• 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 long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

  • Total voters
    105
JayDubya said:
Nope, I'm reading exactly what you're saying. You want to pretend that by the rule of law, as written, the federal government is empowered to dictate that gay marriage must be permitted in every state. Well, it's worse than that. You want the people who are supposed to protect the integrity of the rule of law to pretend along with you.

In short, the result you apparently want would lawfully require a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Did Loving vs. Virginia require an amendment?
 
LaMidRighter said:
You don't agree with what I'm saying, but I'm giving you proper contractual ways to do it.
Click to expand...

None of what you're saying is making me forget that in the status quo states are discriminating.
 
Henrin said:
Has anyone ever taken one of these cases to a higher court after they ruled marriage is a right? I'm very interested to know if they can rule against the right of a marriage contract after they ruled marriage is a right. I don't believe they can logically.
Click to expand...

But your proposal is taking away marriages altogether. So if that were gone, then so would be the right to marriage itself. So without marriage, then there would be no right to marriage and the states could decide just the same as they do now with same sex marriages whether or not to honor out-of-state contracts (many don't), only they could do so for certain opposite sex couples as well.
 
JayDubya said:
Nope, I'm reading exactly what you're saying. You want to pretend that by the rule of law, as written, the federal government is empowered to dictate that gay marriage must be permitted in every state. Well, it's worse than that. You want the people who are supposed to protect the integrity of the rule of law to pretend along with you.

In short, the result you apparently want would lawfully require a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Because that is true. The way the laws are written the SCOTUS has already dictated that state must allow interracial couples to marry, inmates with any chance of release to marry, and those behind on their child support to marry. There is no reason why it should work differently for same sex couples.
 
roguenuke said:
But your proposal is taking away marriages altogether. So if that were gone, then so would be the right to marriage itself. So without marriage, then there would be no right to marriage and the states could decide just the same as they do now with same sex marriages whether or not to honor out-of-state contracts (many don't), only they could do so for certain opposite sex couples as well.
Click to expand...

No, marriage does not necessarily have anything to do with the state, so the right to marriage has nothing to do with the governments involvement either, but simply the right to marry who you desire. Considering the right to contract that already exists it would follow that there is a right to a marriage contract. I'm very interested to see just how the courts get around this.
 
Henrin said:
No, marriage does not necessarily have anything to do with the state, so the right to marriage has nothing to do with the governments involvement either, but simply the right to marry who you desire. Considering the right to contract that already exists it would follow that there is a right to a marriage contract. I'm very interested to see just how the courts get around this.
Click to expand...

Being forced to play along with the charade that this isn't so that anti-gay-marriage people can plausibly deny the legitimacy of marriages they don't agree with is giving me a headache.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) i understand if COULD be that simply but i wouldnt want it that simple, things must be verified.
Click to expand...
That's why you always have a neutral party in a contract.
2.) civil court? no thanks i dont want something so large and important simply decided by judge judy lol ;)
not to mention how can civil court rule on federal rights and benefits? they are great if my plumber violates his contract but not so much other wise
Click to expand...
It would be a civil trial regardless. There is no criminal activity.

3.) well see thats where we differ i have no problem with government protecting the 1200 or so rights as long as its equal.
Click to expand...
The problem is when you let government in, the rights suffer. No thanks I'd rather just have them out of it.

4.)so my wife is in the hospital they wont let me see her you want me to go to civil court or fight for my civil rights in court?
Click to expand...
There are two ways you can address it, civil suit or calling an officer if you have a charge you can file. The civil suit will have a better chance of success.

SOrry LMR, id rather just have civil rights fought for and won in court then make the government recognize both marriages that way.
Just seems to flimsy and random the other way.
Click to expand...
You are more than entitled to that opinion, I just don't think more government is a solution to present government interference.
 
Your Star said:
Hopefully in the next month or so!!
Click to expand...

You'll have epidemic divorce rates, like everyone else. You'll learn to hate each other, and try to steal each other's money during the divorce.
 
American said:
You'll have epidemic divorce rates, like everyone else. You'll learn to hate each other, and try to steal each other's money during the divorce.
Click to expand...

Lesbians out of any group have the highest commitment rate.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)That's why you always have a neutral party in a contract.
2.) It would be a civil trial regardless. There is no criminal activity.
3.) The problem is when you let government in, the rights suffer. No thanks I'd rather just have them out of it.
4.) There are two ways you can address it, civil suit or calling an officer if you have a charge you can file. The civil suit will have a better chance of success.
5.) You are more than entitled to that opinion, I just don't think more government is a solution to present government interference.
Click to expand...

1.) just have serious concerns about many marriages being false, not of age, not a citizen, already married, improper identification etc etc
2.) yes i understand that but not low level, thats what i was getting at and i thought you ment, like i wouldn't want a magistrate doing it lol
3.) in this case i dont think they would, i think thered be more change to suffer the other way
4.) so what if my wife days while im waiting for my court date? nah
5.) well in this case it wouldnt be more it would be the same amount of government but now eqaul treatment of heteros, bis and homosexuals
 
AGENT J said:
1.) just have serious concerns about many marriages being false, not of age, not a citizen, already married, improper identification etc etc
Click to expand...
That's where good faith comes into play. ;) Any bad faith actions, including legal violations and misrepresentation make the contract null and void through the oldest of existing law.
2.) yes i understand that but not low level, thats what i was getting at and i thought you ment, like i wouldn't want a magistrate doing it lol
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Nope, has to be a true tort, in legitimate civil court without exception. This is not a small claims situation and not to be taken lightly.
3.) in this case i dont think they would, i think thered be more change to suffer the other way
Click to expand...
I don't know of a single situation that isn't completely ****ed by adding politicians.
4.) so what if my wife days while im waiting for my court date? nah
Click to expand...
Then you have even more damages to sue for, emotional distress being a huge one, and if you remind them of that they won't fight you for long.
5.) well in this case it wouldnt be more it would be the same amount of government but now eqaul treatment of heteros, bis and homosexuals
Click to expand...
The thing I'm trying to convey though is they are the root of the problem, it's already laws written by them that have created the situation, much of it is because marriage law is overly complicated. Simplify it and hold the government to a uniform standard and it's done.
 
Cardinal said:
Being forced to play along with the charade that this isn't so that anti-gay-marriage people can plausibly deny the legitimacy of marriages they don't agree with is giving me a headache.
Click to expand...

Please stop saying I'm anti-gay marriage. My argument would not lead to the denial of gay marriage, but the acceptance of all types of marriages by showing once and for all a right to a marriage contract exists and all private contracts must be respected in every state. This is very easy to do and takes almost no effort on my part as both of the parts I need to make my case are already in place.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)That's where good faith comes into play. ;) Any bad faith actions, including legal violations and misrepresentation make the contract null and void through the oldest of existing law.
2.)Gotcha. Nope, has to be a true tort, in legitimate civil court without exception. This is not a small claims situation and not to be taken lightly.
3.) I don't know of a single situation that isn't completely ****ed by adding politicians.
4.)Then you have even more damages to sue for, emotional distress being a huge one, and if you remind them of that they won't fight you for long.
5.) The thing I'm trying to convey though is they are the root of the problem, it's already laws written by them that have created the situation, much of it is because marriage law is overly complicated. Simplify it and hold the government to a uniform standard and it's done.
Click to expand...


1.) dont like to many holes
2.) ok good
3.) well IMO this one is fine besides its not equal yet
4.) rather just be able to see her because no money will fix that if i lose her
5.) i agree but IMO its close to being fixed and i want more than just the government held accountable
 
AGENT J said:
1.) dont like to many holes
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of simple laws, the fix is easier to get to. I'll give you the old machine analogy, the more moving parts you have the more likely it is to break. Same with law, if we have to keep going back and changing language, we'll never get it right. However if we are protected by simple contract law, it's easy to fix.

3.) well IMO this one is fine besides its not equal yet
Click to expand...
I don't trust D.C. to make it equal if they do intervene, that's the problem. If we just said marriage is to be recognized except when a law is broken(child marriage, bestiality,etc) then it's done and there are no loopholes.

4.) rather just be able to see her because no money will fix that if i lose her
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you could still have problems with a jackass in that position. A person who wants to cause harm can find a way to do so, I don't have a legal fix to that, and I don't think there is one unfortunately.

5.) i agree but IMO its close to being fixed and i want more than just the government held accountable
Click to expand...
From what I have seen, it's not close to being fixed, we may be close to different laws but I haven't heard anything workable.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)That's the beauty of simple laws, the fix is easier to get to. I'll give you the old machine analogy, the more moving parts you have the more likely it is to break. Same with law, if we have to keep going back and changing language, we'll never get it right. However if we are protected by simple contract law, it's easy to fix.

2.)I don't trust D.C. to make it equal if they do intervene, that's the problem. If we just said marriage is to be recognized except when a law is broken(child marriage, bestiality,etc) then it's done and there are no loopholes.

3.) Unfortunately, you could still have problems with a jackass in that position. A person who wants to cause harm can find a way to do so, I don't have a legal fix to that, and I don't think there is one unfortunately.

From what I have seen, it's not close to being fixed, we may be close to different laws but I haven't heard anything workable.
Click to expand...

1.) in principle i agree but the only words we are changing is man and woman so im good with it.
also in general im willing to allow it to be a tougher road to change if the law/contract is more binding/sound. Im a fan of quick justice when its possible.
2.) well im not sure i do either but its going to be equal or not change.
3.) i agree but justice and tools are much easier and faster
4.) when i said close i mean the fact that 11 states soon 12 allow it and if scotus votes on it the change is easy. its a simply verbiage change of the partners/parties involved.

thats all that needs done, pleasing the extremists and nut jobs isnt
 
American said:
You'll have epidemic divorce rates, like everyone else. You'll learn to hate each other, and try to steal each other's money during the divorce.
Click to expand...

Equal rights, equal misery.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) in principle i agree but the only words we are changing is man and woman so im good with it.
also in general im willing to allow it to be a tougher road to change if the law/contract is more binding/sound. Im a fan of quick justice when its possible.
2.) well im not sure i do either but its going to be equal or not change.
3.) i agree but justice and tools are much easier and faster
4.) when i said close i mean the fact that 11 states soon 12 allow it and if scotus votes on it the change is easy. its a simply verbiage change of the partners/parties involved.

thats all that needs done, pleasing the extremists and nut jobs isnt
Click to expand...
Problem is it's always going to be complicated because the politician will try to please everyone, and that complicates things plus everyone loses. I think if we just get government out of the legislating side it works, I can't see any way more government or more of the same from government works.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Problem is it's always going to be complicated because the politician will try to please everyone, and that complicates things plus everyone loses. I think if we just get government out of the legislating side it works, I can't see any way more government or more of the same from government works.
Click to expand...

well in this case i hope you are wrong eventhough in others i agree with you.

only because i would see it as a step backwards. Only because i believe discrimination/bigotry would increase a lot on a general level and defeating it and righting it would take longer
 
AGENT J said:
well in this case i hope you are wrong eventhough in others i agree with you.

only because i would see it as a step backwards. Only because i believe discrimination/bigotry would increase a lot on a general level and defeating it and righting it would take longer
Click to expand...
I see the course differently, but want the same outcome. I just see too many opportunities for politicians to insert their own biases in the process, and later opportunities to further bastardize things when the next group takes over. To me it's as simple as taking the power away.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I see the course differently, but want the same outcome. I just see too many opportunities for politicians to insert their own biases in the process, and later opportunities to further bastardize things when the next group takes over. To me it's as simple as taking the power away.
Click to expand...

for something like this id rather have it be them than the people
 
I support gay marriage but I'm not sure why everyone is so optimistic. If the Supreme Court rules unfavorably in both the Prop 8 and DOMA cases (both eminent possibilities) or if they uphold Prop 8 but strike down DOMA then you are forced to pursue a state by state strategy or depending on the ruling re-litigate the entire matter. I voted 15-20 years because my bet is that you'll see Prop 8 upheld and 50:50 on DOMA being struck down or upheld. In that situation I think it would take many years before you overcome opposition in all 50 states and achieve national consensus on gay marriage.
 
AGENT J said:
for something like this id rather have it be them than the people
Click to expand...
The problem is I don't trust them for about three reasons. 1) Politicians tend to be incompetent, at least at the D.C. level 2) You can never trust a damn word they say and 3) There's always a catch to anything they offer.
 
Sherman123 said:
I support gay marriage but I'm not sure why everyone is so optimistic. If the Supreme Court rules unfavorably in both the Prop 8 and DOMA cases (both eminent possibilities) or if they uphold Prop 8 but strike down DOMA then you are forced to pursue a state by state strategy or depending on the ruling re-litigate the entire matter. I voted 15-20 years because my bet is that you'll see Prop 8 upheld and 50:50 on DOMA being struck down or upheld. In that situation I think it would take many years before you overcome opposition in all 50 states and achieve national consensus on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

A ruling in favor of DOMA is very unlikely. There are liberal and conservative arguments against it. The question is much more likely to be how exactly the ruling against DOMA is worded. If it is worded in such a way that once some one is married, their state of residence no longer matters for federal recognition, or if they don't clarify, then for all practical purposes, SSM is legal across the country. Only a ruling to uphold DOMA(very unlikely) or a ruling that specifically ties federal recognition to current state of residence(slightly more likely but still a long shot) would be a significant barrier to SSM couples.

In the Prop 8 case, none of the most likely outcomes would actively support SSM restrictions on a state level. The court will probably punt the matter, or rule in a narrow manner.
 
Sherman123 said:
I support gay marriage but I'm not sure why everyone is so optimistic. If the Supreme Court rules unfavorably in both the Prop 8 and DOMA cases (both eminent possibilities) or if they uphold Prop 8 but strike down DOMA then you are forced to pursue a state by state strategy or depending on the ruling re-litigate the entire matter. I voted 15-20 years because my bet is that you'll see Prop 8 upheld and 50:50 on DOMA being struck down or upheld. In that situation I think it would take many years before you overcome opposition in all 50 states and achieve national consensus on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

if i was betting id bet the farm prop 8 goes down due to the fact that other state supreme courts when given the change voted such things to violate equal protections etc.
Yes in California it has gone multiple ways again id bet the fame prop 8 goes down just like it should.

Now with that said they we will have to pay attention to the verbiage of their decision.

If they do it broadly, which i hope they do, then BAM, equal rights for all 50 states.
If they word it locally for just California it still sets a precedence for challenges to start being pushed in every state. A little longer but its gets the same job done.
Whats hilarious is the states that rushed to ban SSM will actually have set themselves up to have SSM EASIER because thats what can be challenged.

So DOMA just becomes a side issue really. Now i wouldnt bet money on how doma is going to go down because that one im not sure of.
 
I'm split on this one, one part of me says it'll happen when Obama is in office and only if he's in office but the other is saying it may never get legalized nationally in the US because i have a gut feeling that in 2016 RP's might get in and will do everything to make sure they get in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom