• 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!

How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

On a scale of one to ten, how much does it matter?


  • Total voters
    56
Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?

I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.

I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).

Tuppence for your thoughts?

I think it's very important for same sex couples to be able to enjoy their civil rights and liberties to marry each other.

That's because I hold all civil rights and liberties in the highest regard.
 
14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

If that clause protects SSM then it also protects polygamy, and disallows gender differences in physical fitness standards in the military, affirmative action nonsense and special contract terms for minority/handicapped owned businesses. How can "adult" be defined as 18 or 21 depending on which right or privilege is involved?
 
If that clause protects SSM then it also protects polygamy, and disallows gender differences in physical fitness standards in the military, affirmative action nonsense and special contract terms for minority/handicapped owned businesses. How can "adult" be defined as 18 or 21 depending on which right or privilege is involved?

Agreed on some, disagreed on others. FWIW, I disagree with Affirmative Action. It's reverse discrimination. As for gender differences, people should be able to do the task or assigned mission. Period. If they can't, then they shouldn't be given that position. Not everyone can cut it in SpecOps or in a high tech MOS. As for polygamy, I'm all for it. :D
 
As for the poll itself, I do think too much time and effort is being spent on this issue. Gay people make up only a small percentage of the population and not all gay people even want to get married. I am sure just about all of them want the ability to. But seeing as perhaps 5% of the people who want to get married currently cannot, this issue should not be tops on the list. Tops on the list are issues that effect everyone. Basic priorities should be what the politicians should focus their efforts on.

This issue wouldn't be taking up any time or money if same sex marriage was legalized throughout the US. Easy fix, little problem solved with very little if any negative repercussions.
 
If that clause protects SSM then it also protects polygamy, and disallows gender differences in physical fitness standards in the military, affirmative action nonsense and special contract terms for minority/handicapped owned businesses. How can "adult" be defined as 18 or 21 depending on which right or privilege is involved?

You would be wrong, except for maybe the affirmative action thing, which many are against. Honestly though not one of those things has anything to do with whether the clause covers whether same sex couples deserve equal protection in regards to marriage. They have their own arguments for and against and would face completely different reasoning by the states for having laws concerning them in place.
 
Are you implying that the constitution gives the federal government any authority over state marriage laws?

Why do you cite the constitution and bill of rights with regards to same sex marriage?

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution does do exactly that and has already been used several times in regards to state marriage laws being struck down in violation of that Amendment.
 
This issue wouldn't be taking up any time or money if same sex marriage was legalized throughout the US. Easy fix, little problem solved with very little if any negative repercussions.

Agreed. It's the homophobes who are spending most of the money to deprive citizens of their rights. Prop 8 in California springs to mind.
 
14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this phrase doesn't appear to limit the legislative options of the people of the states. It seems to merely be saying that whatever laws are passed must be applied equally to all people and not selectively enforced or ignored.
 
"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this phrase doesn't appear to limit the legislative options of the people of the states. It seems to merely be saying that whatever laws are passed must be applied equally to all people and not selectively enforced or ignored.

It has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS that laws must apply equally to all types of people. This means that states must have a legitimate reason related to furthering an actual state interest in not allowing one group/person to do something that another is allowed to do when they are "similarly situated". Opposite sex couples are similarly situated as same sex couples, particularly when it comes to the actual laws of marriage. This means the state must have a legitimate state interest being furthered in denying same sex couples the right to enter into marriage.

So, tell us, what is that legitimate state interest and how does denying same sex couples the right to marry further that state interest?
 
Politically, it's in the botton rung of issues that I care about at this point in time.
 
It has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS that laws must apply equally to all types of people. This means that states must have a legitimate reason related to furthering an actual state interest in not allowing one group/person to do something that another is allowed to do when they are "similarly situated". Opposite sex couples are similarly situated as same sex couples, particularly when it comes to the actual laws of marriage. This means the state must have a legitimate state interest being furthered in denying same sex couples the right to enter into marriage.

So, tell us, what is that legitimate state interest and how does denying same sex couples the right to marry further that state interest?

The SCOTUS interpretation seems a little odd, in that they appear to be judging the fairness of particular state laws, rather than evaluating whether the state is administering its laws fairly.

"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This seems to say that the state must apply its laws equally to all individuals. For example, let's say a state has a law that stipulates a particular license, and stipulates the requirements for acquiring said license and the punishments for operating without such license. It seems that the clause in question would require that the state not arbitrarily decide that some individual may not acquire the license through the proper means, or that it gives out a license for free to some other individual.

It seems to say that whatever laws exist on the books, that they must be administered equally to people. It doesn't seem to grant the federal government authority to decide whether a law may or may not be on the books.
 
"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this phrase doesn't appear to limit the legislative options of the people of the states. It seems to merely be saying that whatever laws are passed must be applied equally to all people and not selectively enforced or ignored.
Correct. Marriage laws create benefits through taxation, inheritance, survivorship, parental rights and so forth. Those laws must be equally applied and not selectively enforced or ignored.
 
The SCOTUS interpretation seems a little odd, in that they appear to be judging the fairness of particular state laws, rather than evaluating whether the state is administering its laws fairly.

"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This seems to say that the state must apply its laws equally to all individuals. For example, let's say a state has a law that stipulates a particular license, and stipulates the requirements for acquiring said license and the punishments for operating without such license. It seems that the clause in question would require that the state not arbitrarily decide that some individual may not acquire the license through the proper means, or that it gives out a license for free to some other individual.

It seems to say that whatever laws exist on the books, that they must be administered equally to people. It doesn't seem to grant the federal government authority to decide whether a law may or may not be on the books.

If the SCOTUS evaluated laws under what you are suggesting then interracial marriage laws would not have been struck down since everyone was being treated equally under the law. Anyone could marry another person of the same race as themself and anyone caught violating anti-interracial marriage laws were given equal treatment with no regard to their race.

The SCOTUS interprets the 14th and has been pretty consistent in its interpretation that it means laws cannot be made that deny people equal access to them or protection from them based on certain characteristics that have little to nothing to do with furthering an actual state interest.

The SCOTUS in Pace v Alabama agreed with you, but that was a long time ago and has not been the case in many decades.
 
The SCOTUS interprets the 14th and has been pretty consistent in its interpretation that it means laws cannot be made that deny people equal access to them or protection from them based on certain characteristics that have little to nothing to do with furthering an actual state interest.

Thank you for explaining. I can understand how, given their interpretation, the scotus would see the federal government having authority in state marriage laws.
 
Thank you for explaining. I can understand how, given their interpretation, the scotus would see the federal government having authority in state marriage laws.
If I understand it correctly, it isn't state marriage laws per se, but any laws which violate the Constitution. A biased marriage law, if found to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, would fall under this.
 
Thank you for explaining. I can understand how, given their interpretation, the scotus would see the federal government having authority in state marriage laws.

It's not just marriage laws.
 
"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this phrase doesn't appear to limit the legislative options of the people of the states. It seems to merely be saying that whatever laws are passed must be applied equally to all people and not selectively enforced or ignored.

SCOTUS does not share this interpretation. Not only must laws be applied equally, they must treat people equally. There are legal protections and rights that are denied to same-sex couples. For example, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their partner. Medical power of attorney, hospital visitation, inheritance of property, child custody, it goes on and on.
 
I support State's rights, but I also support that all States have to adhere to the Constitution. Do you agree or disagree?
I agree. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.
 
SCOTUS does not share this interpretation. Not only must laws be applied equally, they must treat people equally. There are legal protections and rights that are denied to same-sex couples. For example, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their partner. Medical power of attorney, hospital visitation, inheritance of property, child custody, it goes on and on.

Yes, rising sun explained to the scotus' opinion on this issue.
 
The constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Agreed. This is why I rated the issue an 8 on the poll. While I think national debt/budget deficit and military involvements/WOT are higher priority, protecting the rights of American citizens is very important too. On a related issue, I'm not happy with those parts of the Patriot Act which side-step the rights of American citizens.
 
"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this phrase doesn't appear to limit the legislative options of the people of the states. It seems to merely be saying that whatever laws are passed must be applied equally to all people and not selectively enforced or ignored.

While I agree with Rougenuke's position overall, since the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on anything dealing with SSM yet, the interpretation could still be held at the lower courts, and has I believe, that per the 14th amendment that homosexuals have equal right under the law to marry the opposite gender. "Similarly situated" leaves a lot open to interpretation. Granted as she pointed out with the interracial marriage they have struck it down, but until they did that I'm willing to bet a lot of lower courts said the same thing about interracial marriage under the 14th as they are now about SSM.
 
While I agree with Rougenuke's position overall, since the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on anything dealing with SSM yet, the interpretation could still be held at the lower courts, and has I believe, that per the 14th amendment that homosexuals have equal right under the law to marry the opposite gender. "Similarly situated" leaves a lot open to interpretation. Granted as she pointed out with the interracial marriage they have struck it down, but until they did that I'm willing to bet a lot of lower courts said the same thing about interracial marriage under the 14th as they are now about SSM.

This depends on what you are talking about when it comes to "lower court rulings", particularly in the last year or so. The lower courts have ruled in favor of denying same sex marriage as violating the 14th Amendment in the last year or so.

And I believe the ruling on DOMA was wrong when it comes to state's rights being why the federal government can't define marriage. It is a violation of the 14th, whether it is the state governments doing it or the federal government doing it and ruling that it is a state's right to define marriage could definitely harm the ability to rule to rightfully strike down other states' same sex marriage bans. I really hope the SCOTUS rules that DOMA does in fact violate the 14th, rather than on state's rights.

No one can deny that if the laws said "no homosexual can legally get married", then it would automatically be struck down as unconstitutional, but because the restriction is based on sex/gender, not sexual orientation, then people feel that it isn't a violation. It doesn't really make since. People in jail with no idea when they may be released were granted equal protection to marriage by the SCOTUS.
 
This depends on what you are talking about when it comes to "lower court rulings", particularly in the last year or so. The lower courts have ruled in favor of denying same sex marriage as violating the 14th Amendment in the last year or so.

And I believe the ruling on DOMA was wrong when it comes to state's rights being why the federal government can't define marriage. It is a violation of the 14th, whether it is the state governments doing it or the federal government doing it and ruling that it is a state's right to define marriage could definitely harm the ability to rule to rightfully strike down other states' same sex marriage bans. I really hope the SCOTUS rules that DOMA does in fact violate the 14th, rather than on state's rights.

No one can deny that if the laws said "no homosexual can legally get married", then it would automatically be struck down as unconstitutional, but because the restriction is based on sex/gender, not sexual orientation, then people feel that it isn't a violation. It doesn't really make since. People in jail with no idea when they may be released were granted equal protection to marriage by the SCOTUS.

OK first I'm going to reword the bolded part to see if I understand you correctly because I saw at least two different way that could have been taken. Are you saying, "The lower courts have ruled that denying same sex marriage violates the 14th admendment" or are you saying that "The violation of the 14th admendment comes from the lower courts ruling in favor of denying same sex marriages"?

Not I am admittedly not up on all the various lower court rulings, but to the best of my recollection, there have been courts that have upheld bans and ones that have struck them down. Now maybe all the ones that have cited the 14th admendment have been ones to strike the bans down, I don't know. All I am saying is that one interpertation can be, as I have heard from anti-SSM proponents, that when marriage is defined legally as the union between a man and a woman, then that definition can be applied equally to all people. That is a homosexual man is just as equally able to get married to a woman as a straight man is. And I know the argument that a woman of any type is then not able to be married to a woman. But that doesn't fit the legal definition.

I know there is more I want to say here, and I could probably get the point I am trying to make out better in a verbal debate....but well DP is what it is. Hopefully in our back and forth I can coax it out better.
 
Back
Top Bottom