• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

EpicDude86 said:
A lot of stuff isn't in the Constitution because it didn't exist, wasn't thought of, or wasn't acceptable at the time and yet, now we have lots of things the Constitution and our laws have been adapted to allow or create.
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming otherwise.
 
EpicDude86 said:
:lol: i know that, I meant exactly how they would. The same way the 'interfered' with the Gun Ban?
Click to expand...

"Interfere" was probably the wrong word. I should have written, "If they stop the law." Or I am totally confused by what you are asking for.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm curious, though. Since gay marriage only affects gays, wouldn't it make sense to find out if the majority of gays would support it? I've always wondered how gay marriage affects non-gays...and have yet to hear a legitimate answer that does not affect marriage as a whole.
Click to expand...
Don't know where you're going, but:
1) I'll go out on a limb and say that yes, the majority of gays support it.
2) It affects gays and non-gays
3) Haven't thought through whether or not it affects marriage as a whole, but am wondering why it's relevant

CaptainCourtesy said:
And laws can be reinterpreted based on current societal needs.
Click to expand...
Clearly, but that's still changing a law.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Nor is the right to use the internet. You are under arrest. See how silly that argument is?
Click to expand...
I didn't make that argument.

The argument was that you can't have "mob rule voting away the rights of others [wrt gay marriage]" when there's no right to begin with.
 
jallman said:
The majority is irrelevant when discussing individual liberties.
Click to expand...

I bet you would be proven wrong, if there were enough anti-gun politicos elected to Congress. All the Libbos that support this comment, wouldn't be there then.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Then the above comment is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It's relevant to the discussion that was taking place:

Again, jallman implied there was some sort of constitutional right supporting gay marriage.

There is no right to gay marriage in the constitution.
 
Taylor said:
It's relevant to the discussion that was taking place:

Again, jallman implied there was some sort of constitutional right supporting gay marriage.

There is no right to gay marriage in the constitution.
Click to expand...

There is no heterosexual marriage right in the constitution...
 
Taylor said:
Don't know where you're going, but:
1) I'll go out on a limb and say that yes, the majority of gays support it.
Click to expand...

OK.
2) It affects gays and non-gays
Click to expand...

How does it affect non-gays?

3) Haven't thought through whether or not it affects marriage as a whole, but am wondering why it's relevant
Click to expand...

The only legitimate argument I have ever seen that rejects GM is from those who do not support special privileges for ANYONE who is married. That's what I meant.


Clearly, but that's still changing a law.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It is using existing law to address a new situation.


I didn't make that argument.

The argument was that you can't have "mob rule voting away the rights of others [wrt gay marriage]" when there's no right to begin with.
Click to expand...

Here's what you said:

Taylor said:
Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. Do you understand my point that just because something is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it is not covered by the Constitution?
 
EpicDude86 said:
There is no heterosexual marriage right in the constitution...
Click to expand...
Exactly...

If we as voters wanted to enact a law stating that states shall no longer recognize marriage of any sort, we could.
 
Taylor said:
It's relevant to the discussion that was taking place:

Again, jallman implied there was some sort of constitutional right supporting gay marriage.

There is no right to gay marriage in the constitution.
Click to expand...

No, jallman did not imply that. What he implied was that "If there was not mention of 1 man or 1 woman" then one's rights are being taken away.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, jallman did not imply that. What he implied was that "If there was not mention of 1 man or 1 woman" then one's rights are being taken away.
Click to expand...

...or simply not established.

SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution did not give women the right to vote. I believe gay 'marriage will take a slimier rout. Imo SCOTUS will find that there is no Constitutional protection of gay 'marriage, and we will then have to pass an amendment creating gay 'marriage just as we did with women's voting rights, black men's voting rights, and similar.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
So much work...it's easier just to stop this legislation from happening in the first place.
Click to expand...

But progress needs to be made, and this is good progress. Good laws are always worth the effort.
 
Jerry said:
...or simply not established.

SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution did not give women the right to vote. I believe gay 'marriage will take a slimier rout. Imo SCOTUS will find that there is no Constitutional protection of gay 'marriage, and we will then have to pass an amendment creating gay 'marriage just as we did with women's voting rights, black men's voting rights, and similar.
Click to expand...

I just HAD to bold your typo. :rofl

You could be right about your assessment, though this seems like such a long way around and issue that could be pretty easily resolved if agendas were altered.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I just HAD to bold your typo. :rofl

You could be right about your assessment, though this seems like such a long way around and issue that could be pretty easily resolved if agendas were altered.
Click to expand...

Ask 1069 about Breading Machines sometime ;)
 
Taylor said:
Exactly...

If we as voters wanted to enact a law stating that states shall no longer recognize marriage of any sort, we could.
Click to expand...

That's one way to look at it, another way to look at it is that someone who is different in a tiny way isn't being afforded the same benefits that other conjoined couples get because they partake in something a little different than the norm.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
How does it affect non-gays?
Click to expand...
It would change society, and therefore affect everyone. If marriage were inconsequential, suuporters would see no reason to lobby for it.

CaptainCourtesy said:
The only legitimate argument I have ever seen that rejects GM is from those who do not support special privileges for ANYONE who is married. That's what I meant.
Click to expand...
Taking government out of marriage is a recipe for disaster. But more to the main point - I don't believe I've stated any view for or against gay marriage in this thread. Rather, I've been expressing a view strongly in favor of the debate being decided by voters rather than politicians.

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it's not. It is using existing law to address a new situation.
Click to expand...
Semantics. Roe v. Wade didn't change the constitution, but it certainly changed the law, making abortion legal.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Do you understand my point that just because something is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it is not covered by the Constitution?
Click to expand...
This is not relevant to the point I made.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, jallman did not imply that. What he implied was that "If there was not mention of 1 man or 1 woman" then one's rights are being taken away.
Click to expand...
LOL - now you're really stretching.
 
EpicDude86 said:
That's one way to look at it, another way to look at it is that someone who is different in a tiny way isn't being afforded the same benefits that other conjoined couples get because they partake in something a little different than the norm.
Click to expand...
And perfectly legal.
 
Taylor said:
It would change society, and therefore affect everyone. If marriage were inconsequential, suuporters would see no reason to lobby for it.
Click to expand...

The divorce rate would like a word with you...

Taylor said:
Taking government out of marriage is a recipe for disaster. But more to the main point - I don't believe I've stated any view for or against gay marriage in this thread. Rather, I've been expressing a view strongly in favor of the debate being decided by voters rather than politicians.
Click to expand...

A disaster??? That's a pretty strong word, care to elaborate?
 
Taylor said:
And perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

It is not legal when it is denying homosexual marriages things like the insurance benefits and other 'bonuses' of being married on the basis of how they like to get jiggy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom