• 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!

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

Blackdog said:
It is not a marriage, and should not be recognized as such. It is a life style and nothing more. They are not separate, it's not like they have to use the Negro rest room or anything.

Sorry, that is a lame excuse.
Click to expand...

Why is a committed gay relationship a "lifestyle" and a committed straight relationship can be a "marriage".

Answer: Because the government says its ok.

The government should have no place saying who can and cannot be married.
 
Blackdog said:
I have no idea who he voted for. I will still say he knows his past better than you, period.
Click to expand...


And that's fine. People can also lie. You may simply take people at their word and that's noble of you. Of course, when people have a history sometimes you don't have to simply take them "at their word".
 
disneydude said:
Why is a committed gay relationship a "lifestyle" and a committed straight relationship can be a "marriage".
Click to expand...

Tradition? Religion? Take your pick..

disneydude said:
Answer: Because the government says its ok.
Click to expand...

No. Because my morals and tradition say it is OK.

disneydude said:
The government should have no place saying who can and cannot be married.
Click to expand...

If this were to happen, you would get no argument from me.

Let the churches marry who they like. This is not going to happen though.
 
Blackdog said:
This is true, and that should be changed.

This has nothing to really do with my point though.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does. Civil unions do not have all the same benefits of marriage. It is not equal.

Further, if you make them the exact same, then why have two catagories for exactly the same thing?
 
Blackdog said:
Tradition? Religion? Take your pick..



No. Because my morals and tradition say it is OK.



If this were to happen, you would get no argument from me.

Let the churches marry who they like. This is not going to happen though.
Click to expand...

Tradition and Religion are never accepted governmental interests to withstand a Constitutional violation.

Your morals and traditions are fine for you. Why do you feel that everyone else should be subjected to your views?

We are in agreement in the final one. Let churches marry who they like. Some churches will marry gays, others won't. Freedom of religion would support that.
 
Redress said:
Actually, it does. Civil unions do not have all the same benefits of marriage. It is not equal.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. In the states they cannot adopt etc. They also do not have civil unions. They do not have the same benefits under the law anyway. This is wrong and they need to be giving the right to form a union with the same benefits as a married couple.

Again has nothing to do with my point about civil unions.

Redress said:
Further, if you make them the exact same, then why have two catagories for exactly the same thing?
Click to expand...

Because as I have said, they are not the exact same thing.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes it is. In the states they cannot adopt etc. They also do not have civil unions. They do not have the same benefits under the law anyway. This is wrong and they need to be giving the right to form a union with the same benefits as a married couple.

Again has nothing to do with my point about civil unions.



Because as I have said, they are not the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

Now you can't have it both ways. Are they equal, with the same benefits and protections, or aren't they?
 
Blackdog said:
Yes it is. In the states they cannot adopt etc. They also do not have civil unions. They do not have the same benefits under the law anyway. This is wrong and they need to be giving the right to form a union with the same benefits as a married couple.

Again has nothing to do with my point about civil unions.



Because as I have said, they are not the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

If they are not the same thing....how do you rationalize the Government treating classes of people differently under the Equal protection clause.

What important governmental interest is served by the discriminatory act?

That is the question that you have to be able to answer in order for the exclusion to pass Constitutional muster.

I'm interested in hearing what you believe this interest to be?
 
disneydude said:
Tradition and Religion are never accepted governmental interests to withstand a Constitutional violation.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a Constitutional violation. Whether it is or not can be argued by better men than us.

disneydude said:
Your morals and traditions are fine for you. Why do you feel that everyone else should be subjected to your views?
Click to expand...

They don't, they are free as am I to move to a place where the laws suit them better in this country. Part of the reason I live in Florida, and not Illinois.

disneydude said:
We are in agreement in the final one. Let churches marry who they like. Some churches will marry gays, others won't. Freedom of religion would support that.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's never going to happen.
 
Redress said:
Now you can't have it both ways. Are they equal, with the same benefits and protections, or aren't they?
Click to expand...

Yes I can and have. Your accusation has nothing to do with my point. With a civil union they have all the rights married couples do IN the states that have civil unions.

End of story.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes I can and have. Your accusation has nothing to do with my point. With a civil union they have all the rights married couples do IN the states that have civil unions.

End of story.
Click to expand...

Then why have a separate category? Why not just call it marriage, since that is what it effectively is?
 
disneydude said:
If they are not the same thing....how do you rationalize the Government treating classes of people differently under the Equal protection clause.
Click to expand...

Under civil unions they are not being treated different. The difference is purely semantics.

They don't want to do this for the family, they want to legitimize the gay lifestyle. I do not have to be part of that.

disneydude said:
What important governmental interest is served by the discriminatory act?
Click to expand...

No discrimination. Under civil unions they have all the rights of married couples. If they do want to get married, they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

disneydude said:
That is the question that you have to be able to answer in order for the exclusion to pass Constitutional muster.
Click to expand...

Since no Constitutional challenge has been won, I would say not really.

disneydude said:
I'm interested in hearing what you believe this interest to be?
Click to expand...

The interest is in a stable family unit and the rearing of children to become productive citizens. Since most gay couple (not all) have little or no interest in rearing children, the state has little interest.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes I can and have. Your accusation has nothing to do with my point. With a civil union they have all the rights married couples do IN the states that have civil unions.

End of story.
Click to expand...

Its not the end of story when the issue comes before the SCOTUS...which is likely will very soon.

That is why I posed the question I did to you....and the question that I pose to everyone who supports the governmental exclusion.

What "important" governmental interest is served by the government limiting marriage to straight couples?
 
Redress said:
Then why have a separate category? Why not just call it marriage, since that is what it effectively is?
Click to expand...

No it is not. A man cannot marry another man, period. It is not a marraige, but it can be a loving union. Two people committed to each other of the opposite sex make a marraige.
 
Blackdog said:
The interest is in a stable family unit and the rearing of children to become productive citizens. Since most gay couple (not all) have little or no interest in rearing children, the state has little interest.
Click to expand...



You raise the child issue here. A nobel attempt (and I don't mean that facetiously).

The question which then arises and the Supreme Court would have to address in their opinion:

- Should marriage then be denied to couples who are infertile or choose not to have children. Should child rearing be a requirement for marriage?

The government would have to make the validity of marriage contingent on having children.
 
disneydude said:
Its not the end of story when the issue comes before the SCOTUS...which is likely will very soon.
Click to expand...

And you know as well as I do it will probably be defeated.

disneydude said:
That is why I posed the question I did to you....and the question that I pose to everyone who supports the governmental exclusion.

What "important" governmental interest is served by the government limiting marriage to straight couples?
Click to expand...

I already answered this.
 
Blackdog said:
Two people committed to each other of the opposite sex make a marraige.
Click to expand...

Because that is how the Government defines it.
Fine. But if the government is going to define it that way and impose governmental limitations on it, there has to be an "important" governmental interest served by the restriction or it is unconstitutional.
 
Blackdog said:
The interest is in a stable family unit and the rearing of children to become productive citizens. Since most gay couple (not all) have little or no interest in rearing children, the state has little interest.
Click to expand...

The number of gays with children, plus the number who are interested in adopting or fostering is staggering. I have posted the numbers more than once here. Believe it or not, gays are people too, and like most people, they are interested in having a family.
 
Blackdog said:
No it is not. A man cannot marry another man, period. It is not a marraige, but it can be a loving union. Two people committed to each other of the opposite sex make a marraige.
Click to expand...

If it is not the same, then you have two separate categories of people with different rights.
 
disneydude said:
You raise the child issue here. A nobel attempt (and I don't mean that facetiously).

The question which then arises and the Supreme Court would have to address in their opinion:

- Should marriage then be denied to couples who are infertile or choose not to have children. Should child rearing be a requirement for marriage?
Click to expand...

No, because they can adopt, and the majority do. Gay couples are the exact opposite. Most do not, and take no interest in the family unit outside of the relationship its self.

Part of the reason for the fall of our society is the breakdown of the traditional family unit. Gay marraige will not hurt this, but I don't see it helping any either.

disneydude said:
The government would have to make the validity of marriage contingent on having children.
Click to expand...

No, it would not.
 
Blackdog said:
And you know as well as I do it will probably be defeated.



I already answered this.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Even with the conservatives that Bush put on it is unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to establish an important governmental interest.

Most conservative constitutional scholars have even written that they cannot see how it passes Constitutional muster if it reaches the Supreme Court, which is why the fight has been to try to keep the Supreme Court from addressing the issue.
Bush tried to pre-empt a Supreme Court decision through a Constitutional Amendment, however, it never gained enough support to go anywhere.

The reality is, the only way that gay marriage is going to be stopped in the United States is if there is a Constitutional Amendment that prevents it.
I expect the SCOTUS to strike down Prop-8 eventually as unconstitutional and the battle will be whether this country wants to pass a Constitutional Amendment that for the first time in the history of this country, takes away rights rather than expands them.

That is where the true battle is going to be on this issue.
 
Redress said:
If it is not the same, then you have two separate categories of people with different rights.
Click to expand...

OK this is getting stupid Red. I have explained it to you what? 3 times already? If you don't get it by now, you will never get it.
 
disneydude said:
I don't think so. Even with the conservatives that Bush put on it is unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to establish an important governmental interest.

Most conservative constitutional scholars have even written that they cannot see how it passes Constitutional muster if it reaches the Supreme Court, which is why the fight has been to try to keep the Supreme Court from addressing the issue.
Bush tried to pre-empt a Supreme Court decision through a Constitutional Amendment, however, it never gained enough support to go anywhere.

The reality is, the only way that gay marriage is going to be stopped in the United States is if there is a Constitutional Amendment that prevents it.
I expect the SCOTUS to strike down Prop-8 eventually as unconstitutional and the battle will be whether this country wants to pass a Constitutional Amendment that for the first time in the history of this country, takes away rights rather than expands them.

That is where the true battle is going to be on this issue.
Click to expand...

Why are you waisting my time? I have already explained my views and they do not, and never will agree with yours.

You are just repeating the same old tired arguments over and over like they are going to change something. Well let me tell you, they will not.
 
Blackdog said:
OK this is getting stupid Red. I have explained it to you what? 3 times already? If you don't get it by now, you will never get it.
Click to expand...

That is kinda my exact feelings. One of us is not making their point well, and the other is not understanding.
 
Blackdog said:
No, because they can adopt, and the majority do. Gay couples are the exact opposite. Most do not, and take no interest in the family unit outside of the relationship its self.

Part of the reason for the fall of our society is the breakdown of the traditional family unit. Gay marraige will not hurt this, but I don't see it helping any either.



No, it would not.
Click to expand...


Yes they would. If the Governmental interest served by the government excluding gays from marrying is support of rearing children...then any marriage, to exist, must serve that governmental interest. If couples don't want to have children, they wouldn't be able to marry under such a system.
You are correct about adoption though. However, infertile couples would be required to adopt as a condition to marriage and then you run into another Equal Protection issue and that is, why should this also not be extended to gays. If raising children is the interest served and you can counteract the inability to have children with adoption, then gays should be afforded the same privilege.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom