• 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!

Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban

CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't disagree with you. I'm not suggesting what is right and fair. I'm suggesting how it can be won. Winning it on the equality front will be a long, tenuous and not assuredly a successful route. Going after it on the family route is practically an impregnable position. You've participated in enough of these debates on this issue, here, Hatuey. The equality debate gets slammed and countered, repeatedly, and often ends in a stalemate. Usually I wait until the smoke clears, present my family/child position in a few posts and the only ones who go after me are those who expose themselves as bigots who have no position or substantiation.

It's not about what is right, but what can be won. The pro-GM movement needs to bite the bullet, abandon the equality position and use the family/child debate. Does it really matter how they get what they want, as long as they get it?
Click to expand...

I think it should be on grounds of privacy the same way that Roe V. Wade was won. A marriage is a contract between two individuals and nobody else. Not society, not religion and not the opposers of gay marriage.
 
Hatuey said:
I think it should be on grounds of privacy the same way that Roe V. Wade was won. A marriage is a contract between two individuals and nobody else. Not society, not religion and not the opposers of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Privacy could be an ancillary issue, only, what with the government's vested interest in the rearing of children. If family is put in the forefront, this is an easy case to win.
 
Hatuey said:
I think it should be on grounds of privacy the same way that Roe V. Wade was won. A marriage is a contract between two individuals and nobody else. Not society, not religion and not the opposers of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

The problem you encounter is that the state issues the license and your marriage is a matter of public record.

Don't like society? Don't live in one.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Privacy could be an ancillary issue, only, what with the government's vested interest in the rearing of children. If family is put in the forefront, this is an easy case to win.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. If you've noticed here there are a few who argue that gays and pedophiles run in the same circles. That to me if done on a national scale(think the deceiving ads for proposition 8) could turn public opinion sharply against gay marriage. Americans are a dumb bunch and being told that somebody are after their children is an easy way to get them to support almost anything.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm not so sure. If you've noticed here there are a few who argue that gays and pedophiles run in the same circles. That to me if done on a national scale(think the deceiving ads for proposition 8) could turn public opinion sharply against gay marriage. Americans are a dumb bunch and being told that somebody are after their children is an easy way to get them to support almost anything.
Click to expand...

Uh, exactly, "a few"...very, very few..a fringe minority of radicals.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm not so sure. If you've noticed here there are a few who argue that gays and pedophiles run in the same circles. That to me if done on a national scale(think the deceiving ads for proposition 8) could turn public opinion sharply against gay marriage. Americans are a dumb bunch and being told that somebody are after their children is an easy way to get them to support almost anything.
Click to expand...

This is an easy point to dispute and since the case would be argued in court, not in the public, it wouldn't matter how dumb the American public is. There is no evidence that gays and pedophile run in the same circles...except from the precise fringe bigots that I spoke about before...those that are easily dismissed. Also, if publicity is a problem, the pro-GM side has their issues, too. I know several people who would be excellent "poster-couples". Stable, long-term relationships, rearing children successfully. Pull some of these out along with all of the data, and publicize this. Those "fringers" will then be seen as the bigots that they are.

The family argument is the winning position.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is an easy point to dispute and since the case would be argued in court, not in the public, it wouldn't matter how dumb the American public is. There is no evidence that gays and pedophile run in the same circles...except from the precise fringe bigots that I spoke about before...those that are easily dismissed. Also, if publicity is a problem, the pro-GM side has their issues, too. I know several people who would be excellent "poster-couples". Stable, long-term relationships, rearing children successfully. Pull some of these out along with all of the data, and publicize this. Those "fringers" will then be seen as the bigots that they are.

The family argument is the winning position.
Click to expand...

The unanswered question remains: How many gays are actually raising children?

You would need to show that your poster couples are representative samples of the general gay population, otherwise they're no more distinguished than familial couples raising children.
 
Look Hatuey, you have a strong Conservative and a strong Progressive telling you the exact same thing. I think you should listen :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
The unanswered question remains: How many gays are actually raising children?

You would need to show that your poster couples are representative samples of the general gay population, otherwise they're no more distinguished than familial couples raising children.
Click to expand...

I think I posted some approximate stats a while back, but I do not recall, exactly. Considering the US population and the number of families with children, the number was statistically significant, though considering the US population, a statistically significant number would not need to be a huge percentage from a research perspective considering raw numbers.

If I recall my data, gay couples matched up pretty consistently with straight couples across the board, though I believe that the one area of difference was in net income; gay couples tended to be higher in this aspect, at least on average.

Regardless, I think a cross-section of gay couples would be better than presenting a "typical" gay couple. More folks could relate.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I think I posted some approximate stats a while back, but I do not recall, exactly. Considering the US population and the number of families with children, the number was statistically significant, though considering the US population, a statistically significant number would not need to be a huge percentage from a research perspective considering raw numbers.

If I recall my data, gay couples matched up pretty consistently with straight couples across the board, though I believe that the one area of difference was in net income; gay couples tended to be higher in this aspect, at least on average.

Regardless, I think a cross-section of gay couples would be better than presenting a "typical" gay couple. More folks could relate.
Click to expand...

Very true.

In order to press this winning position, pro-gm will have to come up with some hard numbers and links to credible sources.
 
Jerry said:
Look Hatuey, you have a strong Conservative and a strong Progressive telling you the exact same thing. I think you should listen :2wave:
Click to expand...

This is the thing. You and I have debated this issue many times in the past 3 years and always come to the same agreeing point. Regardless of position, gay marriage as an equality position is a loser. As a family position it is a winner. This is where the pro-GMers have it wrong, and where the religious, actually, have it right. From the wrong position, IMO, but they have the concept correct. That's why they are on the winning end. Everyone, personally, can relate to family. Not everyone can relate, personally, to inequality.
 
Jerry said:
Very true.

In order to press this winning position, pro-gm will have to come up with some hard numbers and links to credible sources.
Click to expand...

Thing is, they're there and readily available. It always amazes me that when I can post 12-16 strong studies and come up with numbers from the internet in 10 minutes, why these folks keep focusing on a position that has created minimal movement and is not going to hold up in court. If they use the 14th Amendment, Loving, and black civil rights as the cornerstone of their position, they cannot win. There are far too many holes in all of these points.
 
Jerry said:
You didn't think the court was going to just roll over on this completely did you?
Click to expand...

I told you, the 18,000 legally married gay couples in CA changes the game, as it were, entirely.

Do you think the Supreme Court is made up of conservative judicial activists? (Scalia aside)


The already have it under existing Domestic Partnership law.
Click to expand...

Didn't do your homework, I see. Still don't know what you're talking about.



I sure have, I've been quoting it to people like yourself who, no insult intended, don't seem to know yourself what the law actually is.
Click to expand...

You've quoted nothing to me.

Even if the Domestic Partnership laws covered EVERYTHING, which they don't, not even close, the bottom line is--separate is not equal.

Does that sound familiar?

Now we have a legal class same-sex married in CA. The 'new' CA constitution bars other same-sex couples from joining that class.
 
I think they are taking a huge risk, considering that DOMA has not be yet been shot down. They should attack DOMA first before they bring up gay marriage.
 
I think the Equal Protection Clause is a viable route to go. All it requires in this case is a simple question, "Is marriage a legal institution?" If the answer is "yes", then same-sex marriage wins. The family argument will also be used but it will have to go through equal protection as well. The Iowa State Supreme Court used that route, they stated that homosexual couples had a right to raise their children in a legitimate family just the same as heterosexuals. That is still an equal protection issue.

Even Scalia was concerned that Equal Protection would cause same-sex marriage to pass.

"This reasoning [O'Connor's equal protection argument] leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples."

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Thing is, they're there and readily available. It always amazes me that when I can post 12-16 strong studies and come up with numbers from the internet in 10 minutes, why these folks keep focusing on a position that has created minimal movement and is not going to hold up in court. If they use the 14th Amendment, Loving, and black civil rights as the cornerstone of their position, they cannot win. There are far too many holes in all of these points.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting and watching for pro-gm to conduct a credible demographic analysis or two...I guess I'll just keep waiting and watching.
 
I for one am tired of being treated like a second class citizen. I pay my taxes and live according to the laws. I do not have the same rights as others in this country. I do not have equality. Heterosexual people have more rights than I do. I support anything that will advance Lesbian and gay rights. Acceptance is the answer. Freedom for all in the marriage arena.
 
Inferno said:
I for one am tired of being treated like a second class citizen. I pay my taxes and live according to the laws. I do not have the same rights as others in this country. I do not have equality. Heterosexual people have more rights than I do. I support anything that will advance Lesbian and gay rights. Acceptance is the answer. Freedom for all in the marriage arena.
Click to expand...

You're not raising children, so why should I care about your relationship?

Through your children you effect me, therefore if you're not raising children, you don't efect me, and I don't see why I should care.
 
Inferno said:
I for one am tired of being treated like a second class citizen. I pay my taxes and live according to the laws. I do not have the same rights as others in this country.
Click to expand...
Like all other women, you can marry any man that will have you.
 
Jerry said:
You're not raising children, so why should I care about your relationship?

Through your children you effect me, therefore if you're not raising children, you don't efect me, and I don't see why I should care.
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage has NOTHING to do with raising children as Gays can already LEGALLY raise children without gay marriage.

This is yet another of the poor "Think of the children" excuses that the right likes to throw out when they've lost any credible debate on a subject of legality.
 
Goobieman said:
Like all other women, you can marry any man that will have you.
Click to expand...

That was the excuse they gave for interracial marriage being ilegal.

You can marry someone of your own race just like whites can.

Again, doesn't pan out.
 
Goobieman said:
Like all other women, you can marry any man that will have you.
Click to expand...

If you as a man can marry a woman why can'she do the same? It is gender discrimanation plane and simple.
 
TheNextEra said:
Gay Marriage has NOTHING to do with raising children as Gays can already LEGALLY raise children without gay marriage.

This is yet another of the poor "Think of the children" excuses that the right likes to throw out when they've lost any credible debate on a subject of legality.
Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:
That was the excuse they gave for interracial marriage being ilegal.

You can marry someone of your own race just like whites can.

Again, doesn't pan out.
Click to expand...

You're not doing pro-gm any favors.

Inferno is a well spoken and thoughtful person, so let the woman speak for herself. She's challenged me before, maybe she will again here.
 
winston53660 said:
If you as a man can marry a woman why can'she do the same? It is gender discrimanation plane and simple.
Click to expand...
The point here is that she has the same 'right' as all women -- and so, there is no discrimination against her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom