• 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!

Same-Sex Marriage, How long till it's legal

Same-Sex Marriage, How long till it's legal


  • Total voters
    43
And then spend the rest of their lives in jail. The fact that most people in this country according to the most recvent polling don't actually have a problem with gay people suggests this is unlikely, but hey, it's why we have jails and in some states the death penalty.

You make the mistake of believing that many of us would allow ourselves to be taken alive and subject ourselves to the clown college that is the US Justice System.


:lol: Unintentional joke.

No joke at all. First I'd blow a fuse, then probably more than a few "caps".

Keep kidding yourself. America is about freedom. I know you hate that, but that's the way it is.

I'm pretty certain there are a lot more people out there who think this "Freedom" thing has gone too far at this point than you realize.
 
You make the mistake of believing that many of us would allow ourselves to be taken alive and subject ourselves to the clown college that is the US Justice System.

Well then it would be a short lived problem. Evolution in action so to speak.
 
I'm pretty certain there are a lot more people out there who think this "Freedom" thing has gone too far at this point than you realize.

Sure. There are always people like that. Our history is full of them. We defeated most of them, one way or the other.
 
I'll be popping something other than champagne that day.




Yep. Who knows, maybe this is the issue that sets the Third American Revolution into motion. Each side has won one of the first two, and there's going to have to be a deciding game one of these days.




At least until their neighbors dragged them out of their home and lynched them.

Ahahahah keep fantasizing about your revolution. Better get started quick, though, the number of people who actually care if gay people get married is dwindling by the day.

It's legal in several states already. Have they "fallen" yet?

You make the mistake of believing that many of us would allow ourselves to be taken alive and subject ourselves to the clown college that is the US Justice System.




No joke at all. First I'd blow a fuse, then probably more than a few "caps".



I'm pretty certain there are a lot more people out there who think this "Freedom" thing has gone too far at this point than you realize.

BAaaahahahahahahahahhaha. Say, do you by any chance post at free republic?
 
Last edited:
Sure. There are always people like that. Our history is full of them. We defeated most of them, one way or the other.

Well, we keep springing up, so that should tell you something.


Ahahahah keep fantasizing about your revolution. Better get started quick, though, the number of people who actually care if gay people get married is dwindling by the day.

You might be surprised.

It's legal in several states already. Have they "fallen" yet?

Most of those states weren't worth anything to begin with. I can say that as someone who has lived in three of them (MA, CT, and RI).

Say, do you by any chance post at free republic?

Nope.
 
You might be surprised.

The reason I asked about freep is that your revolution fantasies sound very similar to theirs. They, too, think they are part of some hidden moral majority who will rise up as one etc etc. Lots of bluster, but it's all hollow. They all talk about how "prepared" they are to fight this "battle," and they keep telling themselves it's one they will actually fight, and have a chance at winning.

All fantasy. Small men dreaming of a day they become important.
 
The reason I asked about freep is that your revolution fantasies sound very similar to theirs. They, too, think they are part of some hidden moral majority who will rise up as one etc etc. Lots of bluster, but it's all hollow. They all talk about how "prepared" they are to fight this "battle," and they keep telling themselves it's one they will actually fight, and have a chance at winning.

All fantasy. Small men dreaming of a day they become important.

It's not about actually winning the battle, Deuce. It's about fighting it. I don't think most of us foresee actually winning the fight, but in my case it's a matter of going out standing up rather than on my knees. It's about being carried off to Valhallah by the Valkyries for dying a glorious defense of what's RIGHT rather than wasting away of old age and wondering "what if" as I travel down that long, dark road to Hel.
 
It's not about actually winning the battle, Deuce. It's about fighting it. I don't think most of us foresee actually winning the fight, but in my case it's a matter of going out standing up rather than on my knees. It's about being carried off to Valhallah by the Valkyries for dying a glorious defense of what's RIGHT rather than wasting away of old age and wondering "what if" as I travel down that long, dark road to Hel.

cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs.jpg
 
Moderator's Warning:
Meanwhile, back on the topic of how long till SSM is legal....
 
As the EPC is worded currently I don't think there is a legal basis for saying it includes homosexual orientation. In legal terms I don't think the federal government should have the right to pass a federal law that forces states to go against their constitutions and issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. If the federal government was the one issuing marriage licenses then this would be fine.

In order to stay within the bounds of the Constitution and not trample on the rights of the states I think the best way to legalize gay marriage would be to do so formally by amending the Constitution. You don't need the support of all the states to do so and I think it is the best approach under the current laws and how things are legally.

Full faith and credit requires a legal contract signed in one state be recognized in others.

Having a patchwork of "married here, divorced there" states would be highly impractical and also harms the freedom of movement for gay and lesbian couples. This could also take parents away from children if one parent isn't the biological parent and a state refuses to recognize an adoption by a gay or lesbian parent.

Further, to counter that the Equal Protect Clause doesn't protect homosexuals, you are correct (to a degree); but where that argument fails is that it does protect sex. It, thusly, can be argued that bans on same-sex marriage are discrimination based on gender - in that it tells a woman that she is not allowed to enter a marriage contract with another woman and is therefore in violation of the 14th Amendment.
 
Full faith and credit requires a legal contract signed in one state be recognized in others.

Yet, my Massachusetts firearms license is NOT valid in any other State. There is already precident for States being able to make distinctions between which legal agreements they will and will not honor from other jurisdictions; and I'd suggest there's a much stronger Constitutional backing for requiring reciprocity of firearms licenses than marriage licenses.

Having a patchwork of "married here, divorced there" states would be highly impractical and also harms the freedom of movement for gay and lesbian couples. This could also take parents away from children if one parent isn't the biological parent and a state refuses to recognize an adoption by a gay or lesbian parent.

Further, to counter that the Equal Protect Clause doesn't protect homosexuals, you are correct (to a degree); but where that argument fails is that it does protect sex. It, thusly, can be argued that bans on same-sex marriage are discrimination based on gender - in that it tells a woman that she is not allowed to enter a marriage contract with another woman and is therefore in violation of the 14th Amendment.

What this country is going to have to determine is.... On what level (city, county, state, or federal) do we get to apply our Morals and Values to LAW. Is the Federal level the proper place to do this, or is it at some lower level? I think this is going to continue to be an issue for at least the length of my lifetime (30 years +/-) if not longer.
 
Some more states will legalize it in the next 0-5 years, but I suspect it won't be made legal nationwide by the supreme court until the 5-10 year range. Could be sooner though. Perry v Schwarzenegger is very likely to be upheld on appeal any day now. I suspect that the supreme court will dodge that one though. It's a severely right wing court at the moment and it doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of the equal protection clause any more often than it absolutely has to... Worst case scenario, if the supreme court refuses to act indefinitely, it will still be legal in the majority of states within 10 years, and all states within 20 for sure.
 
Yet, my Massachusetts firearms license is NOT valid in any other State. There is already precident for States being able to make distinctions between which legal agreements they will and will not honor from other jurisdictions; and I'd suggest there's a much stronger Constitutional backing for requiring reciprocity of firearms licenses than marriage licenses.

What this country is going to have to determine is.... On what level (city, county, state, or federal) do we get to apply our Morals and Values to LAW. Is the Federal level the proper place to do this, or is it at some lower level? I think this is going to continue to be an issue for at least the length of my lifetime (30 years +/-) if not longer.

In Loving v. Virginia, marriage was declared a "fundamental right" (and that has been reiterated several times); while not mentioned in the Constitution, a fundamental right is a right considered to predate the Constitution. Freedom of movement is also a fundamental right.

In order to discriminate, a government (be it state, federal or local) must show a compelling purpose in discriminating against a person or a class of people.

Thus, via the 14th Amendment, every state banning same-sex marriage is violating the 14th Amendment by not giving equal protection under the law to a woman who wants to enter a marriage contract with a woman and a man who wants to enter a marriage contract with a man.

Further, the de facto lack of recognition from one state to another, would essentially require a couple to be divorced in one state, while married in another. This is a restriction of the fundamental right to freedom of movement.

Your moral belief system needn't change for same sex couples to legally marry. It requires nothing on your part to personally recognize such a marriage. It merely requires a state to recognize it. You have your First Amendment right to tell everyone that you think it's "icky" and immoral. But the state MUST give compelling reason as to why it should maintain the right to discriminate.
 
The reason I asked about freep is that your revolution fantasies sound very similar to theirs. They, too, think they are part of some hidden moral majority who will rise up as one etc etc. Lots of bluster, but it's all hollow. They all talk about how "prepared" they are to fight this "battle," and they keep telling themselves it's one they will actually fight, and have a chance at winning.

All fantasy. Small men dreaming of a day they become important.
You know, if I spent any amount of time on Free Republic I'd have much simpler dreams than revolution. Such as dreaming of a website that doesn't look like it was coded in the early 90s.
 
Yet, my Massachusetts firearms license is NOT valid in any other State. There is already precident for States being able to make distinctions between which legal agreements they will and will not honor from other jurisdictions; and I'd suggest there's a much stronger Constitutional backing for requiring reciprocity of firearms licenses than marriage licenses.

There are potentially valid arguments to be made that firearm permits should be recognized by other states. Your argument does not invalidate in any way the point being made.
 
...and with the fall of DOMA, comes the fall of the United States as a nation with any value to its continued existance. That would simply be a final nail in the coffin for this once great nation.
Right, because nobody has ever made that same prediction on some other issue.
 
Well, we keep springing up, so that should tell you something.

And you keep being defeated, which should tell you something. Hey, good thing to remember on MLK Day!

There are evil people in the world all the time. They are usually defeated. You aren't special.
 
It will be 25 years or more until it's legal in the whole US, if it ever is I think.
 
Your moral belief system needn't change for same sex couples to legally marry. It requires nothing on your part to personally recognize such a marriage. It merely requires a state to recognize it. You have your First Amendment right to tell everyone that you think it's "icky" and immoral. But the state MUST give compelling reason as to why it should maintain the right to discriminate.

The problem is that once the State recognizes that Union as legitimate, it will have to start allowing them to get the same rights and privileges as people who are married. That means they will be drawing monies that have been taken from ME in taxes to support them, and therefore providing a de facto acceptance of the Union as appropriate. It's not a matter of "icky". It's a matter of basic decency and morality, and the fact that the Government would then be able to use MY money to support them.


There are potentially valid arguments to be made that firearm permits should be recognized by other states. Your argument does not invalidate in any way the point being made.

There's a significant difference. The RTKBA is a Constitutional Right. It's discussed among the first two Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. I do not see any provision in there for the government to come in and start forcing States to recognize immoral acts carried out in other States as legitimate in their State.
 
The problem is that once the State recognizes that Union as legitimate, it will have to start allowing them to get the same rights and privileges as people who are married. That means they will be drawing monies that have been taken from ME in taxes to support them, and therefore providing a de facto acceptance of the Union as appropriate. It's not a matter of "icky". It's a matter of basic decency and morality, and the fact that the Government would then be able to use MY money to support them.

There's a significant difference. The RTKBA is a Constitutional Right. It's discussed among the first two Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. I do not see any provision in there for the government to come in and start forcing States to recognize immoral acts carried out in other States as legitimate in their State.

Same-sex families pay thousands of dollars more in taxes - Dec. 26, 2011

Actually, you are taking money from same-sex families with your so-called morality.

And I find discrimination - the kind of discrimination you practice - to be utterly immoral and thoroughly indecent.
 
Actually, you are taking money from same-sex families with your so-called morality.

Which would go away with the legalization of same-sex marriage, so that's kind of a red herring, FFG.

And I find discrimination - the kind of discrimination you practice - to be utterly immoral and thoroughly indecent.

Good for you. The next moment I care about what you or anyone else believes about me or my lifestyle, philosophies, etc.... will be the first moment I do so.
 
The problem is that once the State recognizes that Union as legitimate, it will have to start allowing them to get the same rights and privileges as people who are married. That means they will be drawing monies that have been taken from ME in taxes to support them, and therefore providing a de facto acceptance of the Union as appropriate. It's not a matter of "icky". It's a matter of basic decency and morality, and the fact that the Government would then be able to use MY money to support them.

I find lots of hetero marriages to be "icky" too.
 
The thing is though, is that it's a state's rights issue. Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution nor is sexuality mentioned. there is the equal protection clause, but that doesn't prevent states from legally defining marriage between a male husband and female wife. I highly doubt that all the states will legalize gay marriage. At best the Supreme Court could force states to legally recognize gay marriages performed in states where it is legal.
The Equal protection clause ABSOLUTELY prevents states from legally defining marriage if the SCOTUS issues a holding that states cannot discriminate. You are incorrect.
 
Back
Top Bottom