• 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

The key here is that the definition of marriage does not have to change really. The ONLY thing that changes is that you cannot deny something to a gay couple that is available to a straight couple.

It's really that simple, just like when the law was changed to say that you could not deny something to an interracial couple that you allowed for a same-race couple.
 
Groucho said:
The key here is that the definition of marriage does not have to change really. The ONLY thing that changes is that you cannot deny something to a gay couple that is available to a straight couple.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. The "definition," as it currently stands, is that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. You would have to change that definition.


It's really that simple, just like when the law was changed to say that you could not deny something to an interracial couple that you allowed for a same-race couple.
Click to expand...

As explained many pages ago, the definition of marriage (a union between one man and one woman) wasn't challenged, only the restrictions imposed upon who may enter into it with whom, which the Loving court found to be "irrelevant" to the institution. We still have some restrictions, but the definition remains the same.
 
Groucho said:
Why does this ridiculous argument keep being brought up as if it was legitimate?

Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............

The reason we "don't understand" is because it's not true.

Saying that there will no longer be discrimination against gays does NOT mean that therefore you have to allow polygamy or people marrying toasters or any other slippery slope outrageous thing you may claim.

Nothing under our laws would require that in the slightest. It didn't happen when we held that interracial marriages were unconstitutional, either.

It's a silly argument. It's not going to happen, and there is no law whatsoever that would require it. It hasn't happened in those states that have made gay marriage legal, and it hasn't happened in any other country that has made gay marriage legal.

Seriously, there is NO legal argument against gay marriage. "I don't like it" is NOT a legal argument.
Click to expand...

Check out the 14th amendment , equal protection clause you might learn something........Equal protection means all citizens and that includes peope who engage in polygamy as well as other classes of people defined by their sexuak preference.......
 
Navy Pride said:
Check out the 14th amendment , equal protection clause you might learn something........Equal protection means all citizens and that includes peope who engage in polygamy as well as other classes of people defined by their sexuak preference.......
Click to expand...

Amazing. Do you have a single court case that says that?
 
Harshaw said:
Sure it does. The "definition," as it currently stands, is that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. You would have to change that definition.
Click to expand...

Yes, just like it used to say "between one man and one woman of the same race."

Harshaw said:
As explained many pages ago, the definition of marriage (a union between one man and one woman) wasn't challenged, only the restrictions imposed upon who may enter into it with whom, which the Loving court found to be "irrelevant" to the institution. We still have some restrictions, but the definition remains the same.
Click to expand...

It will still be a marriage under all the same laws, but available to any couple and not just to same sex ones. Just like when it was changed to allow any couple and not just same race ones.
 
Groucho said:
Yes, just like it used to say "between one man and one woman of the same race."
Click to expand...

It didn't, but if it did, then the definition indeed changed. So why would you then use this to argue that it doesn't have to change to accommodate same-sex marriage?


It will still be a marriage under all the same laws, but available to any couple and not just to same sex ones. Just like when it was changed to allow any couple and not just same race ones.
Click to expand...

It's still not the same argument. But even if it is, the exact same can be said for a marriage of more than two.
 
Harshaw said:
It didn't, but if it did, then the definition indeed changed. So why would you then use this to argue that it doesn't have to change to accommodate same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...

And here I thought I could give you another chance. But no ... (insert Reagan voice) there you go again.

I never said that the definition of marriage won't change. In fact, I admitted it would, but only inasmuch as it did when it changed in those states that denied it to interracial couples.


Harshaw said:
It's still not the same argument. But even if it is, the exact same can be said for a marriage of more than two.
Click to expand...

And it could have been made when the law was changed to allow interracial marriage too.

It's not going to happen. It didn't then, it won't now.
 
Navy Pride said:
Check out the 14th amendment , equal protection clause you might learn something........Equal protection means all citizens and that includes peope who engage in polygamy as well as other classes of people defined by their sexuak preference.......
Click to expand...

Bring it on :mrgreen:

Once gay marriage is approved, polygamous marriages should be the next fight toward the ultimate goal of allowing all forms of consensual relationships to be designated as marriages if the parties so choose.
 
Groucho said:
And here I thought I could give you another chance. But no ... (insert Reagan voice) there you go again.
Click to expand...

This is what you always do whenever you get stuck. Does this work in court?


I never said that the definition of marriage won't change. In fact, I admitted it would, but only inasmuch as it did when it changed in those states that denied it to interracial couples.
Click to expand...

Bull**** you didn't.

Groucho said:
The key here is that the definition of marriage does not have to change really. The ONLY thing that changes is that you cannot deny something to a gay couple that is available to a straight couple.
Click to expand...

In order to include same-sex couples, you'd have to change the definition away from from "one man and one woman."

And I argued exactly on those terms. You then changed the terms, and even included an historically inaccurate formulation to do it.



And it could have been made when the law was changed to allow interracial marriage too.
Click to expand...

It wasn't. But it couldn't have been under the Loving holding, because neither the number nor the sex was ever in question there.


It's not going to happen. It didn't then, it won't now.
Click to expand...

Because the argument wasn't the same.

Look, you can say "it's not going to happen," but you don't know that it won't. And if it does, you've said nothing about same-sex marriage which would not also apply to polygamy.

If you think you have, state your formulation in clear terms. Keeping in mind, of course, that you also said there is "no legal argument against gay marriage."

If you can make a cogent, consistent legal argument which would not be open to application for polygamy, let's see it.
 
Sigh. You quote me, and I said exactly what I said I had said, and still you argue that I said something different.

100% of the time I have debated with you, you have built up a straw man, pretended I said something else you can disagree with, and argued against that.

I have had this problem with no one else on this board.

I'm through with you.
 
Groucho said:
Sigh. You quote me, and I said exactly what I said I had said, and still you argue that I said something different.

100% of the time I have debated with you, you have built up a straw man, pretended I said something else you can disagree with, and argued against that.

I have had this problem with no one else on this board.

I'm through with you.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you're always "through" with me -- though you never actually are -- exactly when the debate turns against you.

Whether or not you have the goods -- or the cojones -- to rigorously debate what you say is entirely up to you, of course.

Give the formulation I asked for, or simply admit you can't. This tantrum-throwing is irrelevant.
 
Groucho said:
Amazing. Do you have a single court case that says that?
Click to expand...

Since the 14th amendment has not been tested there are none but if you allow gays to marry you open he flood gates..........
 
It must be hell for you here in DP Groucho as compared to WS where all the members lean to the far left......You actually can have a debate in DP...:2wave:
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Bring it on :mrgreen:

Once gay marriage is approved, polygamous marriages should be the next fight toward the ultimate goal of allowing all forms of consensual relationships to be designated as marriages if the parties so choose.
Click to expand...

Yes your right........sisters can marry brothers, sisters an marry sisters, brothers can marry brothers, fathers can marry sons, mothers can marry daughters, etc. all doing it for the benefits provided for married people.....they would be sexless marriages, incest not involved.......You will pay my income taxes needed to provide all the benefits for these marriages...Go for it..........:2wave:
 
Navy Pride said:
It must be hell for you here in DP Groucho as compared to WS where all the members lean to the far left......You actually can have a debate in DP...:2wave:
Click to expand...

Pesky thing, having people who disagree with you challenge what you say.
 
Harshaw said:
It's funny how you're always "through" with me -- though you never actually are -- exactly when the debate turns against you.

Whether or not you have the goods -- or the cojones -- to rigorously debate what you say is entirely up to you, of course.

Give the formulation I asked for, or simply admit you can't. This tantrum-throwing is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Groucho is fro Whistlestopper.........that is a forum where the liberal out number the conservative about 10 to 1.........He is used to ganging up on a person there.........Not like that in DP.......
 
Navy Pride said:
Check out the 14th amendment , equal protection clause you might learn something........Equal protection means all citizens and that includes peope who engage in polygamy as well as other classes of people defined by their sexuak preference.......
Click to expand...

Thats not what equal protection means Navy. I've tried to educated you repeatedly....even given you bipartisan links so you don't have to take my word...but you refuse to educate yourself on this issue.

Discrimination is NOT unlawful under the US Constitution. The Constitution allows people to be treated differently, it just requires the Government to meet certain requirements to justify the differential treatment.

THAT's exctly what the issue with gay marriage is going to be. Currently gays are treated different than straights in their ability to marry the person they choose. The Court may say that this discrimination is ok, because that discrimination may serve an "important" governmental interest. If the court finds that there is no important governmental interest served, it will be stricken as unconstitutional.

With inter-racial marriage, the Court was dealing with issues of Race which is considered a "suspect class". Governmental discrimination against a "suspect class" receives greater scrutiny. In order to pass Constitutional muster, the Government must show a "compelling" governmental interest.

So...you see Navy...different groups are treated differently under the Constitution depending on whether they are a suspect class and depending upon the nature of the right infringed upon is.

Polygamists and other groups would receive minimal scrutiny, requiring only a "legitimate" governmental interest. Gays receive the intermediate level. The court has never been willing to treat gays as a completely "suspect class".
 
disneydude said:
Thats not what equal protection means Navy. I've tried to educated you repeatedly....even given you bipartisan links so you don't have to take my word...but you refuse to educate yourself on this issue.

Discrimination is NOT unlawful under the US Constitution. The Constitution allows people to be treated differently, it just requires the Government to meet certain requirements to justify the differential treatment.

THAT's exctly what the issue with gay marriage is going to be. Currently gays are treated different than straights in their ability to marry the person they choose. The Court may say that this discrimination is ok, because that discrimination may serve an "important" governmental interest. If the court finds that there is no important governmental interest served, it will be stricken as unconstitutional.

With inter-racial marriage, the Court was dealing with issues of Race which is considered a "suspect class". Governmental discrimination against a "suspect class" receives greater scrutiny. In order to pass Constitutional muster, the Government must show a "compelling" governmental interest.

So...you see Navy...different groups are treated differently under the Constitution depending on whether they are a suspect class and depending upon the nature of the right infringed upon is.

Polygamists and other groups would receive minimal scrutiny, requiring only a "legitimate" governmental interest. Gays receive the intermediate level. The court has never been willing to treat gays as a completely "suspect class".
Click to expand...

So if you can't use the 14th amendment (which a lot of liberals want to do) to allow marriage for other groups defined by their sexual preference tthen you can't use it for gays...........simple as that DD. Gays use it, other classes can to...........
 
Aha! Finally, a lawyerly argument!

It is true that polygamists per se would not be a suspect class, but religion is, and there is at least one prominent religion, or sects of it, which could bring a religious argument. If equal-protection arguments were extended based on that, then you'd have another equal-protection argument.

(To say nothing, of course, of the can of worms opened by arguing for a protection-worthy sexual component to marriage, because you then have to explore exactly what relationship sex has to marriage. But that's a different issue.)
 
disneydude said:
Thats not what equal protection means Navy. I've tried to educated you repeatedly....even given you bipartisan links so you don't have to take my word...but you refuse to educate yourself on this issue.

Discrimination is NOT unlawful under the US Constitution. The Constitution allows people to be treated differently, it just requires the Government to meet certain requirements to justify the differential treatment.

THAT's exctly what the issue with gay marriage is going to be. Currently gays are treated different than straights in their ability to marry the person they choose. The Court may say that this discrimination is ok, because that discrimination may serve an "important" governmental interest. If the court finds that there is no important governmental interest served, it will be stricken as unconstitutional.

With inter-racial marriage, the Court was dealing with issues of Race which is considered a "suspect class". Governmental discrimination against a "suspect class" receives greater scrutiny. In order to pass Constitutional muster, the Government must show a "compelling" governmental interest.

So...you see Navy...different groups are treated differently under the Constitution depending on whether they are a suspect class and depending upon the nature of the right infringed upon is.

Polygamists and other groups would receive minimal scrutiny, requiring only a "legitimate" governmental interest. Gays receive the intermediate level. The court has never been willing to treat gays as a completely "suspect class".
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation or homosexuality has never ever been defined under the equal protect clause under the Constitution not in the Constitution itself or any amendment ever passed.

And discrimination is tolerated under the Constitution. You can't murder anyone without consequence, you cannot steal without consequence. This is what happens when you live in the world of theory and generality. You can't make claims like this broad based claim about discrimination and ignore the consequence of interpreting something at such a general level.
 
Harshaw said:
Aha! Finally, a lawyerly argument!

It is true that polygamists per se would not be a suspect class, but religion is, and there is at least one prominent religion, or sects of it, which could bring a religious argument. If equal-protection arguments were extended based on that, then you'd have another equal-protection argument.

(To say nothing, of course, of the can of worms opened by arguing for a protection-worthy sexual component to marriage, because you then have to explore exactly what relationship sex has to marriage. But that's a different issue.)
Click to expand...

I wish I had the link but I read that Polygamysts groups are watching the gay marriage issue very closely and if by some means its approved they are ready to throw that hat into the basket............
 
Just Google it. A lot comes up. It's happening in New Hampshire, in Canada, and other places.
 
Navy Pride said:
So if you can't use the 14th amendment (which a lot of liberals want to do) to allow marriage for other groups defined by their sexual preference tthen you can't use it for gays...........simple as that DD. Gays use it, other classes can to...........
Click to expand...

How you can read something (assuming that you read it)...and fail to comprehend anything in it is beyond me.

No one is saying that any group CAN'T make an Equal Protection claim...:doh

Of course they can...its the level of scrutiny that the Court will use that differs depending upon the classification of the class involved and the rights involved....:shock:
 
texmaster said:
Sexual orientation or homosexuality has never ever been defined under the equal protect clause under the Constitution not in the Constitution itself or any amendment ever passed.

And discrimination is tolerated under the Constitution. You can't murder anyone without consequence, you cannot steal without consequence. This is what happens when you live in the world of theory and generality. You can't make claims like this broad based claim about discrimination and ignore the consequence of interpreting something at such a general level.
Click to expand...

Of course it has. It has never been recognized as a "suspect class" if that is what you are trying to say.

However, Sexual Orientation has often been the subject of Equal protection claims under the US Constitution.

As for your second claim. I agree. Discrimination is tolerated under the Constitution as long as it meets the criteria I listed in my post (which make me believe that you didn't read the post and simply posted a knee-jerk reaction here).
 
Navy Pride said:
I wish I had the link but I read that Polygamysts groups are watching the gay marriage issue very closely and if by some means its approved they are ready to throw that hat into the basket............
Click to expand...

Of course they are....it doesn't mean that the same arguments or the same level of scrutiny will be applied by the Court.
Of course...you will say that it will...but that just shows once again that you have no clue what Equal Protection analysis is all about.

I seriously don't know why I bother Navy....I guess part of me believes that there is a little something inside of you that maybe one day will take the opportunity to learn. I refuse to believe that you are a lost cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom