• 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 compromise

Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

  • I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

  • I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise

    Votes: 19 28.4%

  • I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

  • I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 36 53.7%
  • Total voters
    67
Cardinal said:
Are you suggesting that if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional that the SC decision could itself be overturned later?
Click to expand...
You're inferring it, doesn't mean I'm suggesting it.
 
Lightning said:
Im sorry... are you a supreme court judge? Didn't think so.



When you can point out that "precedent" to me, we can talk.
Click to expand...

Read the friggin case....its right there. The opinion walks you right through it. They begin by analyzing marriage and determine that the right to marry the person you love is one of the most fundamental rights we have as human beings. Then...in that context they analyze whether the government has a compelling interest in limiting that right to same-race couples only. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Its a very easy case to read.
 
Lightning said:
Says the one who is trying to apply Loving v. Virginia to SSM.... laughable.... That fact that you study Con Law also explains your lack of knowledge on the matter. :cool:
Click to expand...

Generally speaking....most people learn when they study something. Don't be afraid of education. Its not a bad thing.
 
disneydude said:
Read the friggin case....its right there. The opinion walks you right through it. They begin by analyzing marriage and determine that the right to marry the person you love is one of the most fundamental rights we have as human beings. Then...in that context they analyze whether the government has a compelling interest in limiting that right to same-race couples only. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Its a very easy case to read.
Click to expand...

Except that they can limit that right if the person you love is too young, or you are too young, or if you are blood related, or if you are related through someone else's marriage...... So they can limit who can marry whom, based on numerous factors.

Take the case of my sister in law. She wasn't allowed to marry a guy, who she never lived with, never knew, just because she found out later on that he was actually her half-brother that was given up for adoption.

Your bolded statement is false. Marriage to "the person you love" is not a basic fundamental right.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Not in Arizona. Utah too.
Click to expand...
False, obviously.

No pocketed violations have ever invalidated the reality that marriage is, was, and always will be between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

I mean, from your perspective, if someone illegally sneaks a cat into a dog show, it was therefore never a dog show and cats have always been allowed. :roll:

Absolutely ludicrous! :lol:
 
Ontologuy said:
False, obviously.

No pocketed violations have ever invalidated the reality that marriage is, was, and always will be between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

I mean, from your perspective, if someone illegally sneaks a cat into a dog show, it was therefore never a dog show and cats have always been allowed. :roll:

Absolutely ludicrous! :lol:
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm correct. Absolutely true: The Good People of Utah and Arizona had several wives if they had the rank and the money. (Note that they still refer to themselves as the Good People, but not as much as they used to.
 
Jerry said:
Keep in mind that SCOTUS also ruled that women did not in fact have the right to vote.

SCOTUS isn't the last word on anything.
Click to expand...



Ultimately, American voters have the last word.

They elect the people who make the laws, and can change the Constitution and the laws.

Once enough people decided that nation wide prohibition was a bad idea it was gone.
 
Henrin said:
Government growth into our personal affairs is not evolution. It never was and it never will be.
Click to expand...




Are you saying that the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act which ended segregation and forces places of public accommodation to treat all human beings the same is a bad thing?

If not, what are you saying?



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Ontologuy said:
I mean, from your perspective, if someone illegally sneaks a cat into a dog show, it was therefore never a dog show and cats have always been allowed. :roll:
Click to expand...

Whether you're aware of it or not, you've just partially demonstrated why historical arguments are called historical fallacies.
 
shrubnose said:
Are you saying that the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act which ended segregation and forces places of public accommodation to treat all human beings the same is a bad thing?

If not, what are you saying?
Click to expand...

The only organization that must accommodate all people is the government and so in that respect it was fine. On the hand, that bill also made it so bushinesses had to accommodate people and so in that respect it was bad. Btw, businesses have never been and never will be open to the public.
 
Henrin said:
The only organization that must accommodate all people is the government and so in that respect it was fine. On the hand, that bill also made it so bushinesses had to accommodate people and so in that respect it was bad. Btw, businesses have never been and never will be open to the public.
Click to expand...



What you are saying here is that restaurants and hotels that serve Whites should not have to serve Blacks, it should be up to their personal discretion.

Is that correct?

Do you really think that?

If you do, you have a problem.
 
Samhain said:
Except that they can limit that right if the person you love is too young, or you are too young, or if you are blood related, or if you are related through someone else's marriage...... So they can limit who can marry whom, based on numerous factors.

Take the case of my sister in law. She wasn't allowed to marry a guy, who she never lived with, never knew, just because she found out later on that he was actually her half-brother that was given up for adoption.

Your bolded statement is false. Marriage to "the person you love" is not a basic fundamental right.
Click to expand...

Thats what a lot of people do not understand. Discrimination in and of itself is not illegal. The Constitution requires that the government have a compelling interest that justifies the discrimination when the discrimination affects a fundamental or enumerated right. The Government DOES have a compelling interest in not allowing underage or incestuous relationships. The issue that the Supreme Court is taking up right now is whether the state has a compelling interest that justifies a same-sex exclusion to marriage. We will know in a couple of months. They may decide to skirt the issue and rule of procedural grounds though...that is what many who followed the arguments say is quite possibly going to happen.

As for your final point. You are just simply dead wrong. The SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia found that the right to marry IS a fundamental right. It just goes back to the question of whether the government has a compelling reason to discriminate regarding exclusions.
 
shrubnose said:
What you are saying here is that restaurants and hotels that serve Whites should not have to serve Blacks, it should be up to their personal discretion.

Is that correct?

Do you really think that?
Click to expand...

It is there private property and they have the right to control access to such property, so yes, I do.
 
Actually, I'm pretty confused about that myself. Where is the line drawn between denying black patrons and those signs I see everywhere that say "we can refuse service to anybody for any reason?"
 
Henrin said:
It is there private property and they have the right to control access to such property, so yes, I do.
Click to expand...



Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are 100 percent wrong.

Where did you get an idea like that in the 21st Century?

You are totally out of touch with reality.
 
Henrin said:
It is there private property and they have the right to control access to such property, so yes, I do.
Click to expand...

It is their private property, however, if they are going to do business and profit off the resources of this country, they have to abide by our laws.
 
shrubnose said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are 100 percent wrong.

Where did you get an idea like that in the 21st Century?

You are totally out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

Probably the "Federalist papers"...LOL
 
Cardinal said:
Actually, I'm pretty confused about that myself. Where is the line drawn between denying black patrons and those signs I see everywhere that say "we can refuse service to anybody for any reason?"
Click to expand...

The signs have no real legal effect.
 
Cardinal said:
Actually, I'm pretty confused about that myself. Where is the line drawn between denying black patrons and those signs I see everywhere that say "we can refuse service to anybody for any reason?"
Click to expand...




Anyone who puts up a sign like that has an excellent chance of ending up on the losing side of the law.
 
shrubnose said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are 100 percent wrong.

Where did you get an idea like that in the 21st Century?

You are totally out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

No, everything I said is correct. It is private property, everyone does have a right to control access to their property, and therefore they have a right to deny whoever they want from having access and use of their property. This comes from understanding property.
 
disneydude said:
It is their private property, however, if they are going to do business and profit off the resources of this country, they have to abide by our laws.
Click to expand...

Thanks Captain. I was unaware that the law abridged their rights. :roll:
 
Cardinal said:
Actually, I'm pretty confused about that myself. Where is the line drawn between denying black patrons and those signs I see everywhere that say "we can refuse service to anybody for any reason?"
Click to expand...

Is that a question to me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom