• 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

I did not make any argument against polygamy. This has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread.

I certainly can pick what should be equal and what should not. A brick is not equally as heavy as a feather. I don't have to support the concept both are equal. Under the law, convicted felons are less equal than those who are not. I do not have to argue otherwise.

No. A one ounce brick is equally heavy as a one ounce feather.
 
Scarecrow, somebody needs to introduce you to the multiquote button.
 
How's a polygamous divorce work?

The same as current divorce, with more defendants.

What if three people want a fourth to go, but three others want her to stay?

Time for marriage counseling.

Would DNA tests be required to identify a child's father in custody battles?

When the birth certificate isn't good enough, yes, just like it is today.

How is community property defined and how is it split up in the event of a divorce?

The same way it's split among multiple children today: The value is calculated and the asset can either be liquidated and the profits split or each wife gets an equal share on the title.

What about inheritance laws, for example, when the principle wage earner dies, and his six spouses start squabbling over who's share is too big, before they each divorce each other?

Divorce court will handle it just as they do today.

There's religious bigotry associated with anti-polygamy laws, but US law can't answer the questions right now.

Uh, you mean YOU can't answer those question right now. I certainly can, and so much better could actual lawyers, judges and representatives who have an education in law answer them.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Because this is a representative democratic republic still mired in assorted anachronistic customs and the forms must be followed because that's how the law works.

That still doesn't make what contracts two consenting adults enter into anyone else's business.

I don't even know why anyone not involved in the wedding would care. Doesn't their own lives hold enough trouble to keep them busy?

Well that's just the thing, if gay marriage doesn't effect me, why would I care? So what if gays can't marry? It doesn't effect me.
 
He's saying there's no particular reason that legalizing same-sex marriage means you MUST legalize polygamy. They're different situations with different arguments to be made.

And I am saying that neither situation is any of the government's damn business.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

In the exact same ways that heterosexual marriage is beneficial, i'd imagine. Unless your argument is that the institution of marriage as a whole is not beneficial, of course, in which case good luck trying to prove that.


Ok, lay this out side by side BM vs. HM as it relates to benefits to society then would you?


j-mac
 
And I am saying that neither situation is any of the government's damn business.

I agree, more or less. If they want to ban something, anything at all, they need to show me how it causes harm. If they can't do that, they need to shove off and stay out of it. Whether it's wearing polka-dotted t-shirts, shooting people in the face, or marrying a dude, they have to show how it is harmful before they can ban it.

(the second one probably isn't difficult to show)
 
I agree, more or less. If they want to ban something, anything at all, they need to show me how it causes harm. If they can't do that, they need to shove off and stay out of it. Whether it's wearing polka-dotted t-shirts, shooting people in the face, or marrying a dude, they have to show how it is harmful before they can ban it.

(the second one probably isn't difficult to show)

Polka-dotted t-shirts can cause epileptic seizures when viewed through a TV screen.

Ban them.

:)
 
Reading through this thread, it appears that some believe in the specific stated case of CCW permits that a state is bound to honor the Permits from a different state. This is NOT the case. Each state has their own requirements for these and unless the states have a reciprocal agreement you may not carry a concealed weapon outside the state you are licensed in.
The same applies here for marriage.
Another example is vehicle laws. You could be given a ticket in California for a cracked windshield even if it is legal in, say, North Carolina and you have North Carolina Tags. One state can't decide law for the whole country. If in Virginia it was legal to drive a vehicle at night that had no headlights, then it would defacto be legal in the whole country as long as your car had VA tags on it. If that's the case then we don't need states at all.
I am going to check and see If I can find case law examples of states dealing with different marrying ages. I am curious if states are bound to recognize marriages of people under the legal age in that state.
 
Reading through this thread, it appears that some believe in the specific stated case of CCW permits that a state is bound to honor the Permits from a different state. This is NOT the case. Each state has their own requirements for these and unless the states have a reciprocal agreement you may not carry a concealed weapon outside the state you are licensed in.
The same applies here for marriage.
Another example is vehicle laws. You could be given a ticket in California for a cracked windshield even if it is legal in, say, North Carolina and you have North Carolina Tags. One state can't decide law for the whole country. If in Virginia it was legal to drive a vehicle at night that had no headlights, then it would defacto be legal in the whole country as long as your car had VA tags on it. If that's the case then we don't need states at all.
I am going to check and see If I can find case law examples of states dealing with different marrying ages. I am curious if states are bound to recognize marriages of people under the legal age in that state.

You know you bring up an excellent point I never considered. States do have the right to set age for legal marriage so that could be used by the gay marriage crowd to claim if states can regulate when someone can get married they should be able to regulate whom can marry whom. Its one of the strongest least emotional arguments I've ever heard from a pro gay marriage perspective. The only counter would be that the federal law simply requires a man and woman for marriage and does not care about age.

Well done. It truely is one of the best arguments I've ever heard on this issue.
 
You know you bring up an excellent point I never considered. States do have the right to set age for legal marriage so that could be used by the gay marriage crowd to claim if states can regulate when someone can get married they should be able to regulate whom can marry whom. Its one of the strongest least emotional arguments I've ever heard from a pro gay marriage perspective. The only counter would be that the federal law simply requires a man and woman for marriage and does not care about age.

Well done. It truely is one of the best arguments I've ever heard on this issue.

How does that help the Pro gay marriage crowd? If states can regulate who can and can't get married?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Ok, lay this out side by side BM vs. HM as it relates to benefits to society then would you?


j-mac

There's no need to separate benefits, as the same benefits to society are equal between heterosexual and homosexual married couples. What I think you are shooting for is to say is that heterosexual marriage offers some sort of benefit to society that homosexual marriage does not, which has never been proven. In fact, homosexual marriage does benefit society, because of the exact same reason(s) that heterosexual marriage does. In any case, here's a list of benefits that I pulled from the web on a google search.

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
 
Last edited:
How does that help the Pro gay marriage crowd? If states can regulate who can and can't get married?

Because it sets a precedence that a state can dictate when federal benefits are given to a married couple by controlling the age of marriage.

The argument the pro gay marriage crowd or at least this judge put out was that states have the right to control whom can marry. By pointing to the fact that states do control the age of whom can marry they have a precedent to build upon.
 
Last edited:
Because it sets a precedence that a state can dictate when federal benefits are given to a married couple by controlling the age of marriage.

The argument the pro gay marriage crowd or at least this judge put out was that states have the right to control whom can marry. By pointing to the fact that states do control the age of whom can marry they have a precedent to build upon.

Incorrect. It has to do with discriminating based on gender.
 
Heh, maybe Rivvrat can get people to pay attention to the argument. I seemed to get no where this entire thread.

Whites can only marry blacks, are restricted from marrying whites. Blacks can only marry whites, are restricted from marrying blacks.

Men can only marry women, are restricted from marrying men. Women can only marry men, are restricted from marrying women.

Gender discrimination is equally as unconstitutional as Racial discrimination in this country. Could you tell a race they could only marry someone from another race? No. Yet you're telling a member of a gender they can only marry someone from the other gender. Thus creating inequality between the two races as women can do something under the law men are forbidden from doing and vise versa.
 
What are you talking about?

The argument is that it can be considered gender discrimination because a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman. That isn't my argument for gay marriage, but that is the argument for the gender discrimination argument.
 
The argument is that it can be considered gender discrimination because a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman. That isn't my argument for gay marriage, but that is the argument for the gender discrimination argument.

Ok thanks. And that isn't a bad argument on its face.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

There's no need to separate benefits, as the same benefits to society are equal between heterosexual and homosexual married couples. What I think you are shooting for is to say is that heterosexual marriage offers some sort of benefit to society that homosexual marriage does not, which has never been proven. In fact, homosexual marriage does benefit society, because of the exact same reason(s) that heterosexual marriage does. In any case, here's a list of benefits that I pulled from the web on a google search.

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Well, although I agree that homosexual couples should benefit from that which you have laid out here, especially those which are committed over a longer period of time, I was originally addressing the statement made by Captain Courtesy when he said,

I have plenty of studies that show the benefits of GM. Let's see you prove the benefits of plural marriage. Evidence and links are the only things that will suffice.

In that I believe that he was posing that GM was a benefit to society as a whole, and not the benefits that gay couples will enjoy should that day of recognized marriage come to them.

But then again when I asked him what the benefits were he responded with,

As has been said, in the exact same ways as heterosexual marriage is beneficial. It promotes the positive rearing of children, the health of the individual, the stability of the family, all of which promotes a more stable and healthier society.

Which was acceptable as an answer to me. However yours above seems to be more about what will benefit the couples should they attain the status. that was why I asked.

j-mac
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Well, although I agree that homosexual couples should benefit from that which you have laid out here, especially those which are committed over a longer period of time, I was originally addressing the statement made by Captain Courtesy when he said,



In that I believe that he was posing that GM was a benefit to society as a whole, and not the benefits that gay couples will enjoy should that day of recognized marriage come to them.

But then again when I asked him what the benefits were he responded with,



Which was acceptable as an answer to me. However yours above seems to be more about what will benefit the couples should they attain the status. that was why I asked.

j-mac

I would not worry about this decision...........it will be overturned at the circuit court level...........This judge is a liberal and has and axe to grind............His decision was unconstitutional...........
 
Heh, maybe Rivvrat can get people to pay attention to the argument. I seemed to get no where this entire thread.

Whites can only marry blacks, are restricted from marrying whites. Blacks can only marry whites, are restricted from marrying blacks.

Men can only marry women, are restricted from marrying men. Women can only marry men, are restricted from marrying women.

Gender discrimination is equally as unconstitutional as Racial discrimination in this country. Could you tell a race they could only marry someone from another race? No. Yet you're telling a member of a gender they can only marry someone from the other gender. Thus creating inequality between the two races as women can do something under the law men are forbidden from doing and vise versa.

Or, just to bypass the whole "choice" issue that some individuals like to bring up, one could like it to:

Protestants can only marry protestants
Catholics can only marry Catholics
Baptists can only marry Baptists
etc, etc
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

I would not worry about this decision...........it will be overturned at the circuit court level...........This judge is a liberal and has and axe to grind............His decision was unconstitutional...........

he's a nixon appointee.....what are his decisions that you think are liberal? he's a vet, btw.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

I would not worry about this decision...........it will be overturned at the circuit court level...........This judge is a liberal and has and axe to grind............His decision was unconstitutional...........

Nixon was known for his love of Liberal judges. That is why he appointed Joseph Tauro.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

he's a nixon appointee.....what are his decisions that you think are liberal? he's a vet, btw.

He did something Navy disagrees with, therefore he must be an evil liberal


with an agenda


who hates our military
 
Back
Top Bottom