• 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
I just did, publically.

No you did not. You just mumbled something about Vermont after I had proven you wrong about Maryland.

Now, why do you believe gays should have gay marriage?

Because I believe in freedom

What's the constitutionality?

Equal protection under the law, 14th Amendment

And

It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
 
As in other opinions of life like home ownership and fiscal responsibility, as they age and have families, the 'younger set' will become more conservative. Not so sure you 'hope' will be true.

Although there is no data to support it yet, I seriously doubt this is an issue that changes as you grow older. People of all ages are growing more acceptant of it, especially in states where it is already legal, as they see the lack of effect on their lives.

Also, anecdotally most of my friends in the age group are conservative, yet almost universally support gay marriage. I've also never heard of a single person who changed their mind from accepting it to not.
 
Look the word fact or logic up. Then look up ideology. There ya' go.
As far as the bold is concerned: nope, you don't care what or why some Maryland judges decreed gay marriage. You're a gay marriage ideologue. Look that word up. How can you argue the meaning of words when you don't even know what the words mean? Duh?

translation:you lied and cant prove your lie. LMAO

Let me know when you can.
if you disagree that you lied simply prove that you didnt and quote me saying what you lied and claimed i did, until then your argument is a complete failure just like it started out has. lol
 
I've also never heard of a single person who changed their mind from accepting it to not.

Yeah and the fact that they never go from supporting it to not says an awful lot about which side is in the right.
 
That's not going to jail for "being" anything. That's going to jail for assault.

No..it will be called homophobia in court!
 
So says another gay marriage ideologue.

So says a person who sees the writing on the wall, no matter my position. It is obvious that the younger generations support same sex marriage being legal, even in southern states. And eventually, either the SCOTUS will strike down the laws as they did interracial marriage bans and other laws that stopped people from getting married based on arbitrary reasons or there will be enough support either federally or in each state to simply make it legal everywhere.
 
No..it will be called homophobia in court!

Actually it would be whatever the charge was when he was arrested. Somehow I just can't picture this scene happening: "Sir, you are under arrest for homophobia."
 
Blue states will adopt SSM, Red States won"t

That becomes mostly irrelevant if the Supreme Court rules against DOMA, which is likely. Face it, gays are going to be married all around you, and you can't stop it.
 
Eventually it will be legal throughout the US. It will take longer (or one sweeping SCOTUS ruling) to make it happen in the red states, but it will happen. You can't stop progress by simply wishing it.

NP and the anti-SSM crowd are desperately grasping for the last straws they have. The were militantly anti-domestic partnerships until marriage became a reality....they were big on citing "public opinion"....until public opinion has shifted dramatically over the last 5 years. Now they are clinging to a handful of red states and hoping that the Supreme Court doesn't put the final nail in their coffin.
 
In 1973, the Maryland Supreme Court first defined marriage as being between a man and woman. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court first declared that same-sex unions deserved to have the same rights and responsibilities as marriages.
How many times did I post that Maryland was the first SSC to declare in 1999 what Hawaii's SSC actually declared in 1993?

Some gay marriage ideologue finally took my hint and Googled some gay marriage facts; thought I was misinformed when I was actually just testing your knowledge (or lack thereof).

So, which state supreme court first declared marriage was a 'right for all' (a transformation of Hawaii's decision)? What was that court's motivation for the ruling?

Do any of these facts matter to you?
 
Last edited:
How Gay Marriage Impacts the Economy | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

from the article said:
From an economic perspective, many favor the idea of marriage equality. If same-sex marriage was legalized, both the wedding and divorce industry could receive a $9.5 billion boost from the nearly 800,000 same-sex couples currently living together. Municipalities would increase revenue because of wedding licensing fees; New York City received a reported $250 million in revenue after lifting their ban on gay marriage. Companies like Tiffany’s (TIF), Marriot (MAR), and Williams-Sonoma (WSM) are just some that would feel the impact of this boom.

I can't speak for anyone else here,but that seems to me to be 9.5 billion damn good reasons to be in favor of SSM.

May I point out that all this talk here on DP of "traditions","dictionary definitions" and "beliefs" does not put food on anyone's table,pay anyone's rent or mortgage,help pay people's bills,or can be taxed.
But $9,500,0000,000 can.
 
In 1973, the Maryland Supreme Court first defined marriage as being between a man and woman. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court first declared that same-sex unions deserved to have the same rights and responsibilities as marriages.
How many times did I post that Maryland was the first SSC to declare in 1999 what Hawaii's SSC actually declared in 1993?

Some gay marriage ideologue finally took my hint and Googled some gay marriage facts; thought I was misinformed when I was actually just testing your knowledge (or lack thereof).

So, which state supreme court first declared marriage was a 'right for all' (a transformation of Hawaii's decision)? What was that court's motivation for the ruling?

Do any of these facts matter to you?

Why should they matter to anyone? When something occurs on the timeline doesn't change the meaning of the decision. Which state first did it doesn't change the fact that same sex marriage is becoming legal/has become legal in many states. It is in no way relevant to how long it will be til same sex marriage is legal nationwide. It took almost a hundred years to make interracial marriage legal nationwide.
 
In 1973, the Maryland Supreme Court first defined marriage as being between a man and woman. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court first declared that same-sex unions deserved to have the same rights and responsibilities as marriages.
How many times did I post that Maryland was the first SSC to declare in 1999 what Hawaii's SSC actually declared in 1993?

Are you seriously on this Maryland rant again even after I showed you that the Maryland supreme court upheld the gay marriage ban in 2007.

I'd suggest you look into Massachusetts sheesh
 
Morality doesn't change, what is right today is right tomorrow. SSM is not right.

Morality is subjective. Different people have different views of what is right and wrong. It is merely your belief that same sex marriage is wrong. You cannot prove it is wrong, any more than I can prove it is right. The same is in fact true for anything. You cannot prove that marriage is morally right anymore than someone against marriage can prove that it is morally wrong.
 
How has morality changed? It hasn't. Only foolish opinions of man has.

Example: marital rape. It used to be completely acceptable, now it isn't.

But this doesn't really prove that morals, as a whole change. It proves that the majority opinion of what is right or wrong has changed with time.
 
Morality is subjective. Different people have different views of what is right and wrong. It is merely your belief that same sex marriage is wrong. You cannot prove it is wrong, any more than I can prove it is right. The same is in fact true for anything. You cannot prove that marriage is morally right anymore than someone against marriage can prove that it is morally wrong.

God decides morality, He says SSM is wrong.
 
God decides morality, He says SSM is wrong.

Wrong. Prove your idea of who God is and what God wants exists, then you may be able to state this. Until that day, you can't say such a thing for truth because the only "evidence" you have of what God wants is what is found in the Bible, which is passages written by men. Other religions have conflicting passages and/or beliefs about what God wants. My own beliefs conflict with yours about what God finds right or wrong. You have no evidence to support your actual beliefs, so therefore, you cannot speak for God.
 
God decides morality, He says SSM is wrong.

Shouldn't you have added the phrase "..according to my beliefs" between the word "wrong" and the period at the end of the sentence?
I wasn't there when the Supreme allegedly said that,so I don't know if that is actually true.
Other than second or third hand accounts written by someone thousands of years ago,can you provide evidence that that is in fact the case?
 
Back
Top Bottom