• 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

joG said:
Oh, but there are compelling reasons. But we have discussed this on many occasions here. The problems with gay marriage are certainly not the only ones, but they do add to the list.
Click to expand...

OK, I've never seen even one compelling reason for somehow doing the impossible and "taking marriage away from the government." The government will always be involved in disputes about raising children, determining who has the right to make decisions for the child, to make healthcare decisions for children and the spouses, in litigating divorces and separations, the allocation of assets in the event a cohabiting couple splits, inheritances, debts, etc. What we know as "Marriage" and the legal relationship it represents is the result of many decades of legislatures and courts looking at the issues and making laws that allow for the fairest possible outcome, especially provisions that serve to protect the economically weaker partner in the relationship. So what have we gained if we simply undo all that? Nothing that I can see. The disputes and issues don't disappear, only the orderly and more predictable way we resolve them. And obviously those who have a "problem" with marriage can choose....not get get married. Or they can get married in the church of their choice, but never have it recognized by the state. It's not hard.

And 'the problems with gay marriage' are another really non-issue in any practical sense. I've been married 24 years. I'm certain that if my gay neighbors get married or have gotten married (I have no idea and do not care - they've been living together three houses down for at least five years) that it will affect me none.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
OK, I've never seen even one compelling reason for somehow doing the impossible and "taking marriage away from the government." The government will always be involved in disputes about raising children, determining who has the right to make decisions for the child, to make healthcare decisions for children and the spouses, in litigating divorces and separations, the allocation of assets in the event a cohabiting couple splits, inheritances, debts, etc. What we know as "Marriage" and the legal relationship it represents is the result of many decades of legislatures and courts looking at the issues and making laws that allow for the fairest possible outcome, especially provisions that serve to protect the economically weaker partner in the relationship. So what have we gained if we simply undo all that? Nothing that I can see. The disputes and issues don't disappear, only the orderly and more predictable way we resolve them. And obviously those who have a "problem" with marriage can choose....not get get married. Or they can get married in the church of their choice, but never have it recognized by the state. It's not hard.

And 'the problems with gay marriage' are another really non-issue in any practical sense. I've been married 24 years. I'm certain that if my gay neighbors get married or have gotten married (I have no idea and do not care - they've been living together three houses down for at least five years) that it will affect me none.
Click to expand...

An interesting aspect there is the act that what we presently know as marriage is, as you rightly point out, the path dependent result of societies' attempts to deal with a myriad of situations impacting the reproductive functions of the community over a very long period. But, that does not justify continuing to use a sociological instrument that was developed to deal with a legally and technologically very different reality.
 
The argument has never been can unions, that don't mention any couple's orientation or prevent any couple from becoming a legal entity, provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. If legislation were passed on the federal and state levels to provide all the tax deductions that married couples enjoy, that answer would be yes. That legislation can be done easypesy, BTW. Or if all tax deductions for couples were taken away, period.

It makes me think that the 'equality' judicial and gay marriage advocates strive for deals with not having to identify the couple as same-sexed. Again if a union, there is no indicator of the makeup of the legal couple. This is exactly how I identify marriages, now: Traditional marriages and gay marriages. It's important for me to identify the difference in the two legal types of couples. And, well, its important for the government to not identify the makeup of the two types of legal couples.

How others see the legal couple. That's how the government sees it. Taking away the right I have of seeing the legal couple as I see it.
That right is spelled out, somewhere, by The Constitution? It's somewhat more likely The Constitution doesn't even address marriage. But ideological judges have.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
My point is that I care about The Constitution and your care about gay marriage. I admit we have different priorities.

The any person phrase that you've mentioned repeatedly that is in The Constitution doesn't mean any person. It means any American. Why don't you give an example in The Constitution of this any person phrase you use so much?
Maybe that will explain some context.
Click to expand...

And your point fails because the constitution won on the issue of equal rights for gays/ gay marriage. This fact wont change. You can ignore the facts, laws, rights, constitution, many court cases and precedence all you want but it doesn't change anything. You have provided one factual or logical reason to ignore all those things.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
And your point fails because the constitution won on the issue of equal rights for gays/ gay marriage. This fact wont change. You can ignore the facts, laws, rights, constitution, many court cases and precedence all you want but it doesn't change anything. You have provided one factual or logical reason to ignore all those things.
Click to expand...
Ideological gay marriage judge advocates deigned gay marriage. I may be a minority but I don't deny same-sexed couples the right to have a legal couple with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

But you can't just call a horse a swan. For sure you can't bet money on the swan to win the Kentucky Derby. Or in this case, a marriage that is a same-sexed union.
 
Last edited:
If you gay marriage advocates wish The Constitution to address gay marriage, propose it as an amendment. Debate it. Get it passed by the proper percentage of states. Then there won't be any question if marriage is covered in The Constitution and the subject will be taken away from ideological judges. Some who might be anti-gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
1.)Ideological gay marriage judge advocates deigned gay marriage.
2.) I may be a minority but I don't deny same-sexed couples the right to have a legal couple with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
3.) But you can't just call a horse a swan. For sure you can't bet money on the swan to win the Kentucky Derby.
4.) Or in this case, a marriage that is a same-sexed union.
Click to expand...

1.) so were minority rights, slavery and womens rights...... all meaningless.
2.) meaningless since equal rights and the constitutions won, you have no power too deny them or to not deny them
3.) correct, good thing thats not happening, it's just factually marriage, period. :D
4.) legally they are factually the same thing and your opinion doesn't change that fact.
 
cabse5 said:
If you gay marriage advocates wish The Constitution to address gay marriage, propose it as an amendment. Debate it. Get it passed by the proper percentage of states. Then there won't be any question if marriage is covered in The Constitution and the subject will be taken away from ideological judges. Some who might be anti-gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to directly address gay marriage this is why desperate dishonest arguments like yours always fail. NOBODY claims the constitution mentions marriage so your strawman is laughable.
Equal rights and the constitution won on this issue. Gays aren't in any danger in losing their equal rights on this issue so no worries. In fact in the near future they will be gaining even more equal rights.
 
TurtleDude said:
you have an active imagination to come up with this crap.
Click to expand...

you're one to talk of fantasy with your "you just hate guns cause the NRA is anti gay" derails. When have i *ever* brought up gay rights in *any* gun thread, let alone as incessantly as you invoke guns in totally unrelated threads such as this?

so tell us, were you able to fit the entire barrel into her, or did you have to resort to using (much smaller) human organs?
 
chromium said:
you're one to talk of fantasy with your "you just hate guns cause the NRA is anti gay" derails. When have i *ever* brought up gay rights in *any* gun thread, let alone as incessantly as you invoke guns in totally unrelated threads such as this?

so tell us, were you able to fit the entire barrel into her, or did you have to resort to using (much smaller) human organs?
Click to expand...

what are you braying about? Why did you start whining about gun owners?
 
cabse5 said:
In 1857 SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property of slave owners and not considered human beings. Again, Roger Taney and the boys ruled slaves were property. I believe in 1863, or approximately 6 years later, the Lincoln administration proclaimed all rebel slaves free by the will and force of the USA at that time and gave them all the rights and privileges of American citizens.

SCOTUS made a bad decision in 1857 concerning slaves. They ruled, since Dred Scott was property, that the runaway slave be returned to his master...because The Constitution tries not to prevent any man from his life, liberty or PROPERTY. Roger Taney and the boys would've made the same bad decision years later for the same reason. Because slaves were property. The 14th amendment changed The Constitution and took away SCOTUS' decision making abilities of whether slaves were (American) humans or property. That SCOTUS may have deemed the 14th amendment immoral but they couldn't deem it unconstitutional. Sometimes the judiciary makes bad decisions.

To recap: The Emancipation Proclamation didn't set all American slaves free. It set all rebel slaves free. There were plenty of slaves in Washington DC after the proclamation.
The 14th amendment declared all slaves were American humans giving them all the rights of citizens...forcing the hand of a misguided SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

this is hard to believe...yo, the *13th* amendment abolished slavery. There *were* no slaves by the time the 14th was ratified

just as the 1st amendment demands no establishment of religion including future, unforeseen, religions, so was equal protection intended to apply to future, unforeseen, groups of people being denied the rights that the majority is entitled to, and unforeseen situations. That includes descendants of former slaves, who would later go on to fight for equal treatment in education (brown vs board). And the provisions in article 3 re: # of senators and electoral votes applied to future states and on and on. I defy you to find any wording in the 13th amendment that proves the expansion of rights was meant to (let alone should) apply only to 19th century slaves
 
TurtleDude said:
what are you braying about? Why did you start whining about gun owners?
Click to expand...

when you pulled this out of nowhere:

TurtleDude said:
its a great point given that those who USUALLy think all states should be forced to recognize gay marriage legalized in another state are often the ones most hostile to the second amendment.
Click to expand...

stop trying to derail every thread with gun nutter slosh and this won't happen
 
chromium said:
when you pulled this out of nowhere:



stop trying to derail every thread with gun nutter slosh and this won't happen
Click to expand...

you didn't understand the point did you
 
TurtleDude said:
you didn't understand the point did you
Click to expand...

If Tennessee granted lesbian women reciprocity on guns, but not straight white men, it might have been a relevant point.

Because the issue with marriage reciprocity was Tennessee would recognize straight marriages performed in any other state, but not gay marriages.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Exactly. I also don't understand why I need the governments permission to begin with. If we are consenting adults why do I need any ones approval of who I love and wish to spend the rest of my life with. The government has no business in my personal life. Why do I need government controlling and ruling my personal life. I am Catholic and for me marriage is a sacrament performed by my religion. Since when do I need the governments permission to practice my religion.



Exactly. Just as I believe I have the right to marry anyone of my choosing as long as both parties are consenting adults so should every one else. Again why does anyone need permission from an over bloated government trying to rule our personal lives instead of serving the people.



You are exactly right. Why should anyone including our government think they have the right to rule over our personal choice of who we want to marry and spend the rest of our life with. Government has no business in this. period.
Click to expand...

You don't need the governments permission. It's only if you want some protections and legal recognition of familial relationship that you need legal marriage, but it still should be offered in a way that is fair.
 
cabse5 said:
If you gay marriage advocates wish The Constitution to address gay marriage, propose it as an amendment. Debate it. Get it passed by the proper percentage of states. Then there won't be any question if marriage is covered in The Constitution and the subject will be taken away from ideological judges. Some who might be anti-gay marriage.
Click to expand...

same to you

except we have equal protection already, so there is no need for us to bother

and i'd rather have judges with at least some constitutional training deciding these matters than a mob of uneducated rednecks
 
cabse5 said:
Ideological gay marriage judge advocates deigned gay marriage. I may be a minority but I don't deny same-sexed couples the right to have a legal couple with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

But you can't just call a horse a swan. For sure you can't bet money on the swan to win the Kentucky Derby. Or in this case, a marriage that is a same-sexed union.
Click to expand...

So, your objection is literally just semantics. You're whining because they use a word you don't want them to use.

You can personally use these words however you want. Nobody is stopping you. But the government isn't going to pass a redundant set of legislation, put gay couples in a "separate but equal" category just to make you feel better. There's no reason to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom