• 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

You'll note a common denominator under each Amendment that reads: passed by Congress and then gives an exact date. Whether it be the first ten amendments or amendment 27. All are passed by Congress decided upon there, the Supreme Court doesn't decide our rights, we clearly do, please correct your colossal error here

And then...may I suggest you were instead speaking to the responsibility of judicial review...that is the Supreme Court(framed to be the weakest of the three branches of government), reviews laws by the Legislature or Acts by the Executive Branch to determine Constitutionality. However....the Constitution itself and rights endowed are defined and decided by Congress. You have a very wrong interpretation of this nation's government.

Plain and simple..you are wrong. You really should pick up a book on government.

The three branches of the government were designed to be equal.

The SCOTUS has ALWAYS existed to define and determine rights granted under the constitution. Have you ever heard of "caselaw"?
Caselaw is the very foundation of our legal system and the framework by whih our government and legal system function.

You may think you know what you are talking about, but reality you need to educate yourself a little before you pretend to be a know-it-all.
 
Plain and simple..you are wrong. You really should pick up a book on government.

The three branches of the government were designed to be equal.

The SCOTUS has ALWAYS existed to define and determine rights granted under the constitution. Have you ever heard of "caselaw"?
Caselaw is the very foundation of our legal system and the framework by whih our government and legal system function.

You may think you know what you are talking about, but reality you need to educate yourself a little before you pretend to be a know-it-all.
Not sure where you learned this but it's total BS. The federal government doesn't define or determine rights, it only protects them. The Constitution only defines the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights are only an assurance of rights that already exist. No where in the Constitution does it say a branch defines rights.
 
I think you may be confused as to the context and the the application of "fundamental" in this instance.

I think you may not be able to read the context of "human."

If disney or you said "fundamental American right," that'd make sense. As it is, both of you are looking like you believe the words "American," and "human," are synonymous.

What are Brits then, not human?
 
I think you may not be able to read the context of "human."

If disney or you said "fundamental American right," that'd make sense. As it is, both of you are looking like you believe the words "American," and "human," are synonymous.

What are Brits then, not human?

That's the most retarded logic I think I have ever heard.

Inclusion in one group does not negate inclusion in others. An American is human. We have human rights in America. They are fundamental to our legal system.

That in no way disregards or diminishes the humanity of Brits. Your logic is anything but logical. It's retarded.
 
That's the most retarded logic I think I have ever heard.

Inclusion in one group does not negate inclusion in others. An American is human. We have human rights in America. They are fundamental to our legal system.

That in no way disregards or diminishes the humanity of Brits. Your logic is anything but logical. It's retarded.

This is fairly basic, we're discussing "fundamental human rights."

Is the first thing you think of really the US Supreme Court?
 
Does SCOTUS decide for all of humanity what their rights are?

The SCOTUS turns down about 80% of the cases that come to them...If you throw out that radical left wing circuit court in San Francisco its even more.......
 
Plain and simple..you are wrong. You really should pick up a book on government.

I could teach you government, you're very weak here.

The three branches of the government were designed to be equal.

The Power of the Judicial Branch: The Federalist Number 78 and the Anti-Federalist 78, Marbury v. Madison, Landmark Supreme Court Cases

It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power

And you remember I spoke to judicial review?

Constitutional Issues - Separation of Powers

In the early national period, the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of government. When Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review in MarburyMadison by declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional, he greatly strengthened the judiciary. Even though the high court exercised this prerogative only one other time prior to the Civil War (Dred Scott v. Sanford), the establishment of judicial review made the judiciary more of an equal player with the executive and legislative branches.

The SCOTUS has ALWAYS existed to define and determine rights granted under the constitution.

So....what right in our Constitution was defined by the Court?

:eek:ops

You may think you know what you are talking about, but reality you need to educate yourself a little before you pretend to be a know-it-all.

Just gave you two links showing you the court was designed as the weakest branch, showed you plainly how it gathered equality as time passed, Roosevelt even increasing the number of judges.

Sorry, DD. Your initial statement was wrong, the court does not define our rights, it interprets the law and reviews cases based on individual rights We the People defined and wrote into law. You're wrong.

Furthermore, your statement I was wrong...is in error.

Look to the Constitution:

All amendments and articles are passed by Congress. Article 3 defines the judiciary. SO here we have...We the People defining the entire judiciary and if you'll note as I continue to destroy you argument.......

Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

See rights defined? No...that's because the Constitution defines the judiciary and it's scope of cases extended.

Our rights written and defined by We the People, the judiciary itself defned by We the People.

:2wave:Next.
 
Ouch. Disney please, let this one go.
 
I find it ironic that conservatives can take issue with Marbury versus Madison but support the Defense of Marriage Act. If conservatives really cared about the Constitution, then they would demand that DOMA be repealed and would leave same sex marriage as a state issue. But no, they have to form national organizations to tackle the issue of marriage in each state and fully support DOMA's blatant disregard for the Ful Faiths and Credit Clause. The discrepancy is laughable. Just like religious nuts and the Bible, conservatives simply cherry pick what parts of the Constitution they want to follow.
 
I find it ironic that conservatives can take issue with Marbury versus Madison but support the Defense of Marriage Act. If conservatives really cared about the Constitution, then they would demand that DOMA be repealed and would leave same sex marriage as a state issue. But no, they have to form national organizations to tackle the issue of marriage in each state and fully support DOMA's blatant disregard for the Ful Faiths and Credit Clause. The discrepancy is laughable. Just like religious nuts and the Bible, conservatives simply cherry pick what parts of the Constitution they want to follow.

That's because social conservativism finds itself in direct opposition to most of the tenets of the Constitution. The Constitution is framed around an idea of limiting the government in the personal lives and decisions of the people while social conservativism is framed around the concept of using the government to beat the people over the head with puritanical moral disapproval.
 
I find it ironic that conservatives can take issue with Marbury versus Madison but support the Defense of Marriage Act. If conservatives really cared about the Constitution, then they would demand that DOMA be repealed and would leave same sex marriage as a state issue.

Humorous your..."if Conservatives really care...then.....". It's the classic if/then statement process. Wholly transparent.

But no, they have to form national organizations to tackle the issue of marriage in each state and fully support DOMA's blatant disregard for the Ful Faiths and Credit Clause.

What Constitution hating President signed DOMA into law?

Oops.

There is no discrepancy, same sex marriage we don't consider full faith and credit for obvious reasons. Your sexual behavior isn't applicable.
 
Humorous your..."if Conservatives really care...then.....". It's the classic if/then statement process. Wholly transparent.



What Constitution hating President signed DOMA into law?

Oops.

There is no discrepancy, same sex marriage we don't consider full faith and credit for obvious reasons. Your sexual behavior isn't applicable.

Neither is yours. Yet you fully expect your marriage in one state to be recognized in another...just like any contract. Full faith and credit is part of what makes this a cohesive union. The Constitution demands it.
 
Neither is yours.

Granted.

Yet you fully expect your marriage in one state to be recognized in another...just like any contract.

What utter nonsense. Should I choose to marry another man....or my cousin....I don't expect that to be recognized. And I don't consider it "like any other contract, it's obviously NOT like any other contract.

I happen to be married now. Should any state approve polygamy and I take another wife.....I wouldn't expect any other state to recognize. What say you allow me to take my own policy positions and stop guessing, you're not even close.

Full faith and credit is part of what makes this a cohesive union. The Constitution demands it.

And why if it comes to a conflict, I would support a marriage amendment defining exactly what is it and then...the issue is closed. However, for today, I'll have to consistently agree with Critical Thought that this should be a state by state issue decided upon by either referendum or some legislative endeavor, either way, We the People define the institution, not a court or exec.
 
And why if it comes to a conflict, I would support a marriage amendment defining exactly what is it and then...the issue is closed. However, for today, I'll have to consistently agree with Critical Thought that this should be a state by state issue decided upon by either referendum or some legislative endeavor, either way, We the People define the institution, not a court or exec.

So say a State wanted to impose anti miscegnation laws?
 
Granted.



What utter nonsense. Should I choose to marry another man....or my cousin....I don't expect that to be recognized. And I don't consider it "like any other contract, it's obviously NOT like any other contract.

It most certainly is like any other contract. You have obligations and penalties for not meeting those obligations if you choose not to honor your contract.

I happen to be married now. Should any state approve polygamy and I take another wife.....I wouldn't expect any other state to recognize. What say you allow me to take my own policy positions and stop guessing, you're not even close.

I find it laughable that if you traveled to your neighboring state and they refused to honor your marriage now that you wouldn't take exception to it. What say you actually speak to what I said rather than some irrelevant bull**** about polygamy that was never even mentioned, hmm?

And why if it comes to a conflict, I would support a marriage amendment defining exactly what is it and then...the issue is closed. However, for today, I'll have to consistently agree with Critical Thought that this should be a state by state issue decided upon by either referendum or some legislative endeavor, either way, We the People define the institution, not a court or exec.

No, We the People, do not define the institution when it comes to State sanctioned privilege and to whom it is granted. The 14th Amendment diminishes that idea in totality. You fail to understand that we do not live in a direct democracy but, rather, a representative democratic republic with a supreme law that is the standard for determining rights, not the vote. That supreme law demands that contracts must be honored across state lines through the full faith and credit clause. Anything less is to diminish the sanctity of our Constitution.
 
So say a State wanted to impose anti miscegnation laws?
You're out of luck on trying to get that one passed. There was a short chapter in our history where a few states passed such laws, but the court (acting in accordance with the views of a vast majority of Americans) struck them down.
 
It most certainly is like any other contract. You have obligations and penalties for not meeting those obligations if you choose not to honor your contract.

Is one of those obligations that you cannot enter into contract with another? Borrow money, does that mean you cannot contract with a different bank? Can you work for two employers at the same time? Can you have more than one employee? Are you denied ANY other contract based on the fact that the two entering this obligation are first cousins? Can you buy a home, share a business, incorporate, purchase an automobile, estate planning, enter into a small business...with your brother or mother, father or daughter, sister or son? In fact.....who would possibly deny you entry into any type of contract...from legal to corporate from warranty to real estate based on the fact that you're related. What other contract can you being first cousins get you denied? What other contract do you enter....denying you entry into ANY other similar contract...for the rest of your life or until the previous contract is null and void?

I find it laughable that if you traveled to your neighboring state and they refused to honor your marriage now that you wouldn't take exception to it.

Laugh all you want. If my state approves of polygamy and I take another wife....I'm not going to whine when my neighbors don't accept my behavior, much less my next state.

What say you actually speak to what I said rather than some irrelevant bull**** about polygamy that was never even mentioned, hmm?

Polygamy and the other issues are relevant and happen to be items you yourself deny others and use the government in doing so. Then whine when the definition doesn't mirror your personal opinions on the matter.

No, We the People, do not define the institution when it comes to State sanctioned privilege and to whom it is granted.

Not only have we defined this institution either through representation or referendum, it's been a recent reality in California, New York, and many other states.

The 14th Amendment diminishes that idea in totality.

This confusion why I would support a marriage amendment. The Doma not sweeping enough and results in confusing opinions like this.

You fail to understand that we do not live in a direct democracy but, rather, a representative democratic republic with a supreme law that is the standard for determining rights, not the vote.

I've repeatedly mentioned this issue being decided in representatie legislative manner making a law...defining marriage without the possibility of misinterpretation by any court. We the People...do determine our own rights...We the People define our own institutions, the courts governing at our consent.

That supreme law demands that contracts must be honored across state lines through the full faith and credit clause.

Argued time and again in courts across America.

Same Sex Marriage: An Act of Law

One of these areas of state sovereignty has traditionally been marriage. Thus the laws of one state regulating marriage are, on the face of things, entitled to the full faith and credit in all other states. However, in interpreting the full faith and credit clause, the courts have said that states are not required to automatically accept another state’s laws if to do so runs afoul of the second state’s own laws. In other words, the clause only requires that the second state enforce the first state’s laws only to the same extent as the second state enforces its own laws in the same matter.
Thus, assuming the first state allows for same sex marriage, the enforceability of the first state’s laws in the second state depends on the laws of the second state dealing with marriage and the second state’s own “public policy” in regard to the same. Public policy often refers to some form of collective state morality or ethic, sometimes embodied in actual laws, sometimes not. Thus, the public policy and laws of the second state have to be at least co-equal or nearly so with the public policy and laws of the first state if the second state is to be required to enforce the same sex marriage that took effect in the first state.

I highlighted the important points but, the link I found is well worth a read, gives you a history of this and then why the 14th doesn't apply.

Anything less is to diminish the sanctity of our Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Is one of those obligations that you cannot enter into contract with another? Borrow money, does that mean you cannot contract with a different bank? Can you work for two employers at the same time? Can you have more than one employee?

There are a ton of contracts that put just such stipulations on both parties. Entertainment industry contracts come to mind immediately.

Are you denied ANY other contract based on the fact that the two entering this obligation are first cousins?

Does that really matter? It's a stipulation for the contract. Contracts have all kinds of different stipulations. That just happens to be one for the marriage contract. Sorry you find that truth a little inconvenient but you just have to learn to live with reality at some point, won't you?

Can you buy a home, share a business, incorporate, purchase an automobile, estate planning, enter into a small business...with your brother or mother, father or daughter, sister or son?

Yeah, you can. It's called power of attorney. Look it up.

In fact.....who would possibly deny you entry into any type of contract...from legal to corporate from warranty to real estate based on the fact that you're related. What other contract can you being first cousins get you denied? What other contract do you enter....denying you entry into ANY other similar contract...for the rest of your life or until the previous contract is null and void?

Ummm, let's see. Lifetime rights contracts to parcels of land, employment contracts, representation contracts. You're just flat wrong on this count. The marriage contract is like any other contract in that it has stipulations placed on both parties with penalties for breaking the deal. Get over it.


Laugh all you want. If my state approves of polygamy and I take another wife....I'm not going to whine when my neighbors don't accept my behavior, much less my next state.

Except ummm, we aren't discussing polygamy here and you know that. When you want to get back on topic, let me know.

Polygamy and the other issues are relevant and happen to be items you yourself deny others and use the government in doing so. Then whine when the definition doesn't mirror your personal opinions on the matter.

Polygamy is a direct violation of the marriage contract in that it circumvents the requirement that you name a single person as irreplacable to you. The only one whining here is you. And that whining is irrelevant to the topic the rest of us are actually discussing.

Not only have we defined this institution either through representation or referendum, it's been a recent reality in California, New York, and many other states.



This confusion why I would support a marriage amendment. The Doma not sweeping enough and results in confusing opinions like this.

Your confusion is your problem, pal. I'm not surprised that you are confused given the strange ideas you have already developed concerning how a representative republic operates.

I've repeatedly mentioned this issue being decided in representatie legislative manner making a law...defining marriage without the possibility of misinterpretation by any court. We the People...do determine our own rights...We the People define our own institutions, the courts governing at our consent.

No, we the people vote in our representatives. Court appointees serve for life, not at our consent, but at the consent of our representatives. The Constitution is the framework of our rights and the courts interpret laws, created by our legislature, against that framework.

This is elementary civics. You should go back and brush up.

Argued time and again in courts across America.

Same Sex Marriage: An Act of Law


And nowhere in that is there any indication that one state may dissolve a contract formed in another state.

I highlighted the important points but, the link I found is well worth a read, gives you a history of this and then why the 14th doesn't apply.

Yes, a great amount of opinion. Thank you...but you know what they say about opinions...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thank you for repeating the basics, Captain Obvious. Now would you like to make a point with it?
 
There are a ton of contracts that put just such stipulations on both parties. Entertainment industry contracts come to mind immediately.

The entertainment industry has a restriction on entering contracts with your first cousin? Oh, you can't do any movies when yer already under contract...sort of like a record label and a rock band? What nonsense.

Does that really matter? It's a stipulation for the contract. Contracts have all kinds of different stipulations. That just happens to be one for the marriage contract. Sorry you find that truth a little inconvenient but you just have to learn to live with reality at some point, won't you?

No, the marriage contract has very unique stipulations, and I don't think recent events in NewJersey or California are summarized in your version of the truth. What's clear and plain is that the vast majority of We the People do not approve, nor will ever approves of same sex marriage, a truth you must learn to live with. It's like, 0-31 in referendum.

Yeah, you can. It's called power of attorney. Look it up.

Yeah, I know you can as well. You cannot enter into marriage with any of these people though huh? Unique stipulations and all.

The marriage contract is like any other contract in that it has stipulations placed on both parties with penalties for breaking the deal. Get over it.

I've just shown it's not like any other contract nor considered as such by the majority of Americans. It isn't I that needs to get over anything.

Except ummm, we aren't discussing polygamy here and you know that. When you want to get back on topic, let me know.

Because you yourself use the State government to deny polygamists what they feel is their right and freedom, isn't a valid reason to dismiss the subtopic. I'll continue to use it as a stark example and continue to remind you that you're denying marriage 'rights' to many people who have a host of marriage definitions or don't feel government should be licensing at all.

Polygamy is a direct violation of the marriage contract in that it circumvents the requirement that you name a single person as irreplacable to you. The only one whining here is you. And that whining is irrelevant to the topic the rest of us are actually discussing.

And exactly whose requirement is that? Government's? Didn't you mean to say it circumvents We the People's requirement you name a single person as irreplaceable? :Oopsie

Your confusion is your problem, pal. I'm not surprised that you are confused given the strange ideas you have already developed concerning how a representative republic operates.

Sticks and stones and you know I'm correct here.

And nowhere in that is there any indication that one state may dissolve a contract formed in another state.

I just showed you there was, your in error.

Thank you for repeating the basics, Captain Obvious. Now would you like to make a point with it?

Sure, it comes 4 amendments before your 14th.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
The entertainment industry has a restriction on entering contracts with your first cousin? Oh, you can't do any movies when yer already under contract...sort of like a record label and a rock band? What nonsense.

Reading is fundamental. Perhaps you should go back and look at the block of text you quoted and see how it is separated from your rubbish about first cousins. When you are capable of that small comprehension, I will be more than happy to address the remainder of your points.

Let me know when you have succeeded so we can continue.
 
Last edited:
I will be more than happy to address the remainder of your points.

Can you do it without insults? Because I am scorching your every argument here and easily shooting down any tangents you begin, is no reason to get personal. I sense a lil tension between us and there is really no reason for it. I'm absolutely correct here, your arguments aren't, it's as simple as that really.

Hope yer havin a good day.:)
 
Can you do it without insults? Because I am scorching your every argument here and easily shooting down any tangents you begin, is no reason to get personal. I sense a lil tension between us and there is really no reason for it. I'm absolutely correct here, your arguments aren't, it's as simple as that really.

Hope yer havin a good day.:)

It must be so nice for you that you live so far removed from reality. The only thing you have managed to scorch is your own credibility and my confidence in your ability to read what is presented to you.
 
Back
Top Bottom