• 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!

SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SS


  • Total voters
    30
can government teach a religion to your child in school.......no
can government teach a life style to my child which is an affront to my religion...no

why is it you believe you can shield your child from the ideas of my religion, ...........but my religion cannot be shielded from your ideas which you wish to teach my child?

I don't support schools promoting any religious or political viewpoint. They don't need to teach about gay rights, except to address bullying issues and when it is relevant in social studies, history, biology or sex ed. They shouldn't promote a point of view, but they should present facts and answer questions truthfully.
 
Do you know how often FF&C is abused though? This is a drop in the bucket.

The Constitution is still rife with legalized governmental abuse, ranging from FF&C to Eminent Domain and beyond. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles. I don't think SSM is one.

And sometimes you have to draw the line, and sometimes it's easier to start small and build momentum.
 
well, after Mass pass a law making SSM legal then also CA, i was not long before they introduced SSM relationships into the schools above the objections of parents.

to which those parents stated, if you going to teach such a thing to students, then we have a right to object and have our tax money back, so we can chose another school for our children.

to which the states said ...no ...your child will go to this school and we will teach your child whatever we wish to teach........this is unconstitutional

.
Ok, but those laws are separate from laws legalizing same-sex marriage and don't necessarily follow. So that isn't a relevant argument against same-sex marriage.
 
Ok, but those laws are separate from laws legalizing same-sex marriage and don't necessarily follow. So that isn't a relevant argument against same-sex marriage.

well let me try to clear things up.

people are not afraid of SSM as many like to think, its not becuase of the people involved in that marriage, ---->people are afraid of the government afterwards , when SSM is made legal.

why? becuase government every time, continues to make more laws and polices concerning SSM relationships.

did you miss what Agent J posted..look at.....Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J
1.) homosexual relationships will be taught in schools nothing to do with SSM, government or breaking the law
2.) religious people if in business will be force to pay benefits to SS couples. This is true for all employees regardless of SSM and is government protecting rights. People cant unfairly discriminate



this above is government force, and the government has no authority to force people to believe or contribute to such a .......contract as a marriage against there religious beliefs.

you as a libertarian, should be opposed to any government force on people to make them do things, unless they have committed a crime, and there is no crime here.

as a libertarian when i look at problems/ situations going on....... i always ask questions of myself on those problems / situations and they are.

1 who's property are we talking about?
2 does government have the authority to do what they are doing?



liberals do ask these questions of themselves, they instead ask these.

1 is it good for the people and the community?
2 is it fair?

these questions do not address the rights of individuals at all, becuase liberals do not believe in individual rights, they believe in group rights, or collective rights, which is not what america was founded on.
 
Last edited:
well let me try to clear things up.

people are not afraid of SSM as many like to think, its not becuase of the people involved in that marriage, ---->people are afraid of the government afterwards , when SSM is made legal.

why? becuase government every time, continues to make more laws and polices concerning SSM relationships.

did you miss what Agent J posted..look at.....Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J
1.) homosexual relationships will be taught in schools nothing to do with SSM, government or breaking the law
2.) religious people if in business will be force to pay benefits to SS couples. This is true for all employees regardless of SSM and is government protecting rights. People cant unfairly discriminate



this above is government force, and the government has no authority to force people to believe or contribute to such a .......contract as a marriage against there religious beliefs.

you as a libertarian, should be opposed to any government force on people to make them do things, unless they have committed a crime, and there is no crime here.

as a libertarian when i look at problems/ situations going on....... i always ask questions of myself on those problems / situations and they are.

1 who's property are we talking about?
2 does government have the authority to do what they are doing?



liberals do ask these questions of themselves, they instead ask these.

1 is it good for the people and the community?
2 is it fair?

these questions do not address the rights of individuals at all, becuase liberals do not believe in individual rights, they believe in group rights, or collective rights, which is not what america was founded on.
Religious people are forced to pay couples benefits regardless of same-sex marriage. I don't think anyone should be forced to pay benefits, regardless of whether they are religious or not, and regardless of the type of couple. Again, argue against the laws that are requiring such force, not same-sex marriage. My ideal scenario is one in which government is out of marriage altogether. Until then, the law must be applied equally.
 
Religious people are forced to pay couples benefits regardless of same-sex marriage. I don't think anyone should be forced to pay benefits, regardless of whether they are religious or not, and regardless of the type of couple. Again, argue against the laws that are requiring such force, not same-sex marriage. My ideal scenario is one in which government is out of marriage altogether. Until then, the law must be applied equally.

my friend i am not arguing against SSM marriage, i have no problem with that.

people were asking me in the past, why people are against it?, and this is why, becuase of government force, it government would stop applying force to people, gay marriage would face little opposition as it does now.

so its the force you and i dont like, which surrounds gay marriage which gives it its problem.

this is why i believe government should not be involved in marriage in any shape or form.
 
my friend i am not arguing against SSM marriage, i have no problem with that.

people were asking me in the past, why people are against it?, and this is why, becuase of government force, it government would stop applying force to people, gay marriage would face little opposition as it does now.

so its the force you and i dont like, which surrounds gay marriage which gives it its problem.

this is why i believe government should not be involved in marriage in any shape or form.
Ok. I agree with the basic point that government involving itself in marriage is very problematic. If government never created an official marriage license, marriage between gays would not be an issue (aside from churches and the like). You don't like gay marriage? Who cares. You do? Who cares. It would all be in the control of individuals in society.
 
Ok. I agree with the basic point that government involving itself in marriage is very problematic. If government never created an official marriage license, marriage between gays would not be an issue (aside from churches and the like). You don't like gay marriage? Who cares. You do? Who cares. It would all be in the control of individuals in society.

i am for individuals (rights) creating their own contract /marriage and only those individuals having power of the contract marriage, no government is to have any business, dictating or creating terms for others citizens..... because of that contract between those two.

it all about individual rights for me.......who's property are we talking about.
 
i am for individuals (rights) creating their own contract /marriage and only those individuals having power of the contract marriage, no government is to have any business, dictating or creating terms for others citizens..... because of that contract between those two.

it all about individual rights for me.......who's property are we talking about.

Agreed.

Governments always want to make as many rules as possible...to control the masses as much as possible.

But there is NO reason why they need to have ANY say in marriages.
 
A few cases from my head, the US SSC has already ruled same sex marriage bans do NOT violate the federal Constitution, 1971.

A state is not bound to honor the public policy of another state if it violates ther own public policy, Nevada v. Hall.

Also see Louhgran v. Loughran.
 
Agreed.

Governments always want to make as many rules as possible...to control the masses as much as possible.

But there is NO reason why they need to have ANY say in marriages.

correct government has no business denying equal rights and saying gays cant marry
 
Back
Top Bottom