• 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

"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."

The last sentence there is only stating the fact that this case does not involve same-sex marriage directly (as you pointed out). It does not say anywhere in it that same-sex marriage cannot be done.

The quote I provided, however, does say that marriage is constitutionally protected, without specifying heterosexuals only. ("The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage...")

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

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.

This is in O'Connor's concurrence:

"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

She obviously was making a distinction between this case and same-sex marriage and believed the State had a legitimate basis for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. That was not signed on by the rest of the majority. The way I see it, this is the most telling part of the ruling in relation to what may happen in a same-sex marriage case brought before this court.

If the other 5 justices agreed with O'Connor's assertion that the State had an interest in preserving traditional marriage, then why didn't they sign onto it?
 
The last sentence there is only stating the fact that this case does not involve same-sex marriage directly (as you pointed out). It does not say anywhere in it that same-sex marriage cannot be done.

It's listing it alongside other things that would not be overturned. The implication is this:

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

The quote I provided, however, does say that marriage is constitutionally protected, without specifying heterosexuals only. ("The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage...")

Casey was decided on due process grounds, so it's not really applicable to a hypothetical marriage case.


This is in O'Connor's concurrence:

"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

She obviously was making a distinction between this case and same-sex marriage and believed the State had a legitimate basis for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. That was not signed on by the rest of the majority.

Yes, but she's also implicitly saying that there would be cases where gay marriage bans could be overturned as failing rational basis. That is farther than any of the other justices were willing to go

The way I see it, this is the most telling part of the ruling in relation to what may happen in a same-sex marriage case brought before this court.

If the other 5 justices agreed with O'Connor's assertion that the State had an interest in preserving traditional marriage, then why didn't they sign onto it?

1) Because she wouldn't have overturned Bowers, which the other justices wanted to do

(This most likely applies to Ginsburg/Breyer/Stevens/Souter)

or

2) Because she went too far in saying that laws banning gay marriage could be overturned as EP violations

(This most likely applies to Kennedy and perhaps one or two of the others)


I very much doubt that there are 5 justices on the court who would vote in favor of gay marriage (in the sense that the court would see a case.)
 
Forget it, you're not listening, never mind.
We get it Jerry; before heteros couldn't marry the same sex and now they can. It's you that either doesn't get Ikari's argument or you're being obtuse, which is it?
 
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.
So what you're saying is that you are discussing citizen marriage and all of the rest of us have been discussing gay marriage... now you know the difference, welcome to the discussion.
 
I think the SCOTUS would like the states to settle this issue themselves.....

I completely agree with you here. Whatever the individual states decide, it is none of the Federal government's business. Same with abortion.
 
Last edited:
Something is added. Hetero marriage stays the same, Homosexual marriage gains the ability of people being able to marry those whom they truly love;

To be fair, love is absolutely pointless and non-existance in the requirements of a legal marriage if I remember correctly. There is no requirement that one must marry someone they love, that the law requires that you love the person you are marrying, etc.

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.

Stop that! Stop that now! No using facts! They hate facts!

I mean, what will people be able to do. They like to talk about Loving none stop and go "See, its constitutional! Its a constitutional right to marry therefore homosexuals should marry! The Will of the People shouldn't stop a constitutional right!"

Of course, they don't mention that the courts ALSO decided that gay marriage ISN'T a constitutional right.

So as of now, no, the "will of the people" is not over turning a constitutional right and people like Disney blathering on about it by using Loving as proof are talking out their ass. They can say they BELIEVE its blocking somethign they BELIEVE is a constitutional right, but saying it as if its fact is just flat out horse****.
 
The fact that there are still more states to legalize same sex marriage makes me question America's "free society".
 
To be fair, love is absolutely pointless and non-existance in the requirements of a legal marriage if I remember correctly. There is no requirement that one must marry someone they love, that the law requires that you love the person you are marrying, etc.

Stop that! Stop that now! No using facts! They hate facts!

I mean, what will people be able to do. They like to talk about Loving none stop and go "See, its constitutional! Its a constitutional right to marry therefore homosexuals should marry! The Will of the People shouldn't stop a constitutional right!"

Of course, they don't mention that the courts ALSO decided that gay marriage ISN'T a constitutional right.

So as of now, no, the "will of the people" is not over turning a constitutional right and people like Disney blathering on about it by using Loving as proof are talking out their ass. They can say they BELIEVE its blocking somethign they BELIEVE is a constitutional right, but saying it as if its fact is just flat out horse****.

The Court never heard the case of Baker v. Nelson. They denied it on the basis of no federal question. That deferred it to the states to decide.

The Supreme Court never decided on the constitutional issue of same-sex marriage.
 
The fact that there are still more states to legalize same sex marriage makes me question America's "free society".

One of the beautiful things about America is that the decentralized nature of our federalist system, in which states are granted the autonomy to make decisions on controversial issues, allows the states to make decisions which best reflect the culture and values of that state.

File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Forget it, you're not listening, never mind.

Hahahah, you can't explain yourself well enough, and it's my fault. Yeah right, learn to make a proper argument and not make "demands" of people when you write posts and come back. I even used your very own analogy you used to show what is gained on both sides. I even used your logic to show that it doesn't match up with REALITY, and thus since you missed the end points you obviously made an incorrect assumption in the creation of the hypothesis. My arguments at the very least match reality.

But yeah, I'm not listening. It's not that you're not listening and your argument is crap...it's all me. Right.
 
One of the beautiful things about America is that the decentralized nature of our federalist system, in which states are granted the autonomy to make decisions on controversial issues, allows the states to make decisions which best reflect the culture and values of that state.

I dont think the culture and values of a paticular state concern or should dictate that same sex marriage is unacceptable. I mean, i dont think same sex marriage is legal in California, is it? That place is hardly in a lack of homosexuals to dismiss a possibility for same sex marriage.
 
The Court never heard the case of Baker v. Nelson. They denied it on the basis of no federal question. That deferred it to the states to decide.

The Supreme Court never decided on the constitutional issue of same-sex marriage.

Thus, stating that Marriage in the vein of Gay marriage is a "Constitutional Right" as if it is FACT is erronious because the surpreme court has not established it as such nor does the constitution.

You may claim it to be your opinion, but there is no fact there. If the court felt the need to overrule the lower court and specifically overturn the belief that gay marriage isn't included in the right of marriage, it could've taken the case. It didn't. Gay Marriage is not currently a right garaunteed by the constitution, and is a state issue. Claiming it as a FACT that it is or insinuating that its a FACT is flat out an error.

The people of California voting to overturn the right for marriage in a traditional sense for be the population having a referendum on a constitutional right. The people of California voting to overturn the gay marriage is a referendum on a state issue by the people of that state and does not deal with the constitutional right decleared in Loving.
 
I think the SCOTUS would like the states to settle this issue themselves.....

They can't.

The "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution is going to force this matter right up the Supreme Court's back door.

The USSC is trying to avoid it because the Constitution makes one thing quite plain....sexual discrimation in marriage is not allowed by the 14th Amendment, and the full faith and credit clause means that states can't disallow same-sex marriages in other states just because they've written a silly bigoted exception into their own state constitutions.
 
Thus, stating that Marriage in the vein of Gay marriage is a "Constitutional Right" as if it is FACT is erronious because the surpreme court has not established it as such nor does the constitution.

You may claim it to be your opinion, but there is no fact there. If the court felt the need to overrule the lower court and specifically overturn the belief that gay marriage isn't included in the right of marriage, it could've taken the case. It didn't. Gay Marriage is not currently a right garaunteed by the constitution, and is a state issue. Claiming it as a FACT that it is or insinuating that its a FACT is flat out an error.

The people of California voting to overturn the right for marriage in a traditional sense for be the population having a referendum on a constitutional right. The people of California voting to overturn the gay marriage is a referendum on a state issue by the people of that state and does not deal with the constitutional right decleared in Loving.

No marriage is a specific guaranteed right under the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court has addressed it.

You are right in that the Supreme Court probably felt in 1972 that same-sex marriage is a state issue (Baker v. Nelson). In these times, the States are addressing it, both approval and denial.

It is because of the fact that the issue is not resulting in uniformity throughout the lower courts that the Supreme Court will have to address this issue someday.
 
I'm not arguing against gay-marriage. I'm only pointing out that it's not a civil rights issue.

Things like facts and truth matter to me, apparently no for pro-gm, though...whatever gets them what they want.

Same sex marriage isn't a civil rights issue?

Interracial marriage certainly was.

What if it was an interracial same sex marriage, would that make it a civil rights issue in your mind?
 
To be fair, love is absolutely pointless and non-existance in the requirements of a legal marriage if I remember correctly. There is no requirement that one must marry someone they love, that the law requires that you love the person you are marrying, etc.

True, but the discussion was about what you were gaining. The ability to marry the one you truly love is gained by same sex couples if it's legalized. Love is not absolutely pointless because it factors into the equation of desire and obtaining something someone wants. People want to make the argument that since homosexuals can marry those of the opposite sex, that denying them the full of their right to contract isn't a civil rights issue. Since heterosexual people and homosexual people can marry those of opposite sex the system is balanced. That's completely crap, and crap in a measured sense. Heterosexuals are not affected by same sex marriage. If it's illegal or legal it doesn't matter to them in the practice of their marriage because they had already been able to marry the one they desired most. However, same sex marriage is HUGE to the homosexual community because they are not allowed full access to their right to contract and are unable to marry those whom they desire most. For them the outcome of this is very personal and dramatic.

So there's an obvious, real world difference here in the practice of marriage. As it stands heterosexuals are fine; they get what they want. But if we change the rules to allow same sex marriage, you have made a drastic impact on the lives of homosexual couples while not impacting heterosexual couples in the least. Thus heterosexual couples for all intensive purposes gained nothing while homosexual couples definitely did. Some people are trying to make arguments counter to this, but this is measured reality. Heterosexual couples will not see their marriage collapses merely due to homosexual marriage and heterosexual couples aren't going to run off to marry same sex partners. They gain nothing and have very little interest in the whole matter as it relates to the actual practice of their marriage. So if heterosexuals gain nothing while homosexuals gain something big, there's disparagy. What is it that homosexuals gain that heterosexuals already have, the thing that makes all the difference in the world to people? The very reason why this is an issue (if it were "balanced" from the start as some claim, there wouldn't be a problem because everyone got the same thing out of the contract, so someone couldn't be denied full access...another measured quantity why the "balanced" argument is crap).

Without this difference, there would be no argument. Without this difference there is nothing that homosexual couples could gain that heterosexuals already had. It comes in the form of love, total love. The desire to share with the person they love most the whole of their lives and to let their significant others have access to many of the same perks and responsibilities that others already enjoy. There is a difference in the system, heterosexuals already have all they want, but homosexuals can not fully exercise their right to contract as they are forbidden from entering into a contract which is supposed to be about commitment and love with the person they most want to commit to and love. That is why, specifically in the context of marriage it is important. Because while love is by no means a qualifier for marriage, it's the essence of the difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage and its current legality. You are allowing someone the full access to their right of contract by allowing same sex couples to be married.
 
Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender and no one had the right to marry someone of the same gender: everything was already equal.

No. No mention of gender disparities in the Fourteenth Amendment.

It says "all persons", period.
 
No. No mention of gender disparities in the Fourteenth Amendment.

It says "all persons", period.

Yet people manage to find arguments and remain insistant on those arguments despite the constitution clearly stating "all persons". I think they just like a bit of drama.
 
No marriage is a specific guaranteed right under the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court has addressed it.

You are right in that the Supreme Court probably felt in 1972 that same-sex marriage is a state issue (Baker v. Nelson). In these times, the States are addressing it, both approval and denial.

It is because of the fact that the issue is not resulting in uniformity throughout the lower courts that the Supreme Court will have to address this issue someday.

True. I fully believe that they'll likely have to address the issue one day. Though I hold on hope that somehow someway politicians wisen up, get rid of the term marriage, and institute civil unions for any two consenting adults ;)

HOWEVER

Until such time as it does, people trying to insinuate or state that its somehow of constitutional fact that gay marriage is a constitutional right are plainly wrong. Its their OPINION, but there is no FACT that states that, no court case that states it, nothing. Its their opinion. They're free to have that opinion. But it bugs the **** out of me watching them act smug and self important acting like its somekind of fact that they're trapping people with when its not.
 
Hetero marriage did not stay the same. It has been changed.

It has?

How many normal people are going to run out and find a homosexual lover because homosexuals are finally allowed to exercise their right to marry their consenting partner.

Read what I said carefully. There's never a "new" right, there's only the termination of denial of the exercise of those freedoms.
 
Yet people manage to find arguments and remain insistant on those arguments despite the constitution clearly stating "all persons". I think they just like a bit of drama.

What I haven't seen is any argument explaining why it shouldn't be allowed.
 
It's listing it alongside other things that would not be overturned. The implication is this:

Casey was decided on due process grounds, so it's not really applicable to a hypothetical marriage case.

Yes, but she's also implicitly saying that there would be cases where gay marriage bans could be overturned as failing rational basis. That is farther than any of the other justices were willing to go

1) Because she wouldn't have overturned Bowers, which the other justices wanted to do

(This most likely applies to Ginsburg/Breyer/Stevens/Souter)

or

2) Because she went too far in saying that laws banning gay marriage could be overturned as EP violations

(This most likely applies to Kennedy and perhaps one or two of the others)

I very much doubt that there are 5 justices on the court who would vote in favor of gay marriage (in the sense that the court would see a case.)

"Because she wouldn't have overturned Bowers, which the other justices wanted to do."

Any or all of the remaining 5 justices in the majority could have only signed onto the part of the ruling where O'Connor explained that she believes the State has a right to regulate marriage. If they believed the state did have this right, what stopped them from joining her in that part? Signing onto this specific part of O'Connor's concurrence would not have prevented them from overruling Bowers v. Hardwick.

"Because she went too far in saying that laws banning gay marriage could be overturned as EP violation."

Please show me where O'Connor stated laws banning same-sex marriage could be overturned as Equal Protection violations. I have provided a quote from O'Connor in the ruling that states the exact opposite.
 
"Because she wouldn't have overturned Bowers, which the other justices wanted to do."

Any or all of the remaining 5 justices in the majority could have only signed onto the part of the ruling where O'Connor explained that she believes the State has a right to regulate marriage. If they believed the state did have this right, what stopped them from joining her in that part? Signing onto this specific part of O'Connor's concurrence would not have prevented them from overruling Bowers v. Hardwick.

Because they didn't feel the need to do so?
Because they didn't want to delve into the EP issue, considering that the entire majority was focused entirely on Due Process?
Because they didn't agree with a particular aspect of SOC's approach?

There could be dozens of reasons why they didn't sign on. You can't assume something about their stance based on what they didn't sign.

"Because she went too far in saying that laws banning gay marriage could be overturned as EP violation."

Please show me where O'Connor stated laws banning same-sex marriage could be overturned as Equal Protection violations. I have provided a quote from O'Connor in the ruling that states the exact opposite.

While she arrives at the conclusion that such hypothetical laws would pass rational basis review, the approach that she takes to get there if adopted, would leave open the possibility of a contradictory result on the merits of a different case. That's why her jurisprudence is always so wishy-washy.

From Scalia's dissent:

Justice O’Connor argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor.

“While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, Texas’ sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.” Ante, at 5.

Of course the same could be said of any law. A law against public nudity targets “the conduct that is closely correlated with being a nudist,” and hence “is targeted at more than conduct”; it is “directed toward nudists as a class.” But be that as it may. Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to “homosexuals as a class,” that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.

Justice O’Connor simply decrees application of “a more searching form of rational basis review” to the Texas statute. Ante, at 2. The cases she cites do not recognize such a standard, and reach their conclusions only after finding, as required by conventional rational-basis analysis, that no conceivable legitimate state interest supports the classification at issue. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S., at 635; Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 448—450 (1985); Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534—538 (1973). Nor does Justice O’Connor explain precisely what her “more searching form” of rational-basis review consists of. It must at least mean, however, that laws exhibiting “ ‘a … desire to harm a politically unpopular group,’ ” ante, at 2, are invalid even though there may be a conceivable rational basis to support them.

This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O’Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Texas’s interest in §21.06 could be recast in similarly euphemistic terms: “preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society.” In the jurisprudence Justice O’Connor has seemingly created, judges can validate laws by characterizing them as “preserving the traditions of society” (good); or invalidate them by characterizing them as “expressing moral disapproval” (bad).

That's why Justice O'Connor's opinion went farther than the majority - not because it did more on this particular day, but because it opened the door for even more in the future. It's been used by advocates in exactly that same fashion.

Same-Sex Marriage In Connecticut: Justice Scalia Was (In Part) Right | A Connecticut Law Blog

Brenda Feigen, Same-Sex Marriage: An Issue Of Constitutional Rights Not Moral Opinions
 
Back
Top Bottom