• 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!

Donald Trump: Supreme Court should have left gay marriage to the states

Kobie said:
Nobody has ever explained to me why basic civil rights should be "left up to the states."
Click to expand...

Because to the Religious Right and Social Conservatives freedom only extends to them. Everyone else much abide by their "freedom" to tell others how they must live their lives, particularly in regards to what goes on in their private lives. Thus it must be left to the states where those social conservatives (synonym for authoritarians) can impose their "freedom" upon the gays and anyone else they think must be legally compelled to abide by it.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: if you want to try to frame it in a certain way - what they were actually doing was defining for their clerks who they could issue marriage licenses to. No one's actions or activities outside of the clerks was restricted.
Click to expand...

They set guidelines for could and couldn't marry with the purpose of restricting a specific group of people from marriage. Are you serious?

Sure. And then I could flip it right back with "sure, and our states will recognize your marriage so long as you follow certain conditions, one of which being that one of you is a man and one of you is a woman."
Click to expand...

Do you believe people should be denied rights based on the gender of their partner as well as their own gender? The "conditions" set by these states explicitly barred people from having their unions recognized based on nothing more than the gender of the individuals. States aren't barring you from carrying a gun based on your gender. They do so based on whether or not you're a resident. I am fine with that. I don't expect my licenses to be recognized in every state. I do expect states to offer paths for me to get those licenses though. If these states had attempted to bar marriage using the same tools, they would have quite a bit of leverage to set the conditions for gay marriage. Instead, they went with bans, and lost. This is all to say that reciprocity WAS NOT the issue. It was the fact that they didn't recognize it period because of the kind of people involved.


Yeah - they call those "may issue" states and states where I lack reciprocity.
Click to expand...

Yes, reciprocity was never the central issue or for that matter one that led the discussion in any way. It was the outright ban of gay marriages. In the end, what was struct down were the bans. Reciprocity was simply an added benefit. Trying to reframe the discussion to be about recognition of out of state marriages, when the discussion was crafted around bans on gay marriage is kind of silly. For your comparison to be valid, states would have to ban you from carrying a weapon all together because of your gender; I'm sure people for the most part are fine with states having basic restrictions on marriage (like: You can't be relatives).
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Because to the Religious Right and Social Conservatives freedom only extends to them. Everyone else much abide by their "freedom" to tell others how they must live their lives, particularly in regards to what goes on in their private lives.
Click to expand...
The left does the same thing with regard to every other aspect of life, so you really have no room to bitch.
Thus it must be left to the states where those social conservatives (synonym for authoritarians) can impose their "freedom" upon the gays and anyone else they think must be legally compelled to abide by it.
Click to expand...
Retaining a definition of marriage that has existed since the dawn of the nation does not impose on anyones freedom. What is and is not a marriage should be left to the people to decide. That is how a free society functions--not that anyone on the left would understand that though.
 
Kobie said:
Nobody has ever explained to me why basic civil rights should be "left up to the states."
Click to expand...

the SCOTUS said it was not the federal government job to define marriage when they struck down the marriage defense act that was signed.
that means the power to regulate marriage fell to the states.

They contradicted themselves in this last ruling when they said that states couldn't define what marriage is and put it back under federal protection.
they issued conflicting rulings all in the name of politics.

If it is up to the states to define marriage then states can define marriage how they wish.
If the federal government can define marriage which they recently did then they had no right to strike down the defense of marriage act.
 
Kobie said:
Nobody has ever explained to me why basic civil rights should be "left up to the states."
Click to expand...

1 major reason democracies look upon the US and say WTF when it comes to rights. I am referring to one specific area, I am sure there are others, where States, cities in that State have differing laws on sexual orientation than the State laws.
 
Van Basten said:
It's the go-to strategy for denying people their rights.

States rights!
Click to expand...

This. It's a way of indicating your opposition to social change, avoiding the attached baggage, while pandering to those who agree with you anyway. If you oppose civil rights, just come out and say it. Don't hide behind code like "state's rights". We all know what it means.
 
clownboy said:
No such thing outside of guarantees made by governments. In this case, entirely up to the state governments to decide. Trump is correct.
Click to expand...

Strange, I've always been told by the right that they are God-given.
 
Kobie said:
Nobody has ever explained to me why basic civil rights should be "left up to the states."
Click to expand...

Honestly the government shouldn't be involved in marriage of any kind at all.

Now if we are talking about declaring medical or estate beneficiaries and all those kinds of things there should be a legal form for that stuff.
 
rocket88 said:
I often wonder how the "Party of Lincoln" became the Party of Connfederate sympathizers.
Click to expand...

No need to wonder. The Dixiecrats ditched the increasingly multicultural Democratic Party, which supported civil rights, for the whiter, Grand Ol' Party of Lincoln. Now the Republicans have an increasingly dominant white base to which it panders, while the dozens of minorities who are the future of America have naturally gravitated towards the Democratic Party.

Let's take bets on which party leads the USA during this century.
 
clownboy said:
Meh, your opinion. Which doesn't go a long way with anyone outside of the fellow in your mirror.
Click to expand...

Other than it's a rather common opinion. Fortunately.
 
Fletch said:
'Intelligent Americans' wont be voting for Clinton or Sanders either.
Click to expand...

So you admit your lack of intelligence? We know you won't dare to against your party.
 
Hatuey said:
They set guidelines for could and couldn't marry with the purpose of restricting a specific group of people from marriage. Are you serious?
Click to expand...

No, they set guidelines for whom clerks would issue marriage licenses to. People were still free to do as they pleased. Just as they continue to do today.

Do you believe people should be denied rights based on the gender of their partner as well as their own gender?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Rights, however, are negative in nature. You no more have a right to the State issuing you a marriage license than you have a right to the State issuing you a drivers permit or a liquor license. In fact, since the lack of those two items will actually restrict your activity, there is a better case that you have a right to them.

States aren't barring you from carrying a gun based on your gender. They do so based on whether or not you're a resident. I am fine with that.
Click to expand...

So you believe in stripping away people's rights based on where they live. Nice.

This is all to say that reciprocity WAS NOT the issue. It was the fact that they didn't recognize it period because of the kind of people involved.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - reciprocity was very much an issue. People got very huffy and very certain and firm on the Critical Absolute Constitutional Importance of the Full Faith And Credit clause.... until they were asked about actual Constitutionally enshrined rights such as those that stem from the 2nd Amendment... at which point for some reason that was different.....

Because, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, it was never about the Constitutionality. It was about achieving the End.

Trying to reframe the discussion to be about recognition of out of state marriages, when the discussion was crafted around bans on gay marriage is kind of silly.
Click to expand...

Gay marriages were not banned. :roll: no pastors were rounded up, no one was arrested for having a gay wedding. The only people restricted were the state actors who issue marriage licenses.

I'm sure people for the most part are fine with states having basic restrictions on marriage (like: You can't be relatives).
Click to expand...

Yeah. Or, "You can't both be dudes". Basic restrictions like that.

But you now have a rather serious problem here - because you are the one claiming a Positive Right to receipt of government marriage licenses.... and then you turn around and declare that you are cool with taking this Right - this thing that we must not take away from people via the states - you are cool with taking that away from people whom you don't approve of. Why does your approval determine whether or not they should have rights?
 
rocket88 said:
Strange, I've always been told by the right that they are God-given.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Conservatives will tell you one thing, Trump another.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: it's a worthy point. People don't actually believe that, it just sounds good.

The people who actually believe that are called Libertarians, and they are precious few in number, and somewhat divided on the issue.

For me, I never understood why issuance of an official government recognition of ones' relationship was a "right". Rights are negative in nature, not positive.
Click to expand...

It is the equal treatment under the law that is the right. I do agree with your point on the concealed carry license, though.
 
BrewerBob said:
It is the equal treatment under the law that is the right. I do agree with your point on the concealed carry license, though.
Click to expand...
Sure. But equal treatment under the law does not mean the ability to only have your preference count. People mistake "equal treatment under the law" with "things I think are fair".
 
Kobie said:
What about the consent of people who are denied rights? Don't they matter?
Click to expand...

not as much as ensuring government is for the people AND by the people.
 
Kobie said:
The right people only, apparently.
Click to expand...

yes the right people.

which is the aggregate that is ultimately responsible for defending government. they aren't going to defend a government that rules opposite of their views. the left seems to lose sight of that - they are to blame for the divisiveness in this country because that is the logical outcome of federalism.
 
ARealConservative said:
yes the right people.

which is the aggregate that is ultimately responsible for defending government. they aren't going to defend a government that rules opposite of their views. the left seems to lose sight of that - they are to blame for the divisiveness in this country because that is the logical outcome of federalism.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, you're perfectly fine with the state denying civil rights to certain people that the masses feel don't deserve them.
 
Kobie said:
So, in other words, you're perfectly fine with the state denying civil rights to certain people that the masses feel don't deserve them.
Click to expand...

You mean the way incestuous couples and polyamorous couples are being denied their civil rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom