the population.

Some people don't care for familial-marriage, and that's fine, their church is free to decline to hold our ceremony.

If you don't like Familial Marriage, don't marry one. I respect your choice so you should respect mine.

If you're going to start talking about inbreed children with genetic diseases then you need to explain why other people with genetic diseases are allowed to marry. The only tangible difference between the 2 is that one couple is related and the other is not. That's Discrimination....unless you're going to propose legislation to ban marriages where genetic diseases are assured.

Where’s the data showing that brothers and sisters can not raise a child just as good as a non related couple?

I would argue that the social bonds of a related couple are stronger since the siblings grew up together, and thus there would be a significantly lower divorce rate among Familial couples than unrelated couples. You unrelated couples just go to a drive-through chapel in Vegas and get the Marriage Combo #2 (upper-size Elvis-fries). With the likes of Britney Speers as your poster child I really don’t see how you think you have a valid objection to Incest.

Who is the government to legislate who I can love?

The government needs to stay out of the bedroom.

We should just do away with “marriage” altogether and only have civil unions. Let people define their own relationships and keep your nose out of it!
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
gays wouldn't be marrying their sister :doh...that's more of a red neck right-wing thing to do.
Click to expand...

That's a racial slur!

Only racist religious bigots make racial slurs...are you a bigot? You made a racial slur....
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
I never said it WAS the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court, I was simply agreeing with Etheral that Government should be out of the marriage business.
Click to expand...
Then why are you cheering on a court ruling that most emphatically puts Government in the marriage business?
Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
Click to expand...

"Civil marriage" is government regulated marriage; it is the issuance of the marriage license. If you are arguing for government non-involvement in marriage, if you are arguing against the concept of marriage licenses, you are arguing against the institution of civil marriage in its entirety (and I would agree with you in that argument); however, the Iowa Supreme Court ruling does not advance that cause, but hinders it. The ruling, as an inevitable adjunct, endorses the institution of civil marriage, and the constitutionality thereof.

disneydude said:
As for your second point, let me clarify. I agree with that position. However, when I said it was unpersuasive, I was saying that it is unpersuasive as an argument for arguing that bans on gay marriage are constitutional. As an argument for that it fails sadly. However, as a policy matter, it makes absolute sense.
Click to expand...

My argument is that civil marriage is unconstitutional, that it is violative of the First Amendment, and should be discontinued forthwith. If you accept the constitutionality of civil marriage, if you accept that marriage licensure is a power reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment (which, if you accept the institution, it must be), then you acknowledge the power of the States to regulate marriage accordingly; a State's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is quite constitutional in that framework.

Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue. Civil marriage is.
 
celticlord said:
Then why are you cheering on a court ruling that most emphatically puts Government in the marriage business?
Click to expand...

They are mutually exclusive. I think government should get out of the marriage business. But as long as they remain in it, then the courts should ensure that they do so in a non-discriminatory fashion that recognizes and does not offend the Constitutional guarentee of equal protection.

celticlord said:
My argument is that civil marriage is unconstitutional, that it is violative of the First Amendment, and should be discontinued forthwith. If you accept the constitutionality of civil marriage, if you accept that marriage licensure is a power reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment (which, if you accept the institution, it must be), then you acknowledge the power of the States to regulate marriage accordingly; a State's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is quite constitutional in that framework.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. States aren't free to disregard the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection simply because civil marriage is a power reserved to the States. Basically you are arguing that States are free to do anything they want. That simply isn't true.

celticlord said:
Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue. Civil marriage is.
Click to expand...

They both are absolutely constitutional issues. So long as states are involved in civil marriage, they must comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
 
disneydude said:
They both are absolutely constitutional issues. So long as states are involved in civil marriage, they must comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say this one last time and then drop off before I rip you a new asshole and earn another 2 day vacation....

There are no requirements in the constitution regarding marriage.
Marriage is not a power afforded the Fed nor is it a power denied the Fed. Therefore, and I'll go slow on this part so you can keep up....therefore, per the 10th Amendment, marriage is a state issue and not a federal issue at all.

Have fun chasing your tail :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
I'm going to say this one last time and then drop off before I rip you a new asshole and earn another 2 day vacation....

There are no requirements in the constitution regarding marriage.
Marriage is not a power afforded the Fed nor is it a power denied the Fed. Therefore, and I'll go slow on this part so you can keep up....therefore, per the 10th Amendment, marriage is a state issue and not a federal issue at all.

Have fun chasing your tail :2wave:
Click to expand...


Sorry, Jerry...but you are simply dead wrong. Marriage has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. Regardless, equal protection applies to privileges as well as rights, so your argument fails on two levels.
Whenever the government decides to grant privileges OR rights, it must do so in a non-discriminatory manner OR if it is discriminatory the Constitution requires justification for that limitation (either legitimate, important or compelling depending upon the class of individuals restricted and/or the nature of the right/privilege involved). Thats basic conlaw.
 
disneydude said:
No it isn't. States aren't free to disregard the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection simply because civil marriage is a power reserved to the States. Basically you are arguing that States are free to do anything they want. That simply isn't true.
Click to expand...
I am arguing no such thing. The Iowa statutes--as is generally the case in state laws defining marriage--allow every man to seek a marriage license from the state with the woman of his choice, and allow every woman to seek a marriage license from the state with the man of her choice. The law is applied equally without regard to race, creed, or sexual orientation (keep in mind that sexual union is not a predicate nor a prerequisite for marriage). The law does not handicap any person more than another; it does not preclude two men (or two women) from cohabiting, from bequeathing property to each other, from raising children, or from any other practical practice of "marriage".

As the law restricts all persons equally, there is no "equal protection" case to be made. Arguing that the law should not restrict is a worthy argument, but it is not an "equal protection" argument.

As for fairness, in constitutional arguments that is most often a canard. "Fairness" in constitutional terms is simply the equitable application of the law, and is merely a rhetorical addendum to the mantra of "equal protection" with which it is synonymous. Substantively, what is and is not constitutional is a matter of law, not fairness. Fairness is a question of social justice, and the place to debate and remedy social injustice is the legislature, not the courts.

disneydude said:
They both are absolutely constitutional issues. So long as states are involved in civil marriage, they must comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
They absolutely cannot both be constitutional issues. If civil marriage is constitutional, then states are granted the power to regulate marriage, which amply validates the refusal to issue a marriage license to same sex couples as being constitutional. Similarly, in order for gay marriage to be a constitutional issue, civil marriage itself must be constitutional.

Declaring civil marriage unconstitutional precludes any discussion on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Demanding gay marriage be constitutional necessitates an acknowledgment of the constitutionality of civil marriage. The arguments are therefore mutually exclusive.
 
celticlord said:
I am arguing no such thing. The Iowa statutes--as is generally the case in state laws defining marriage--allow every man to seek a marriage license from the state with the woman of his choice, and allow every woman to seek a marriage license from the state with the man of her choice. The law is applied equally without regard to race, creed, or sexual orientation (keep in mind that sexual union is not a predicate nor a prerequisite for marriage). The law does not handicap any person more than another; it does not preclude two men (or two women) from cohabiting, from bequeathing property to each other, from raising children, or from any other practical practice of "marriage".

As the law restricts all persons equally, there is no "equal protection" case to be made. Arguing that the law should not restrict is a worthy argument, but it is not an "equal protection" argument.
Click to expand...

Your first argument here is fatally flawed because it begins from a flawed premise that misconstrues equal protection and involves circular reasoning.
You essentially argue that because a gay man and a straight man are both free to marry a straight or gay woman, there is no violation. That is a rather simplistic reading and analysis that the Iowa Court rejected.

celticlord said:
As for fairness, in constitutional arguments that is most often a canard. "Fairness" in constitutional terms is simply the equitable application of the law, and is merely a rhetorical addendum to the mantra of "equal protection" with which it is synonymous. Substantively, what is and is not constitutional is a matter of law, not fairness. Fairness is a question of social justice, and the place to debate and remedy social injustice is the legislature, not the courts.
Click to expand...

The Courts have ALWAYS been involved in issues of fairness. JUSTICE is the very principle under which the courts are intended to operate. This is why there are 3 distinct branches of government. To say that social justice is the sole role of the legislature fails to recognize that.

celtliclord said:
They absolutely cannot both be constitutional issues. If civil marriage is constitutional, then states are granted the power to regulate marriage, which amply validates the refusal to issue a marriage license to same sex couples as being constitutional. Similarly, in order for gay marriage to be a constitutional issue, civil marriage itself must be constitutional.

Declaring civil marriage unconstitutional precludes any discussion on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Demanding gay marriage be constitutional necessitates an acknowledgment of the constitutionality of civil marriage. The arguments are therefore mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are wrong here. If civil marriage is constititutional, states are granted the power to regulate marriage, however, they must do so in a manner that is non-discriminatory and does not offend the principles of Equal Protection. States are not free to do whatever they want simply because they are granted the power to regulate marriage. If that were the case, States could refuse to issue a marriage license to anyone other than Blacks or could deny marriage licenses to inter-racial couples.
 
disneydude said:
The Courts have ALWAYS been involved in issues of fairness. JUSTICE is the very principle under which the courts are intended to operate. This is why there are 3 distinct branches of government. To say that social justice is the sole role of the legislature fails to recognize that.
Click to expand...

Justice is never the purview of the courts. Courts only have the competence to decide the law.

My favorite anecdote regarding Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes frames it nicely:
....think of the story of Judge Learned Hand and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. After having lunch together, Justice Holmes entered his carriage to return to the Supreme Court. Overcome by a sudden bout of enthusiasm, Judge Hand ran towards Holmes' carriage and shouted, "Do justice, Sir! Do justice!" Judge Holmes replied, "That is not my job, sir. My job is to apply the law."
Click to expand...

Attempts to apply "justice" are how we get such monstrosities as Dred Scott v Sanford and Roe v Wade.
 
disneydude said:
You essentially argue that because a gay man and a straight man are both free to marry a straight or gay woman, there is no violation. That is a rather simplistic reading and analysis that the Iowa Court rejected.
Click to expand...
It is a fairly linear reasoning, and one the Iowa Court erred in rejecting.

In order for your challenge to that reasoning to prevail, you must establish that sexual congress is fundamental to marriage, and that marriage is fundamental to sexual congress. Without that correlation, any claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is absurd.

However, what is patently absurd is that civil marriage is necessarily and inherently sexual in nature. Human history refutes this. Even in our own country, civil marriage is not always a sexual expression, or even a romantic expression (case in point, Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, and arguably Bill and Hillary Clinton). It is a union for whatever reason a man and a woman wish to unite. Perhaps it is for reasons of economics, or perhaps it is for reasons of politics (e.g., marriage to obtain legal residency in a country). Whatever the reason, people do not marry merely to fornicate.

If civil marriage is not inherently and necessarily sexual in nature, if civil marriage and sexual expression are not inextricably intertwined, then the sexual orientation of individuals need not be given especial consideration in deriving regulations on civil marriage.

Consequently, the equal protection argument is non-applicable to the topic of gay marriage.
 
celticlord said:
If civil marriage is not inherently and necessarily sexual in nature, if civil marriage and sexual expression are not inextricably intertwined, then the sexual orientation of individuals need not be given especial consideration in deriving regulations on civil marriage.
Click to expand...

Thank you...you just made the argument as to why the state should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In deciding whether to issue marriage contracts to two consenting adults, the government should not give any special consideration to the sexual orientation of the individuals seeking to enter into that contract.

I knew that eventually you would come around.
 
disneydude said:
Thank you...you just made the argument as to why the state should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In deciding whether to issue marriage contracts to two consenting adults, the government should not give any special consideration to the sexual orientation of the individuals seeking to enter into that contract.
Click to expand...
Hence why gay marriage advocates must fail in their argument. They are seeking special consideration, and, ultimately, a most unequal circumstance under the law.

Gay marriage is discrimination based on sexual orientation--gay marriage advocates are seeking special distinction for a specific sexual orientation (as you have just acknowledged). Worse still, it is even more violative of the First Amendment's establishment clause than the broad institution of civil marriage itself.
 
That's where we disagree. We agree that the government should get out of the marriage business. However, my position is that if we are going to allow the government to stay in the marriage business, they should be required to comply with the Constitutional safeguard of equal protection.
Click to expand...

How can a Constitutional safeguard conceivably apply to something that is unconstitutional? Furthermore, if the equal protection clause were applied comprehensively within the institution of marriage we would need to recognize all forms of marriage, not just same-sex marriage. Bestial and polygamist relationships would necessitate the same equal protection under the law.

Your "minority housing grant" argument fails because it would undergo a different analysis under equal protection than gay marriage would.
Click to expand...

I have demonstrated time and again that these divergent analyses of equal protection are perversions of the Constitution. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow for these fabricated legal constructions. Your incessant appeals to authority will do nothing to change this.

One involves a Constitutionally recognized fundamental right, the other does not.
Click to expand...

State-sanctioned marriages are not a fundamental right; I thought we just agreed on this.
 
I see in Vermont the legislature approved gay marriage.........As much as I am against gay marriage I can respect their decision because it was done by the correct branch of Gov........That why marriage in Mass. and Iowa is so phoney.......It was approved by activist judges not the people or the legislature...........My hat is off to the people of California who overruled the activist judges there...........
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I see in Vermont the legislature approved gay marriage.........As much as I am against gay marriage I can respect their decision because it was done by the correct branch of Gov........That why marriage in Mass. and Iowa is so phoney.......It was approved by activist judges not the people or the legislature...........My hat is off to the people of California who overruled the activist judges there...........
Click to expand...

Navy...you need to do your homework. The California Legislature TWICE passed gay marriage bills, only the have them Vetoed by our Republican Governor who said the issue should be decided by the Courts.

Since Gay Marriage in California was approved by the "Correct branch in Government", I must assume that you supported gay marriage in California, right?
 
disneydude said:
Navy...you need to do your homework. The California Legislature TWICE passed gay marriage bills, only the have them Vetoed by our Republican Governor who said the issue should be decided by the Courts.

Since Gay Marriage in California was approved by the "Correct branch in Government", I must assume that you supported gay marriage in California, right?
Click to expand...

The people of California gave a resounding no to gay marriage in California....They are the ones who should decide............It is a dead issue there............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom