• 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!

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

Jerry said:
Do I need to expand further? When women got the right to vote, men got nothing. Something was added only to one side of the scale….
Click to expand...

Something is added. Hetero marriage stays the same, Homosexual marriage gains the ability of people being able to marry those whom they truly love; an ability currently in many States held only by heterosexual couples. Gay people tend not to really be able to experience the full of love, physical, emotional, and romantic, with people of the opposite sex. It's why they are gay, they are attracted to people of the same sex. The opposite is true of straight people, they are attracted to people of the opposite sex and can't experience the full of love with members of the same sex.

So while heterosexual couples enjoyed the ability to forge contract with those they truly love (pursuit of happiness), homosexual couples were denied this ability. Authorizing same sex couples to access to the Marriage Contract allows them the ability to marry those whom they truly love; heterosexuals get nothing additional because they already enjoyed this ability.
 
The Jovial One said:
I must be missing your point.

Without the right to marry, gays don't have a weight on the scale like straights do. By giving gays the right to marry, it balances the scale.
Click to expand...

How can you balance the scale when the same wait is placed on both sides?

If the scale is uneven, then you would have to place wait on only one side, right?
 
disneydude said:
Never ending referendums?

So you believe that Constitutional rights should be put to a popular vote?
Click to expand...


I am surprised you would even question it........That is how we do it in this country when activists get out of hand.........
 
Alex said:
For all of the debaters who said the court system was the wrong way to this, now it is done the way you wanted it.

Are you fine with it?
Click to expand...
Mostly fine. For reasons I have stated in abundance in other threads, I do not believe sanctioning gay marriage is the right remedy, but, at first glance, I have no reason to question its constitutionality. Whether it is a good law will be seen over time.

Of a certainty this has firmer foundations than the specious and arbitrary court rulings elsewhere.
 
The Jovial One said:
I disagree with it "not being a civil rights" issue. Gays may not be an ethnic or racial minority, they are a different class of minority whose rights have been trampled on for centuries. You do not choose to be gay. It is not a lifestyle choice.

They should not be denied any of the rights enjoyed by others.
Click to expand...

Yeah and so are polygamysts..........
 
Jerry said:
Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed.
Click to expand...

How did it change? I guess you can say it changed in such away that heterosexuals can now marry people they do not love, which is what homosexuals had before but were not allowed to marry those whom they did love. Or rather I guess expand upon the set of people they can not fully, romantically love and thus not probably marry.

So you can take this as two sets of weights, as that seems to be the analogy you like. A large weight which symbolizes being able to marry who you love most and fully, the small one symbolizing the sex of those who you aren't attracted to yet being able to marry them.

So to start, Heterosexuals had the large weight only and homosexuals had the small weight only. Allowing same sex marriage grants the small weight to the heterosexuals and the large weight to the homosexuals...thus balancing in full the Contract of Marriage.
 
Ikari said:
How did it change?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to make a point. Even if you disagree with my point I need you to demonstrate that you understand what I'm saying so that I will then listen to what you have to say. While your posts are your own, communication between us is a team effort and I need your cooperation. Right now you're trying to make a point while I'm trying to make a point. I feel like you're basically interrupting and speaking while I'm speaking, and what I would like is to be understood and understand you in return. I would be more than happy to read your own analogy when I'm finished, but right now it's my turn.

***

My point on this thread concerns only the law, and nothing else. Heteros got the same civil right to marry someone of the same gender as gays did.

The scale being the 14th amendment and each wait being the actual civil right given to each side, neither side got anything more than the other side, legally. Each side got the same thing, so if marriage is equal now, it was equal then; if gay marriage was unequal then, it is unequal now.

I think you and I are beginning at very different places. I appears to me that you begin where there are distinctions between gay/striate, whereas I begin where there are only citizens per-se.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Loving vs. Virginia does deem marriage a right however. And that was a SCOTUS case.
Click to expand...

And 5 years later, the court held in Baker v. Nelson that Loving did not apply to gay marriage.

Jerry said:
Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed.
Click to expand...

lol, no, it has not. That's just absurd.
 
Jerry said:
I'm trying to make a point. Even if you disagree with my point I need you to demonstrate that you understand what I'm saying so that I will then listen to what you have to say. While your posts are your own, communication between us is a team effort and I need your cooperation. Right now you're trying to make a point while I'm trying to make a point. I feel like you're basically interrupting and speaking while I'm speaking, and what I would like is to be understood and understand you in return. I would be more than happy to read your own analogy when I'm finished, but right now it's my turn.

***

My point on this thread concerns only the law, and nothing else. Heteros got the same civil right to marry someone of the same gender as gays did.

The scale being the 14th amendment and each wait being the actual civil right given to each side, neither side got anything more than the other side, legally. Each side got the same thing, so if marriage is equal now, it was equal then; if gay marriage was unequal then, it is unequal now.

I think you and I are beginning at very different places. I appears to me that you begin where there are distinctions between gay/striate, whereas I begin where there are only citizens per-se.
Click to expand...

There are certainly distinctions between gay/straight on an emotional and love level; which is intricate to the current discussion of marriage as marriage pertains to more than just a regular ol' contract but is reserved as a sacred bond between two people whom love each other totally and fully. If this were a "paint my house" sort of thing, I may be more inclined to agree with you; but as it deals with base emotion and desire it becomes complicated. It used to be mere contract between two people and their god; with rules for eligibility and such set by the Church, which is fine since it was mostly a religious event. State usurped it and complicated the matter because of it. Thus we have to see what it is that marriage does, it allows for many benefits typically reserved for the one person opposite someone by which they fully share and invest their lives with. That sharing and investing is dependent upon many factors, one huge one being love. There is a difference in who hetero and homosexual people love, markedly in sex of partner. Hetero chooses those of opposite sex, homo chooses those of same sex. That has to factor into the equation when discussing marriage because marriage is also based on love. Who can you and can't you marry. You may say it was even before because homosexuals could marry people of opposite sex; but that mistakenly bars whom one would choose to be married to. A homosexual obviously wouldn't choose to be married to someone of opposite sex anymore than a heterosexual wouldn't choose to be married to someone of same sex. Thus previously you allowed one set of people to marry those whom they would naturally choose and forbid another group to marry those whom they would naturally choose. Marriage must take into account these factors.

I explained very clearly and by your own analogy previous this distinction of what is going on. Furthermore, my argument has the added bonus of showing why interracial marriage is ok and should be allowed. Your argument is quite the opposite and could be used to argue against interracial marriage. The breakdown of that point on something we nearly universally accept as ok and something which government can't bar should show the real world end points of our arguments and which one fits the data better.

BTW, the first part of your post is BS. I responded in full to posts you've made, you weren't in middle of something else you would have finished it before you posted it. I've taken your argument, I know where you're coming from, I think you've purposefully left out key bits of information in order to make your argument. As your argument doesn't fit reality (i.e. in the application of interracial marriage) I think that's a big clue as to some starting assumptions being wrong or missing. Don't sit there and try to play the "I'm making an argument" blah blah blah. Cause I'm not in the room with you, I can't hear you talk. All I can go off of is your posts and when you've posted something that seems to say, this is my argument as of right now respond to it and we'll continue. Otherwise, finish your post before posting it. I'm not going to fault myself with this when you're basically making some deflect as to not consider my arguments but to demand your arguments be heard to their full.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Wate...there are still 2 seporate institutions?

What did I mis?
Click to expand...

?

How is a heterosexual marriage changed by virtue of gays being allowed to marry?
 
RightinNYC said:
?

How is a heterosexual marriage changed by virtue of gays being allowed to marry?
Click to expand...

Who's talking about "a heterosexual marriage"?

Not me.

We're talking about the legal institution of civil marriage, not any given marriage specifically.

Heteros can now marry someone of the same gender, that's the change I mentioned.

When you tell me that I'm wrong, you are saying that heteros can not marry someone of the same gender.
 
RightinNYC said:
And 5 years later, the court held in Baker v. Nelson that Loving did not apply to gay marriage.

lol, no, it has not. That's just absurd.
Click to expand...

Baker v. Nelson was never heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, therefore, the Court has not actually "held" anything related to gay marriage. Because they denied hearing the case, it is a precedent for all other lower courts to follow.

There is evidence, though, that with the current make up of the Court, same-sex marriage will be approved. That was in Lawrence v. Texas and that occurred more recently than Baker v. Nelson.
 
Jerry said:
Who's talking about "a heterosexual marriage"?

Not me.

We're talking about the legal institution of civil marriage, not any given marriage specifically.

Heteros can now marry someone of the same gender, that's the change I mentioned.

When you tell me that I'm wrong, you are saying that heteros can not marry someone of the same gender.
Click to expand...

I agree that the institution of marriage itself is different, but you said "Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed."

Alex said:
Baker v. Nelson was never heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, therefore, the Court has not actually "held" anything related to gay marriage. Because they denied hearing the case, it is a precedent for all other lower courts to follow.

There is evidence, though, that with the current make up of the Court, same-sex marriage will be approved. That was in Lawrence v. Texas and that occurred more recently than Baker v. Nelson.
Click to expand...

What in Lawrence makes you think the court will get involved, much less approve of it?

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.
Click to expand...

Kennedy is listing it along with other things that everyone would agree are not legal.
 
RightinNYC said:
I agree that the institution of marriage itself is different, but you said "Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed."
Click to expand...

Well I suppose the flaw in my argument is in using 2 different groups (hetero and gay) when I don't see sexual orientation at all while looking at the issue; I see only citizens per-se.

So that's my fault.

Maybe after dinner I'll give it another go.
 
disneydude said:
No. In California, the legislature, not only once, but twice passed gay marriage legislation, only to have it vetoed by our Republican Governor (who incidentally said the issue should be decided by the California Supreme Court).
Click to expand...

But...but....Obama himself said he is against gay marriage.:twisted:
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Again, I don't see anything in the majority that indicates they think the same rationale would apply to marriage. O'Connor's concurrence was actually the broadest opinion in terms of application to a marriage case, and even she suggested that it would be possible for states to limit it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, O'Connor was the only one to sign onto that concurrence. The remaining 5 justices in the majority did not. They did, however, signed the majority that stated, "The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

That could be evidence of what will happen if and when this Court is confronted with the issue.
 
Jerry said:
Forget it, you're not listening, never mind.
Click to expand...
I've argued with you about this before, and your position isn't that hard to understand. You've been saying for a long time that things are equal now because everyone (gay and straight) has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, while nobody (gay or straight) has the right to marry someone of the same gender. It sounds logical and has a nice ring to it, but all you do is repeat it ad-nauseum. I've never seen you defend this argument when it comes under scrutiny.

You have consistently failed to explain why that reasoning is any different than when it was used to prohibit interracial marriages. You know, that whole "Everyone has the right to marry someone of their own race" nonsense.

You have consistently failed to address the fact that gays/lesbians do not have the right to marry the person they are in love with, while straights do have that right. And I think you diminish the idea of marriage by implying that gender is more important than the love that makes a marriage work.

No matter how much you narrow the goal posts and manipulate what "equality" means, nothing you say can change the fact that gays and lesbians do not have the same rights as heterosexuals - the right to marry the adult citizen with whom they are in love.
 
Alex said:
Exactly, O'Connor was the only one to sign onto that concurrence. The remaining 5 justices in the majority did not. They did, however, signed the majority that stated, "The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

That could be evidence of what will happen if and when this Court is confronted with the issue.
Click to expand...

But that opinion also indicated that it could not be used as a justification for forcing states to recognize gay marriage, because it explicitly distinguished it. O'Connors opinion looked at it on equal protection grounds, not due process, which is what gay rights advocates wished the majority had based their case on.

As of now, there are no justices on the court who have indicated that they would apply equal protection to this scenario, which is the only way it could happen.
 
RightinNYC said:
But that opinion also indicated that it could not be used as a justification for forcing states to recognize gay marriage, because it explicitly distinguished it. O'Connors opinion looked at it on equal protection grounds, not due process, which is what gay rights advocates wished the majority had based their case on.

As of now, there are no justices on the court who have indicated that they would apply equal protection to this scenario, which is the only way it could happen.
Click to expand...

Yes, the ruling cannot be used to force same-sex marriage on the States, but only because the ruling was not directly related to that issue.

As far as the majority explicitly distinguishing it, I'll need to see that. I do not remember anyone but O'Connor distinguishing the ruling from same-sex marriage. That concurring opinion was not part of what the other 5 justices signed on, suggesting that they did not agree.
 
Alex said:
Yes, the ruling cannot be used to force same-sex marriage on the States, but only because the ruling was not directly related to that issue.

As far as the majority explicitly distinguishing it, I'll need to see that. I do not remember anyone but O'Connor distinguishing the ruling from same-sex marriage. That concurring opinion was not part of what the other 5 justices signed on, suggesting that they did not agree.
Click to expand...


"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

That's from the majority. They're 1) stating that this case doesn't speak to the issue of marriage, and 2) lumping marriage in with a whole bunch of other failed arguments.

O'Connor's concurrence is the only one that even suggested that marriage might have a shot at success, and approached it via the EP clause. I would consider the fact that nobody else signed onto that to be the most relevant consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom