• 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!

Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

How will SCOTUS rule on SSM issue?

  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, but I'm against it.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, and I'm in favor of it too.

    Votes: 31 68.9%

  • They'll rule against SSM, and I'm against it as well.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • They'll rule against SSM, but I support SSM rights.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • They won't actually rule on it. Some loop hole will prevent a true decision.

    Votes: 4 8.9%

  • They'll wuss out and leave it to each state - which is total BS in my mind.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • They'll leave it to each state, as it should be in my opinion.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • other - please explain

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Total voters
    45
disneydude said:
Well...maybe if we are lucky this ruling will finally push Texas over the edge into actually seceding instead of just blabbering about it.
Click to expand...

no secession with representation

might have an effect on what happens with Puerto Rico though
 
Lakryte said:
If marriage is solely a question for the states, then states would be allowed to prohibit interracial marriage. States do not have the power to strip individuals of constitutionally guaranteed rights, equal protection included.
Click to expand...

If that were true then most (if not all) gun control laws would be ruled unconstitutional. If SSM is made universal then how can a male only draft law stand? How can gender based differences in military "fitness" standards pass muster under equal protection?
 
JayDubya said:
That's not true. There are intelligent and literate people who notice that the word marriage does not appear within the text of the Constitution and therefore it cannot be a Constitutional right.

There are also the other kind of people.
Click to expand...


The actual question pertains to equal protection and due process under the law, and that is mentioned in the Constitution and of course rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people.


If the position is that the word "marriage" isn't mentioned in the Constitution and therefore Civil Marriage law is beyond purview of the SCOTUS, then there are multiple cases where the Court would not have ruled on (Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safley, and others...) that marriage laws that violated equal protection and due process. But of course they did.


Even in Windsor (a case about federal and not state law) the court notes multiple times that while States have great power in terms of domestic relations law (under which Civil Marriage falls), those laws are still subject to "Constitutional guarantees".



>>>>
 
JayDubya said:
That's not true. There are intelligent and literate people who notice that the word marriage does not appear within the text of the Constitution and therefore it cannot be a Constitutional right.

There are also the other kind of people.
Click to expand...

Did you know that "privacy" doesn't appear in the constitution?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If that were true then most (if not all) gun control laws would be ruled unconstitutional. If SSM is made universal then how can a male only draft law stand? How can gender based differences in military "fitness" standards pass muster under equal protection?
Click to expand...

First those haven't been challenged. And the draft one might not stand, although the gender based fitness standards would because they are based on measuring individual fitness level as a measure of health for individual service members, and not a measure of ability to do any particular job or task the person must do for their particular field. It is the same reason there are also age differences (about every 5-10 years, I hit another this year) when it comes to those standards.

Not sure what you are trying to say about gun control which is a completely separate issue as well.
 
cpwill said:
I wonder what the immediate impact would then be on states such as California, who had their rights overturned by courts. Do they have to re-legislate?
Click to expand...


That's actually a very good question. There are multiple ways that the SCOTUS can rule either for or against such bans. Total national applicability for. Total national applicability upholding all bans. Targeted applicability crafting a ruling to uphold the ban applicable ONLY to the 4 states under the jurisdiction of the 6th Circuit - thereby leaving the rulings of the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuits in place. Targeted applicability crafting a ruling to overturn the ban applicable ONLY to the 4 states under the jurisdiction of the 6th Circuit - thereby leaving the rulings of the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuits in place.

The target solution leaves then the 10 remaining states with a ban in place pending further legislative or judicial to address those individual states.



>>>>
 
roguenuke said:
First those haven't been challenged. And the draft one might not stand, although the gender based fitness standards would because they are based on measuring individual fitness level as a measure of health for individual service members, and not a measure of ability to do any particular job or task the person must do for their particular field. It is the same reason there are also age differences (about every 5-10 years, I hit another this year) when it comes to those standards.

Not sure what you are trying to say about gun control which is a completely separate issue as well.
Click to expand...

The use of Loving is not applicable because that decision prohibited disallowing some women (or men) from marrying some other men (or women) based on race - it did not say, or even imply, that gender restrictions were taboo. A law applying to all women (or all men) is not even close to a law based on mixing of the races. The same gender/age "variance" that is considered legal for military fitness standards (or PPACA) is obviously not equal yet you seem to defend it.

What I am trying to say about gun control is that individual constitutional rights should never change when one crosses a state line - the same basic argument that is being used for SSM. If a constitutional right exists for an individual then that right should never be dependent upon a federal, state or local law - how can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime in TX?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The use of Loving is not applicable because that decision prohibited disallowing some women (or men) from marrying some other men (or women) based on race - it did not say, or even imply, that gender restrictions were taboo. A law applying to all women (or all men) is not even close to a law based on mixing of the races. The same gender/age "variance" that is considered legal for military fitness standards (or PPACA) is obviously not equal yet you seem to defend it.

What I am trying to say about gun control is that individual constitutional rights should never change when one crosses a state line - the same basic argument that is being used for SSM. If a constitutional right exists for an individual then that right should never be dependent upon a federal, state or local law - how can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime in TX?
Click to expand...

You are wrong about gender. While the same level of scrutiny doesn't apply the same as race, sex/gender is still protected from being used to discriminate against people without the government being able to show an at least important state interest is furthered by that restriction, a bar that cannot be met be same sex marriage bans.

You obviously do not understand them so try to use a simplified and failed argument against them. If we were talking about standards for doing a particular job, such as having to be able swim across a certain distance in a given time with certain gear on because that would be expected of you in your job description, then men and women, all ages should have the same requirements because it is not a measure of individual fitness but rather ability to do the job. However fitness tests that you are referring to are based on measuring individual fitness levels by comparing test results to an average reached for measuring how fit people are in various groups due to doctors/scientists recognizing that yes there are physiological differences between men and women and between people of different age groups. These facts are supported by scientific evidence, which is why no one has bothered challenging these differences, because of the basis for the restrictions and the reasons for the tests to begin with.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
...how can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime in TX?
Click to expand...


To have a better analogy you would need to ask (assuming the laws were structured this way): "How can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime for TX for women to open carry but not illegal for men?"

In your scenario AZ accepts open carry for ALL people (baring those who may not be able to own firearms) while TX is distinguishing the ability to carry along gender lines. That's more along the lines of what is happening with Civil Marriage, TX is only recognizing Civil Marriage based along the gender composition of the couple.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
To have a better analogy you would need to ask (assuming the laws were structured this way): "How can open carry be legal in AZ and a crime for TX for women to open carry but not illegal for men?"

In your scenario AZ accepts open carry for ALL people (baring those who may not be able to own firearms) while TX is distinguishing the ability to carry along gender lines. That's more along the lines of what is happening with Civil Marriage, TX is only recognizing Civil Marriage based along the gender composition of the couple.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Nope - the analogy stands since it is legal to open carry a long gun but not a handgun in Texas. The 2A says the right of the people to keep and bear, not keep or bear. If a law can apply to some arms but not other arms that is like a marriage law that applies to some men but not other men. In other words, you can carry (bear) this arm but not that arm although you can own (keep) either.
 
Last edited:
:roll: PLEASE don't derail this thread into a gun control/ 2A thread......PLEASE....:roll:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope - the analogy stands since it is legal to open carry a long gun but not a handgun in Texas. The 2A says the right of the people to keep and bear, not keep or bear.
Click to expand...

Then challenge it. Personally I oppose many gun laws that restrict people from owning and carrying firearms but that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic and does not discount how the 14th Amendment should and probably will be applied to same sex marriage bans. They have vastly different arguments that would be brought to the a Court.
 
Cephus said:
Nope, no matter what the decision, the 36 states where it is currently legal would be completely unaffected. It could instantly legalize it in the remaining 14 states however.
Click to expand...

I do not think that is correct. If a state defining marriage for itself is found to be Constitutionally valid, then in those states where it is "currently legal" only because of a judicial finding that it was not, the decision is overturned.
 
Redress said:
Ouch, thinking about it makes my brain hurt. Cali probably not, but most state cases go back to square one I think. Even Cali is possible. Really not sure how it would work, but then again it is late and I am full of cold medicine so not at my best (why I am not responding in other thread we are taking in, not up to the task tonight).
Click to expand...

Presumably that compromise ruling would overturn strictly the cases where the definition had been found to violate the U.S. (vice a state) Constitution. In Cali you could probably simply put it back to a vote and win this time. As much as everyone hated on the Mormons last time, it was the African Americans who came out in favor of traditional marriages - the President may have flipped enough of that demographic.
 
Dragonfly said:
:roll: PLEASE don't derail this thread into a gun control/ 2A thread......PLEASE....:roll:
Click to expand...

Does the 14A apply to the 2A or only to marriage laws? If race can be compared to gender then a handgun can be compared to a long gun. In either case, the state either has or does not have the ability to "reasonably restrict" a right within its borders.
 
WCH said:
TX and other states. The voters of CA tried to bar SSM until a Fed judge/court intervened.
Click to expand...

The difference is California grew up and moved on.....like the rest of the country. Marriage equality is now favored by a large majority in California. You can't continue to live in the past.
 
disneydude said:
The difference is California grew up and moved on.....like the rest of the country. Marriage equality is now favored by a large majority in California. You can't continue to live in the past.
Click to expand...

You can't use the 14A to say that if one state "moves on" then all states must do so. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You can't use the 14A to say that if one state "moves on" then all states must do so. ;)
Click to expand...

I didn't. Read more carefully. There has been a huge move in public opinion in every state across this country in the last 5 years, even in Texas. Its just that some states have grown up and moved quicker than others.
 
chromium said:
That would be the people. Rights not mentioned in the constitution are assumed to be rights unless otherwise prohibited by law - 10th amendment i believe. The constitution cannot foresee nor address *every* single right we take for granted everyday. Guess what, it doesn't mention a right to toilets, electricity, housing - but there are various agencies that ensure we in fact cannot be arbitrarily denied access to these

It also guarantees equal protection under the law, meaning government benefits to marriage cannot be denied to specific groups.
The supreme court has also several times ruled there's a constitutional right to marry, like it or not
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court a lot of power.
 
72% of the states in the country have made it legal.

Including the states with some of the highest populations in the country.

What's left are the states with the smallest populations per square mile, or the states in the bible belt, and a few oddity states like Ohio and Michigan which really boggles my mind.

Almost a 3/4 majority in number of states and obviously a massive majority in people represented live in areas that allow and recognize SSM.

Seems almost impossible that the SCOTUS could vote against SSM.
 
chromium said:
Nothing legitimate about anything out of texas. Just like "lawrence v texas," you will be shown how the civilized world functions. America, love it or leave it right? Maybe secede again and see how that goes

Last in education, environment, health care, executions, tolerance.
Your 75% only convinces me it would not be missed
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Texas isn't going anywhere and I don't believe that we will be re-fighting the Civil War.
 
chromium said:
You would think if anyone would hold respect for such a very basic tenet of the constitution, it would be a supreme court judge.
I eagerly await further tears from scalia in june
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I hope that he doesn't 'have the big one' over this.

Seriously I hope that he lives to see this go into effect. I doubt that he'll have a smile on his face.
 
cpwill said:
I do not think that is correct. If a state defining marriage for itself is found to be Constitutionally valid, then in those states where it is "currently legal" only because of a judicial finding that it was not, the decision is overturned.
Click to expand...

Actually, this would be something the Court would have to address if they ruled to uphold the bans after just ruling the other courts ruling could stand. This is why it is most likely going to be a ruling in favor of same sex marriage, not the bans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom