• 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!

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I deliberately deleted a comment I made to that effect because I didn't want to get side tracked.

You're 100% correct.

A CCW permit is no different than state issued driver's licences.
Click to expand...

Except that driving is not a right whereas the right to keep and bear, like the right to marry, are rights.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

peepnklown said:
It’s very simple.
It’s about legal vs. tradition.
The state would deal with the civil (contractual, testamentary, and mandatory) aspects only.
The marriage part is only customary, traditional or religious and is up the people involved, their families and their community (be it church or whatever group).
Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:
Because....?
Click to expand...

That's all the state deals with now...soooo...changing the name is pointless.

You're saying the state shouldn't recognize what has been ruled to be a Fundamental Right, that the state should leave this right to private entities and not protect it.

What other rights do you suppose the State shouldn't protect?
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
That's all the state deals with now...soooo...changing the name is pointless.

You're saying the state shouldn't recognize what has been ruled to be a Fundamental Right, that the state should leave this right to private entities and not protect it.

What other rights do you suppose the State shouldn't protect?
Click to expand...

It doesn't need protecting. The state doesn't need to be involved in any way, shape, or form. Anyone can go get married any time they wish, and exercise their "right" to do so. They can do that without the state's involvement. In fact, the best way to ENSURE that everyone has said rights fairly is to remove the state's involvement.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

rivrrat said:
It doesn't need protecting. The state doesn't need to be involved in any way, shape, or form. Anyone can go get married any time they wish, and exercise their "right" to do so. They can do that without the state's involvement. In fact, the best way to ENSURE that everyone has said rights fairly is to remove the state's involvement.
Click to expand...

Well yeah until you want automatic inheritance, tax deduction, hospital visitation, spousal privilege or any of the other rights and privileges provided for marriage.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

I'm actually hung up on my opinion.

I, first off, support gay marriage.
I, secondly, don't feel that such a thing as *marriage* should differ state to state. . . all marriages should be recognized in all states - none of this 'here and there' thing.

:shrug:

So by this ruling they've decided that the gov can't institute marriage . . . and the states can.
Which is 1/2 good if you support gay marriage - but that also means that they government can NEVER be in support of it, either. . . which goes against what I'd like to see some day.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
Well yeah until you want automatic inheritance or hospital visitation.
Click to expand...

Automatic inheretance and hospital visitation aren't rights. And, those things can be dealt with on an individual basis. The state need not be involved.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

rivrrat said:
Automatic inheretance and hospital visitation aren't rights. And, those things can be dealt with on an individual basis. The state need not be involved.
Click to expand...

I've tried telling pro-gm that many times before. They don't accept it.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

So is polygamy cool, too?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
I've tried telling pro-gm that many times before. They don't accept it.
Click to expand...

And they shouldn't, as long as the state recognizes opposite sex marriage. I'm talking about the state removing themselves from the issue altogether. But if the state IS going to be involved, as they are now, then it needs to be fairly.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
So is polygamy cool, too?
Click to expand...

That's up to each individual state to decide for themselves.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

rivrrat said:
And they shouldn't, as long as the state recognizes opposite sex marriage. I'm talking about the state removing themselves from the issue altogether. But if the state IS going to be involved, as they are now, then it needs to be fairly.
Click to expand...

And again, what other fundamental rights do you suppose the state should turn it's back on?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
And again, what other fundamental rights do you suppose the state should turn it's back on?
Click to expand...

They're not turning their back on anything. The state doesn't need to be involved at all for people to get married. Why do you think they do?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
That's up to each individual state to decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

So if Utah is cool with polygamy, and a dude with his four wives moves to Kentucky, does Kentucky have to acknowledge their marriage, too?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

rivrrat said:
They're not turning their back on anything. The state doesn't need to be involved at all for people to get married. Why do you think they do?
Click to expand...

Automatic inheritance, spousal privilege, hospital visitation, and all the other rights gays are fighting for.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
Automatic inheritance, spousal privilege, hospital visitation, and all the other rights gays are fighting for.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not required for that. And those aren't rights.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
So if Utah is cool with polygamy, and a dude with his four wives moves to Kentucky, does Kentucky have to acknowledge their marriage, too?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, yes. Kentucky doesn't have to issue polygamist licenses if they don't want, but they have to recognize another state's license.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

rivrrat said:
Marriage is not required for that. And those aren't rights.
Click to expand...

I've tried telling pro-gm that many times before. They don't accept it.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
As I understand it, yes. Kentucky doesn't have to issue polygamist licenses if they don't want, but they have to recognize another state's license.
Click to expand...

So what if a guy wants to marry his mother.....or his brother?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
So what if a guy wants to marry his mother.....or his brother?
Click to expand...

I need you to be more specific with your question.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
I've tried telling pro-gm that many times before. They don't accept it.
Click to expand...

OMFG

Do you not comprehend the difference between state involvement in something and banning something, the state's non-involvement in something and not banning it?

We're talking two different things here. As long as the state is involved, then they need to do so fairly. Banning certain people from entering into contracts based on race, gender, religion, etc can NOT be allowed to continue by our own government. We, as a people, cannot continue to allow such discrimination to happen.

But, if the state removed itself from it altogether, the right would be free to every single person in the country regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. Everyone could get married, any time they want. The state is not infringing on any rights or turning their backs on them because they are not involved. They don't NEED to be involved. Individuals can handle things themselves. We don't need big brother holding our hands.

But as long as they ARE involved, they need to be involved fairly. Currently, it is not done fairly. It is blatant discrimination and that cannot be tolerated. We can't tell women that they're free to marry women sans the state and jump through hoops to get privileges that are freely given to others any more than we could tell blacks to do that, or protestants to do that, or wiccans to do that.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
I need you to be more specific with your question.
Click to expand...

Just trying to prepare myself.

If Massachusetts rules that gay marriage is legal, Utah rules that polygamy is legal, California rules that man can marry his mother or his brother, and New York changes the legal marrying age to 13 and 70-year-old man can marry a 13-year-old boy........

Do I have to recognize these marriages in Texas if they all move here?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

rivrrat said:
OMFG

Do you not comprehend the difference between state involvement in something and banning something, the state's non-involvement in something and not banning it?

We're talking two different things here. As long as the state is involved, then they need to do so fairly. Banning certain people from entering into contracts based on race, gender, religion, etc can NOT be allowed to continue by our own government. We, as a people, cannot continue to allow such discrimination to happen.
Click to expand...

Sure no problem.

rivrrat said:
But, if the state removed itself from it altogether, the right would be free to every single person in the country regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. Everyone could get married, any time they want. The state is not infringing on any rights or turning their backs on them because they are not involved. They don't NEED to be involved. Individuals can handle things themselves. We don't need big brother holding our hands.
Click to expand...

Until you want something legally enforced, then you have a problem.
rivrrat said:
But as long as they ARE involved, they need to be involved fairly. Currently, it is not done fairly. It is blatant discrimination and that cannot be tolerated. We can't tell women that they're free to marry women sans the state and jump through hoops to get privileges that are freely given to others any more than we could tell blacks to do that, or protestants to do that, or wiccans to do that.
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem.

Same-sex marriages are welcome as a variant on the theme just as humanity has welcomed many other variations of marriage.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
Just trying to prepare myself.

If Massachusetts rules that gay marriage is legal, Utah rules that polygamy is legal, California rules that man can marry his mother or his brother, and New York changes the legal marrying age to 13 and 70-year-old man can marry a 13-year-old boy........

Do I have to recognize these marriages in Texas if they all move here?
Click to expand...

Just as all these states have to recognize the concealed weapons permits of all the Texas residents who subsequently move out, yes.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
Do I have to recognize these marriages in Texas if they all move here?
Click to expand...

You as an individual are not legally required to recognize any marriages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom