• 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!

Appeal Sought in Puerto Rico Gay Marriage Case

ptif219

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It seems one judge has it right

Appeal Sought in Puerto Rico Gay Marriage Case - ABC News

A federal court judge has rejected an attempt to end a ban on same-sex marriages in Puerto Rico, saying political order itself depends on traditional marriage and deriding the logic of courts that have overturned such bans. The five gay couples who filed the suit will appeal, their attorney said Wednesday.
The couples had challenged the constitutionality of several local laws, including a 1902 code that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
But in a ruling issued late Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez upheld the laws, stating people and legislators, not judges, should debate the issue.
"Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions," he wrote in the 21-page ruling. "Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy."



Perez-Gimenez questioned the actions of more than two dozen judges on the U.S. mainland who have struck down state same-sex marriage bans following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as U.S. vs. Windsor. That ruling struck down a federal provision that denied several tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples, though it did not declare gay marriage legal nationwide.
Perez-Gimenez said the Windsor case only serves to reaffirm states' authority over marriage.
Click to expand...
 
ptif219 said:
It seems one judge has it right
Click to expand...
Nope it's #2, actually. The first was an 80-year old Louisiana district court judge. This one is only just a few years longer of 70. Products of the past.

Record's now 50+ (I lost count) decisions to 2.
 
brothern said:
Nope it's #2, actually. The first was an 80-year old Louisiana district court judge. This one is only just a few years longer of 70. Products of the past.

Record's now 50+ (I lost count) decisions to 2.
Click to expand...

Meh, don't burst their bubble, let them enjoy it while it lasts.
 
brothern said:
Nope it's #2, actually. The first was an 80-year old Louisiana district court judge. This one is only just a few years longer of 70. Products of the past.

Record's now 50+ (I lost count) decisions to 2.
Click to expand...
This is a democrat appointed judge that got it right.
 
Classic super hardcore conservative roman catholic latinos (not sure if puerto ricans are latinos, I think so).

It'll go down, gay marriage is a right, and political order being hinged upon traditional marriage is an unfounded BS statement with absolutely no backup.
 
ptif219 said:
Just shows you actually use the constitution the feds have no legal grounds to legalize gay marriage
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment protects against gender-based distinctions.
 
Deuce said:
The 14th amendment protects against gender-based distinctions.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with marriage. The gays have shown this is about attacking gays for they refuse to accept civil unions
 
ptif219 said:
What does that have to do with marriage. The gays have shown this is about attacking gays for they refuse to accept civil unions
Click to expand...

Considering civil unions were never offered, and were in fact BANNED along with civil marriage and domestic partnerships in most states, UNTIL SSM started winning in the courts. You have no point.
 
When the courts do what I like they are obeying the constitution. When they are doing something I don't like they are activist judges legislating from the bench.

Hum, that's convenient.
 
ptif219 said:
I have discussed this and forums and Gays repeatedly reject civil unions and only will accept marriage

Marriage vs. Civil Union or Domestic Partnership | Freedom to Marry
Click to expand...


A decade ago social authoritarians pushed to ban BOTH Civil Marriages and Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships. They felt they were in power and the power would remain fixed forever, so there was no compromise - bar all legal recognition of same-sex couples. For example my State's Constitutional Amendment:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Then there was Washington State in 2012, the legislature pass full Civil Unions but social authoritarians said - "Oh no, that to much like marriage". So they put together a referendum to put it on the ballot to block the law (Referendum 74, Washington 2012)

A decade ago instead of saying - "OK, lets compromise, we'll get Civil Unions passed by the States and pass full and equal Federal recognition", it was social authoritarians that closed that door.

It's funny how a decade ago Civil Unions were unacceptable while some thought they had the upper hand, but now that time have changed Civil Unions are supposed to be an acceptable compromise. I've been watching the SSCM debate for a long time, a decade ago Civil Unions would have been an acceptable compromise - a first step that would have lasted a generation or so until everyone just referred to them as "marriages" anyway.

>>>>
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
What does that have to do with marriage. The gays have shown this is about attacking gays for they refuse to accept civil unions
Click to expand...

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a distinction of gender, and therefore subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny.

Civil unions have been banned in quite a few states via constitutional amendment.
 
WorldWatcher said:
A decade ago social authoritarians pushed to ban BOTH Civil Marriages and Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships. They felt they were in power and the power would remain fixed forever, so there was no compromise - bar all legal recognition of same-sex couples. For example my State's Constitutional Amendment:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Then there was Washington State in 2012, the legislature pass full Civil Unions but social authoritarians said - "Oh no, that to much like marriage". So they put together a referendum to put it on the ballot to block the law (Referendum 74, Washington 2012)

A decade ago instead of saying - "OK, lets compromise, we'll get Civil Unions passed by the States and pass full and equal Federal recognition", it was social authoritarians that closed that door.

It's funny how a decade ago Civil Unions were unacceptable while some thought they had the upper hand, but now that time have changed Civil Unions are supposed to be an acceptable compromise. I've been watching the SSCM debate for a long time, a decade ago Civil Unions would have been an acceptable compromise - a first step that would have lasted a generation or so until everyone just referred to them as "marriages" anyway.

>>>>
Click to expand...

I really don't get the semantics. We have a civil union already, it's called marriage, that is what it is. To create a secondary generic civil union that is legally identical to marriage seems to be an exercise in stupidity. Particularly because people that get married but legally call it something else on the license, well still call it a marriage, in which case they would be 100% right.

Seems to be either a really petty position, or there is an attempt to legally distinguish between marriage and marriage that isn't allowed to be called marriage to the benefit of the people that want exclusivity.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Honestly, what is the difference?
Click to expand...

Depends on the law and the state. You would think if civil unions had all the same benefits gays would accept it. It appears it is more important to go after Christians and pervert the religious ceremony
 
Deuce said:
Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a distinction of gender, and therefore subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny.

Civil unions have been banned in quite a few states via constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Why would civil unions be banned?
 
ptif219 said:
Depends on the law and the state. You would think if civil unions had all the same benefits gays would accept it. It appears it is more important to go after Christians and pervert the religious ceremony
Click to expand...
If "civil unions" had all the same benefits of marriage, why the need for the different terminology?

What religious ceremony are they going after? Marriage may be a religious ceremony to some people but it isn't a religious ceremony. It's a civil union involving the justice of the peace.

The religious aspect isn't necessary for any ceremony to take place.

So again what is the difference?
 
CLAX1911 said:
If "civil unions" had all the same benefits of marriage, why the need for the different terminology?

What religious ceremony are they going after? Marriage may be a religious ceremony to some people but it isn't a religious ceremony. It's a civil union involving the justice of the peace.

The religious aspect isn't necessary for any ceremony to take place.

So again what is the difference?
Click to expand...

Then why do gays go to Christian organizations to get married instead of the courthouse or a Notary of the Public
 
ptif219 said:
Why would civil unions be banned?
Click to expand...


You should be asking the people that voted for laws like this one a decade ago that banned Civil Unions:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."


>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom