• 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 judge rules against Kansas's gay marriage ban

Ohh old people have more rights than you? Let me know when that is taken seriously.

I think you are misreading - I am pointing out that your logic is self-defeating.
 
Only because courts have taken that power away, not the people...

The constitution took that power away. The courts are just recognizing that.
 
Exactly when was this done, and cite the amendment...

14th. You mentioned the courts, I figured you had at least basic familiarity with the decisions they made.
 
Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is clearly a classification of gender.

It's not a classification; it's a statement of fact...
 
14th. You mentioned the courts, I figured you had at least basic familiarity with the decisions they made.

The 14th took nothing away from the states other than to enslave another person...
 
It's not a classification; it's a statement of fact...

You are allowed to hold such an opinion. The government has a larger hurdle to clear if it wants to do that.

The 14th took nothing away from the states other than to enslave another person...

Equal protection under the law applies to the states.
 
I think you are misreading - I am pointing out that your logic is self-defeating.

Let me point out that in no way are "those damn old people" have more rights than you.
 
You are allowed to hold such an opinion. The government has a larger hurdle to clear if it wants to do that.



Equal protection under the law applies to the states.

As I have previously stated that is an interpretation of the federal courts not the Constitution...
 
As I have previously stated that is an interpretation of the federal courts not the Constitution...

You are free to hold such an opinion. The government doesn't have such a luxury.
 
The constitution constrains the government. Sorry this bothers you so much.

Exactly how is the government being constrained with regards to this discussion?
 
One man one vote is equality one man $X of tax is unfair and regressive. ;)

Taxation without representation is bad, representation without taxation is OK.

America DOES have representation for its taxation.

Representation without taxation means you're a deadbeat because you wouldn't be paying for services rendered.
 
When a state votes against SSM, doesn't that apply to all under the law?

When a cities citizens vote to allow illegal immigrants to have safe haven in that city, doesn't that apply under the law? If a state's citizens vote to have people of one particular race not allowed to have access to certain rights that the other races have, doesn't that apply under the law?

What you are saying is that Direct Democracy should trump the law, and the Constitution. That the majority should have the ability to vote the minority into a hole.

Think about that.
 
Exactly how is the government being constrained with regards to this discussion?

The government will be forced to stop constraining the marriage decisions of its citizens on the basis of gender.
 
The government will be forced to stop constraining the marriage decisions of its citizens on the basis of gender.

How can the government be forced to stop anything? It makes the rules...
 
How can the government be forced to stop anything? It makes the rules...

And it is ruling that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is required to be recognized under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

Glad we're all caught up.
 
Back
Top Bottom